TO: DXAC Chairman, DXAC Atlantic Division Representative, Atlantic Division Director
I believe there is an issue in the DXAC wording requesting comments to the proposed changes to the 5BDXCC Award. Let me explain:
DXAC Question : Whether the change is motivated by the current ebb in the solar cycle?
Poor choice or words. How would the person responding know the motive or intent of the originator of the suggestion.? It calls for speculation on the part of the person responding which is totally unfair to the suggestion.
DXAC Question: Whether it devalues the award?
The question seems to be derived from one of the negative posts submitted to the Awards blog and is not original nor appropriate. By quoting a comment from someone who has negative feelings about the suggestion seems to give credence to their post.
DXAC Question :Goes against the original intent of the 5BDXCC:
How can someone respond to this question when the original intent of the 5BDXCC is not provided?
In summary the DXAC questions call for a lot of speculation without proper information for an intelligent response.. It tends to lead the reader towards a subliminal negative response. The questions were chosen unwisely in my opinion and seemed to be rushed in's completion. I do not mean this unkindly but for a fair response from the readers/members the questions have to have more substance to them.
Sincerely,
73 Murray K3BEQ
The first issue involves the question of revising 5-Band DXCC (5BDXCC) requirement to accept contacts on any five band as opposed to the existing requirement of 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10 meters. The DXAC wants to know if this opinion appears to be widely shared, whether it’s motivated by the current ebb in the solar cycle, whether it devalues the award, and if it goes against the original intent of the 5BDXCC award. Comments should include “5BDXCC” in the subject line.
