[PaQSO] Multi-location Bonus Station

[Michael Coslo]

On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:27 AM, <bob at reconstructinghistory.com>  
<bob at reconstructinghistory.com> wrote:


> Okay, now I've read the rants and the responses, it's time to weigh  
> in.
>
> But first, a little background.  I'm relatively new to all this.   
> PAQP06 was my first QSO party participation since (maybe) 1996.   
> I'm new to the field, in other words.  So bear with me, and look at  
> what I'm saying as dispassionate analysis from a newcomer.
>
> The multiple bonus stations gave me no joy in 2006.  For one, my  
> logging software kept flagging DUPE.  If I could find the Cab file,  
> I'd see if it stripped all the dupes, but I can't; it sticks in my  
> mind that it did.  For two, yeah, I added up all the bonus contacts  
> and put them on the summary sheet, but that added a layer of  
> needless complexity.
>

What software were you using, Bob?

Most all software will work if you log the bonus station as Callsign/ 
County. I will note that there is one prominent logging software out  
there that doesn't work very well for the party. But considering that  
there are excellent free software apps designed for the party, and  
that handle all aspects of the party, it shoudn't be a huge problem.


>
> So does physically mailing anything to the contest organizers, but  
> that's another argument.  That just doesn't make any sense to me.   
> It's the only contest I've entered which has that requirement.  For  
> the record, can someone tell me why?
>

	In 2005 40 percent of contest logs came in without a summary sheet.

	I spent around 800 hours reconstructing summary sheets.

	I like this party - but I wasn't going to do that again. The way I  
saw it, there were three alternatives.

1. Go to a system where 40 percent of the logs are DQ'ed. Don't think  
so. I' sitting here defending a system that has worked for years  
against the same complaints. I'd probably have to go into a witness  
protection program if I DQ'ed that many people.

2. Re-instate a robust system in which entries are made when the  
summary sheet is received.

3. Close the doors, fold up the tents, go home and call it a day. I  
don't get many volunteers here, and there isn't anyone in the wings.


	So what I did was to re-institute the mailed summary sheet  
requirement for all entrants. It was a success. What I did was trade  
off disqualifying around 250 entrants for a drop of 12 entrants. And  
given that the party fluctuates in participation every year often by  
more than that, I can't attach any statistical relevance to it.

	It is up to the individual to decide if after all the work of  
participating in the party, that mailing a letter is too much work.  
Note that we provide an on-line pdf form that you simply type your  
numbers into, print, and send. We gotta be talking about only 5  
minutes of work there.


>
> Maybe I'm one of these cornsarned lazy Socialist whippersnappers,  
> but when I export a Cab file, I want that to be my entry.  Period.   
> I don't want to massage it, I don't want to use a pencil to  
> recompute my bonus points, I don't want to print a form and fill it  
> out and mail it; I want to export a Cab file, maybe a summary file,  
> email it/them to the sponsor, and move on with my life.
>

	That would work great if it worked. But when we did that we ended up  
with problems such as that nasty 40 percent failure rate, I had to  
figure out a solution.

	Emailing sounds like a great way to do things, but all is not well  
in cyber-contesting land. We do allow and encourage emailing the  
logs. Do you know what sometimes comes in with some of  those logs?  
If I didn't spend a lot of time bullet-proofing my computer, I would  
have the biggest spyware infected, DOS attack enabled computers in  
the olde west.

	So your hard earned log is out there competing with spam, OEM  
software, Denise from sickstuff.com wanting to chat with you, and  
other worse stuff.


And as a little object lesson, I wrote a rely to the list yesterday.  
There was something in the paragraph above that caused the listserver  
to reject the message. So I had to change and resubmit. Email is not  
what it was 6 or 7 years ago.


>
> KISS works.  If you must have a bonus station, keep it simple:  
> points awarded per QSO, one Q per callsign per band/mode.  In other  
> words, one station = one callsign, just like everyone else.  Just  
> instead of 1 or 2 points, you get the bonus.  That makes for a  
> maximum of X points, since there are a finite number of band/mode  
> combinations.
>

	That is what we do, with the exception of allowing more than one  
transmitter. When we look at the different possibilities, questions  
arise. Say we want to have only a single station be the bonus  
station. Does this mean that all the transmitters be under one roof?  
If the VHF operation is in a different building across town, that is  
a no-go?

	Rovers never eligible? I think it would be very cool to have a Rover  
Bonus station at some point.

	What about ethernet linked but in one county bonus stations?

	We have always tried to incorporate innovative ideas into the party,  
and if a group has something innovative and fun to propose, I'll listen.



>
>
> For all my bellyachin', props to the organizers for taking all this  
> hassle on themselves.  Me, I wouldn't want the agg.  But thank Gawd  
> for sado-masochists like you, or else none of us could have any fun  
> complaining about how goofy your rules are. =)
>


	One thing I have found out the past couple years is that there is an  
amazing difference between participating in a contest/party, and  
administering it.

-73 de Mike KB3EIA -