Scarborough Reef
|
John Harden, D.M.D. <Jhdmd@...>
-- BS7, Scarborough Reef, IS NOT a real country. It should be deleted. |
|
|
|
Many DXCC entities are not “real countries”.
Bouvet isn’t a real country, Alaska isn’t a real country, Jan Mayen isn’t a real country, Desecheo isn’t a real country..... and so on.
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> on behalf of John Harden, D.M.D. <Jhdmd@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:54:12 AM To: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> Subject: [ARRL-Awards] Scarborough Reef -- BS7, Scarborough Reef, IS NOT a real country. It should be deleted. -- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ |
|
|
|
W0MU
I think the definition
needs to be changed to not allow a small pile of rocks sticking up
out of the water where you have to build scaffolding just to get
on them to something that requires X amount of land area etc.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Scaffold rocks aks BS rocks was a political thing. Every entity named below has significant land mass. I am not sure you could even find BS rocks on a satellite image without a microscope. W0MU On 10/29/2020 9:01 AM, H Hans Brakob
wrote:
|
|
|
|
Steven R Daniel, D.D.S.
I suspect with rising ocean levels it will be completely under water at all times soon enough. That should take care of that! Steve, NN4T
From: ARRL-Awards@... [mailto:ARRL-Awards@...] On Behalf Of John Harden, D.M.D.
|
|
|
|
W0MU
Are they rising?
Predictions had most of the coastal areas under 30 ft of water by
now.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 10/29/2020 10:47 AM, Steven R
Daniel, D.D.S. wrote:
|
|
|
|
All well and good.
But I’d prefer more “countries” to work, not less countries.
Dit dit.
De Hans, K0HB
From: W0MU
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 15:30 To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Scarborough Reef
I think the definition needs to be changed to not allow a small pile of rocks sticking up out of the water where you have to build scaffolding just to get on them to something that requires X amount of land area etc. On 10/29/2020 9:01 AM, H Hans Brakob wrote:
-- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ 
|
|
|
|
Gary Hinson <Gary@...>
The ARRL DXCC award has enormous inertia due to having been established a long time ago, being tightly managed by a dedicated team, and remaining a highly popular and globally-respected award. It is a mature award with a rich history.
If you genuinely want the DXCC rules to be changed, you’d need to make a stronger, far more convincing case than “I think” and “BS rocks”, eventually proposing specific wording changes.
If that sounds onerous, it is … because some issues with DXCC have resulted from previous rule changes that may not have been thought-through and justified as thoroughly. It would be all too easy to meddle with the award and inadvertently make it worse. Improving it takes more effort.
To be clear, I’m not saying “Don’t bother”. I’m encouraging you, and others, to make a sensible case that we can debate openly here.
On the other hand, if you are simply sounding off and trolling us, don’t expect to be taken too seriously.
73 Gary ZL2iFB
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> On Behalf Of W0MU
Sent: 30 October 2020 04:30 To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Scarborough Reef
I think the definition needs to be changed to not allow a small pile of rocks sticking up out of the water where you have to build scaffolding just to get on them to something that requires X amount of land area etc. On 10/29/2020 9:01 AM, H Hans Brakob wrote:
|
|
|
|
Here's the definition for what constitutes an island-country:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
"Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, the surface of which is above water at high tide. For the purposes of this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100 meters measured in a straight line from point to point. All of the connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a chart of sufficient scale. For the purposes of this award, any island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part 2 of the criteria." You might not agree with the definition, but you have to admit it's fairly detailed and describes more than "a pile of rocks sticking out of the water." 73, Phil Temples, K9HI ARRL Vice Director New England Division k9hi@... On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:33 AM W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote:
--
Phil Temples <phil@...> |
|
|
|
Then how did Scarborough Reef get on the List ?
From the pictures I have seen, those rocks are not
connected by land the shows at high tide ???
Was the criteria changed AFTER they got on the list
and therefore they are Grandfathered ??
