Some time ago the ARRL made a new rule to the effect that QSOs could be disqualified for DXCC if the detailed logs of a DXpedition were available on line. This unprecedented demand effectively obliged the SOTA MT to withdraw detailed access to activator QSO data. The MT was always of the opinion that the ARRL’s stance was unreasonable but it was felt that we couldn’t run the risk of a Chaser being excluded from the DXCC program by virtue of us having an open database.
Recently the ARRL’s position has been shown, by amongst others CQ Magazine, to be untenable. Whilst the threat of DXCC disqualification still remains, the MT’s view is that the risk of any adverse action by ARRL is now very low.
The MT has therefore decided that as of the weekend of 8/9 September, all activator and chaser logs will be fully visible to all registered participants. Users who for whatever reason wish any of their QSO data to remain private might wish to remove the relevant logs prior to this date.
We hope that everyone welcomes the return to full transparency and broader functionality of the SOTA Database.
I wasn’t involved with sota when this ridiculus ruling re DXCC was initiated, but I am very pleased to see that the MT has finally made a decision to change one of our rules, especially under the circumstances which we are all aware of.
I could never understand the reasoning for kissing the ARRLs backside anyway, DXCC is DXCC, WAB is WAB and SOTA is SOTA, can anyone imagine the ARRL or any other group changing any of it’s rules to suit a bloke/lass waffling on a hilltop?.. yeah right!
I know that a lot of sota people are involved in other areas of interest, which can and do work alongside sota, especially WAB which I’m always pleased to give to our many friends involved in SOTA/WAB, but rules governing other groups should NEVER be allowed to influence MT to change SOTA rules.
Well done MT on making what must have been a difficult decision to change this rule and finally taking the interests of your own in hand rather than the interests of other groups.
I could never understand the reasoning for kissing the ARRLs backside
anyway, DXCC is DXCC, WAB is WAB and SOTA is SOTA, can anyone imagine
the ARRL or any other group changing any of it’s rules to suit a
bloke/lass waffling on a hilltop?.. yeah right!
You miss the point completely. SOTA Chasers are likely to also participate in the DXCC program. Whilst we agree that the ARRL was out of order in making this demand, the fact remained that members of the SOTA community could very easily have been discriminated against had we not at the time taken the action that we did.
Recently, others with far more clout than us have driven a coach and horses through the ARRL’s demands, notably CQ Magazine, by publishing the full logs of the world’s biggest contests. The SOTA MT concluded as a result that the risk of any disqualification action is now small enough to be ignored.
You should be applauding both sets of action. Both were designed to protect the SOTA community and were nothing whatsoever to do with “kissing the ARRLs backside”.
You miss the point completely. SOTA Chasers are likely to also
participate in the DXCC program. Whilst we agree that the ARRL was out
of order in making this demand, the fact remained that members of the
SOTA community could very easily have been discriminated against had
we not at the time taken the action that we did.
I don’t think it’s me who has missed the point…
This IS SOTA is it not? not DXCC chasers club or WAB or IOTA, WOTA, COTA!!
I appreciate that it is convenient to participate in DXCC and WAB even IOTA etc whilst operating under the SOTA banner, but surely if the rules of any other groups outside of SOTA are affecting SOTA members then that is wrong.
You should be applauding both sets of action. Both were designed to
protect the SOTA community and were nothing whatsoever to do with
“kissing the ARRLs backside”.
I certainly DO NOT applaud the ridiculous decision to remove the total transparency from SOTA logs just to please the ARRLs rules, the obvious solution was to tell SOTA members that because of ARRL DXCC ruling, if they choose to chase DXCC, then do it from outside of the SOTA banner.
However, I most certainly DO applaud MT on their decision to finally remove the restrictions, it’s nice to see that MT sometimes listens to their members opinions.
Mike, I can assure you that every decision we have made on this, and other issues has been done on the basis of the very best interests of the SOTA Programme and its participants, and is done only after thorough discussion and examination of the issues. I would ask that you trust us on this, and accept it in good faith. To call such a decision “ridiculous” is a little unkind, especially now that we have been able to review it in the changing climate.
