The planned upper limit of some of the awards has now been reached (Summit to Summit and the Mountain Explorer/Hunter awards in particular) and the MT needs to decide what is the best method of extending these awards. The levels after Platinum for the Mountain Hunter and Mountain Explorer are much more difficult to extend as there is an intercontinental aspect to both awards and the â€œWorked All Associationsâ€ category has become a rapidly moving target with the regular introduction of more and more Associations.
The Summit to Summit award will now be made open ended by issuing endorsements for higher levels going in steps of 5k points after the Platinum level.
Two proposals have been made for the other awards and now is the time to see what the reaction is to these ideas before jumping in and introducing changes. The first suggestion is to introduce endorsements for something like â€œWorked all US Statesâ€ or â€œWorked all European Associationsâ€ whilst the other suggestion is to introduce endorsements based on the number of Associations worked which then culminates in the â€œWorked All Associationsâ€ as an upper limit. This applies to the Mountain Hunter and Mountain Explorer awards so for â€œworkedâ€ also read â€œactivatedâ€.
The decision is (for Mountain Hunter and Mountain Explorer):
- Introduce a Worked all *** grading based on States, Countries or Continents
- Introduce a numeric number of Associations worked (a bit like DXCC) culminating in Worked All Associations
This topic will be left open for a week or two to see if a consensus about the way forward can be reached.
SOTA Awards Manager
In reply to GM4TOE:
The decision is (for Mountain Hunter and Mountain Explorer)
I think I’d favour the second. It seems generally fairer and less likely to make a few select summits (like, say, 9H/GO-001) into roadblocks.
73, Rick M0LEP
P.S. Being somewhat pedantic, the “higher level awards require intercontinental contacts” statement about Mountain Hunter on the Awards page isn’t quite accurate. If you travel to another continent then it’s possible to chase summits on that continent (in which case the contacts themselves wouldn’t be intercontinental, but the chases would add to your count of continents), and it’s possible to make intercontinental contacts with summits on your home continent (in which case the intercontinental contacts don’t count as intercontinental for MH Award purposes).
I also favour:
"2) Introduce a numeric number of Associations worked (a bit like DXCC) culminating in Worked All Associations. "
There is the advantage that it would accommodate growth in Associations.
In reply to GM4TOE:
endorsements for something like â€œWorked all US Statesâ€ or â€œWorked all European Associationsâ€
Good Morning Barry,
“Worked All US States” might be problematic in that we have at least one state (Florida) that will have no qualified summits even under the P100 rule. As a suggestion, how about “Worked All North America Associations” which would include the VE Associations and, longer term, Mexico when it comes on board. This would be in parallel with the “Worked All European Associations”.
I like the idea of “Introduce a numeric number of Associations worked (a bit like DXCC)” which makes the award open ended and like the DXCC awards could create a “SOTA Honor Roll” for those who achieve, maybe 75%, of all existing Associations. But instead of a “numeric number” make it a percentage of the total.
In reply to N7UN:
But instead of a “numeric number” make it a percentage of the total.
That creates moving goal posts; someone could reach a mark one day, and the next day fall short because new associations have been added. Moving goal posts are inevitable for “Worked All Whatever” types of award, but are probably better avoided otherwise…
73, Rick M0LEP