73, Dick, W1KSZ
From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> on behalf of Phil Temples <phil@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 8:38 AM To: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Scarborough Reef Here's the definition for what constitutes an island-country:
"Island: A naturally formed area of land surrounded by water, the surface of which is above water at high tide. For the purposes of this award, it must consist of connected land, of which at least two surface points must be separated from each other by not less than 100 meters measured in a straight line from point to point. All of the connected land must be above the high tide mark, as demonstrated on a chart of sufficient scale. For the purposes of this award, any island, reef, or rocks of less than this size shall not be considered in the application of the water separation criteria described in Part 2 of the criteria." You might not agree with the definition, but you have to admit it's fairly detailed and describes more than "a pile of rocks sticking out of the water." 73, Phil Temples, K9HI ARRL Vice Director New England Division k9hi@... On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 11:33 AM W0MU <w0mu@...> wrote: > > I think the definition needs to be changed to not allow a small pile of rocks sticking up out of the water where you have to build scaffolding just to get on them to something that requires X amount of land area etc. > > Scaffold rocks aks BS rocks was a political thing. > > Every entity named below has significant land mass. I am not sure you could even find BS rocks on a satellite image without a microscope. > > W0MU > > On 10/29/2020 9:01 AM, H Hans Brakob wrote: > > > Many DXCC entities are not “real countries”. > > Bouvet isn’t a real country, Alaska isn’t a real country, Jan Mayen isn’t a real country, Desecheo isn’t a real country..... and so on. > > > ________________________________ > From: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> on behalf of John Harden, D.M.D. <Jhdmd@...> > Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:54:12 AM > To: ARRL-Awards@... <ARRL-Awards@...> > Subject: [ARRL-Awards] Scarborough Reef > > > -- > BS7, Scarborough Reef, IS NOT a real country. It should be deleted. > > -- > 73, de Hans, K0HB > "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ > > > -- Phil Temples <phil@...> |
|
|
|
W3UR Bernie McClenny
It was prior to the rule change. It’s grandfathered. The new criteria is below.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Bernie McClenny, W3UR Editor of: The Daily DX (1997-2020) The Weekly DX (2001-2020) How's DX? (1999-2020) Two week trial - http://www.dailydx.com/free-trial-request/ https://twitter.com/dailydx 410-489-6518 On Oct 29, 2020, at 2:28 PM, Dick <w1ksz@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
We need more DXCC’s, not less!
Where are Don and Romeo when we need them?
Bring back Santa Maria!
De Hans, K0HB
From: John Harden, D.M.D.
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 14:54 To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: [ARRL-Awards] Scarborough Reef
-- 73, de Hans, K0HB "Just a Boy and His Radio"™ 
|
|
|
|
DeSoto's original "DXCC" was awarded for
working 100 "countries," in the political sense. Unfortunately,
the Earth is large enough, and diverse enough, that the quantum
principle that anything that could happen will happen, eventually,
sort of applies and "country" turned out to be a deficient
definition.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Martinique, several thousand km removed from what we all think of as the "Real France," is a Department of that Real France, just as Centre Val de Loire is a Department, located in the ... [wait for it] ... center of the Real France! Under DeSoto's definition, working Martinique would mean working all of France because it IS France, as would Guiana, La Reunion, Mayotte, Saint-Barthelemy, Saint-Martin, Saint-Pierre-et-Miguelon, Wallis and Futuna Is., and, lurking half-way around the planet in the Pacific, French Polynesia. All pose radically different difficulties for HF radio contact. So the rules became more complex. There are thousands [or so it seems] of reefs, rocks, tiny atolls, and now manufactured "islands" scattered in the So China Sea, I've seen them multiple times from 10,000 ft. Whether the manufactured islands should count for DXCC remains to be determined, but none of the "rocks" meet the "100 meter between two points above high tide" criterion" currently in the DXCC rules. I don't know why BS7 hasn't been deleted, but it is clearly no longer eligible. I got one Q when it was eligible. If, ex post facto, the DXCC Committee wants to declare the operation(s) there invalid for DXCC, I'll still hang onto my QSL card and the photo of W6RGG pounding away on Rock 3 [or 4, they weren't prominently marked]. 73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 10/29/2020 7:54 AM, John Harden,