Mike, I can assure you that every decision we have made on this, and
other issues has been done on the basis of the very best interests of
the SOTA Programme and its participants, and is done only after
thorough discussion and examination of the issues. I would ask that
you trust us on this, and accept it in good faith. To call such a
decision “ridiculous” is a little unkind, especially now
that we have been able to review it in the changing climate.
I’m sure that the above is 100% true Tom and I, in no way whatsoever, intend to “knock” or offend MT or their sterling work, let me make that point very clear.
I do trust you on this matter and my “ridiculous” remark was merely my own personal opinion on the original decision to remove transparency from sota logs, simply to accomodate other, non sota groups.
Basically, what I’m saying is SOTA is SOTA period and should ONLY be answerable to SOTA rules.
I apologise and will retract the “ridiculous decision” remark Tom, only because it seems to have come across the wrong way, but I stand by my statement that this is SOTA, so let it be governed by SOTA rules only, which, thanks to MTs new decision is now the case and I think that you will find that all SOTA “participants” (we are not members) will applaud MT for this decision.
Some time ago the ARRL made a new rule to the effect that QSOs could be
disqualified for DXCC if the detailed logs of a DXpedition were available on line.
That was a very well-considered decision of the SOTA-MT.
If I just look at the SOTA-chaser-calls from HB9, I can see that most of them are also member of the DXCC-Honor-Roll. It would be fatal if they would be disqualified from DXCC because they participate in SOTA.
A reason of the growth of SOTA in HB and DL is also the search of active DXers, who worked all or nearly all entities, in finding a new challenge.
Bye the way DXCC after over 60-years still is the top-awards-programm and it always touched other awards with their rules.
Vy73 GL on SOTA (and any other award-programme you like)
Fritz DL4FDM,HB9CSA
The SOTA Database only records callsigns, not signal reports since it does not ask for reports when an activation or a chaser claim is made. Therefore it is not a full log record and as such, I would have thought that improper use for DXCC purposes would have been unlikely. Perhaps it is the case that reports are not required for the DXCC system either.
The return to transparency will enable us to see why we haven’t got a full set of asterisks for our chaser records. In respect of my records, in the past the error has generally been in the activation record when my callsign has been entered into the database incorrectly, even though I have spoken to the activator many times. Familiarity… or is it case of too many OIG / OWG / OGI’s on the SOTA scene?
In reply to DL4FDM:
We should not mix up DXCC and SOTA rules.
ARRL does not like complete logs published because DJ5AU might try to get the the QSL for the QSO with DJ5AV froma rare station with internet log.
But does this touch the SOTA QSOs ? To get a valid QSO for DXCC you would have to present a QSL card (with a report) or a QSO in LotW (with RST).
I cannot imagine to find a new bandpoint for DXCC on SOTA.
If a DXpedition presents full data of their QSOs that might result in making
their QSOs invalid for DXCC. But THEIR QSOs only, not all QSOs of a DXCC member.
We should not mix up DXCC and SOTA rules.
ARRL does not like complete logs published because DJ5AU might try to get the QSL for the QSO with DJ5AV >from a rare station with internet log.
Yes, I agree with you Michael.
But in my opinion it was good from the SOTA-MT to wait until all the
misunderstandings were cleared.
I cannot imagine to find a new bandpoint for DXCC on SOTA.
Who knows? I´m sure in the coming sunspot-maximum we may more often work DX-stations on 21/24/28 MHz and we might have SOTA-groups in C31,FK,FO,HB0,T7,etc. then…hi
All the best and AWDH on the band
Vy73 de Fritz DL4FDM,HB9CSA
In reply to DL4FDM:
There MAY come a time when we can claim a DXCC for SOTA activations - only 82 more countries need to join and we DO have a rare country in the programme already (Mount Athos).
73 de Cris
GM4FAM