D.M.D. wrote:
|
|
|
|
"Manufactured" islands do not "remain to be determined" as you state.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
They do not qualify as entities. Period. An island-entity must be a "naturally formed area of land." (See the official definition of "island" I posted earlier in this thread.) Phil, K9HI On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 3:04 PM Skip <k6dgw@...> wrote:
--
Phil Temples <phil@...> |
|
|
|
Hi John, Your comment (which I don't disagree with but hear me out) reminds me of something about ARRL and other organization's awards regarding "entities." Is there an actual CONCEPT that guides the determination of an "entity" or is it just moving data points around regarding slicing-and-dicing up geography? For instance, the Kosovo controversy a few years ago was a fairly heated discussion. What underlying concept or "theory" of what entities should be and how to classify them is present? Any? Just trying to learn here... 73, Frank K4FMH |
|
|
|
Glad to hear that, Phil. Somehow, I just read
right over the "naturally formed" part. BS7 [Scarborough Reef] is
not on the Deleted list as of Feb 2019. Do you know why? Seems
like it would have been automatic when the island definition was
changed.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
73, Fred ["Skip"] K6DGW Sparks NV DM09dn Washoe County On 10/29/2020 12:14 PM, Phil Temples
wrote:
"Manufactured" islands do not "remain to be determined" as you state. They do not qualify as entities. Period. An island-entity must be a "naturally formed area of land." (See the official definition of "island" I posted earlier in this thread.) Phil, K9HI |
|
|
|
Tony KX1G <tony.dicenzo@...>
My concern is that BS7, being on the Active Entity list is required to qualify for the Top of the DXCC award. There are several things I don’t like about the arguments being made for retaining BS7 on the DXCC active entity list.
I have to ask why is BS7 so important that it has to be kept active (and a roadblock to working the top DXCC award)?
Who knows. Maybe we can reverse the effects of Global Warming, thus saving the Planet, reverse the effect of rising seas, and adding BS7 back on the Active Entities list. |
|
|
|
Tony KX1G <tony.dicenzo@...>
Even if BS7 is moved to the Deleted Entities list past QSLs will count towards it. It will cease to be required to achieve Top of the DXCC award for those who work all active entities.
|
|
|
|
The same goes for Sicily: for CQ contests and awards it counts as it is. For the ARRL it's just Italy. And yes I know that CQ uses the Work All Europe program as a guide since it has other "entities". An observation, Angel Santana WP3GW Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Frank K4FMH <frankmhowell@...> Date: 10/29/20 3:16 PM (GMT-04:00) To: ARRL-Awards@... Subject: Re: [ARRL-Awards] Scarborough Reef Hi John,
Your comment (which I don't disagree with but hear me out) reminds me of something about ARRL and other organization's awards regarding "entities." Is there an actual CONCEPT that guides the determination of an "entity" or is it just moving data points around regarding slicing-and-dicing up geography? For instance, the Kosovo controversy a few years ago was a fairly heated discussion. What underlying concept or "theory" of what entities should be and how to classify them is present? Any? Just trying to learn here... 73, Frank K4FMH |
|
|
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
Maybe what we need is another Rule for identifying when an Active entitle, regular or grandfathered, can be moved to the Deleted list, such as ‘An entity which has not been active in over a decade with no assurances of future activation should be placed on the DELETED ENTITY list. If it become active it can be automatically reactivated and added to the Entity List.” + That would have taken China, Albania, North Korea, and Turkmenistan off the list. + Would you feel good about backing into the "Top of the Honor Roll" if Scarborough Reef were deleted? + Personally, I think DXing is about working and confirming difficult DXCC entities, not agitating for the removal of difficult DXCC entities I haven't worked or confirmed. More DXing, less lawyering! 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
|
Dave AA6YQ
+ AA6YQ comments below
Even if BS7 is moved to the Deleted Entities list past QSLs will count towards it. It will cease to be required to achieve Top of the DXCC award for those who work all active entities. + If BS7 were made a deleted entity, it would be removed from everyone's "DXCC Challenge" score. + There's an ARRL Committee charged with managing the DXCC Entities list. They've been hearing the BS7 complaints for years, but have continued to leave its status unchanged. I'd be shocked (and disappointed) if more complaints led to a change. 73, Dave, AA6YQ |
|
|
