[PaQSO] RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al

[Bob Davis]

K3CT wrote:

I'm not in favor of changing the PaQSO Party scoring for any contest
program. If the scoring is changed, it should be done for other
reasons. Most, if not all, contest sponsors accept logs in Cabrillo
format and calculate the score to their rules with their log
checking software. You have to admit that the days of dupe sheets
and paper summary sheets are long gone.
>>>

With respect, no one need admit anything of the kind, *especially* if we're
referring to PAQP.  PAQP is one of the few contests remaining which require
actual dead trees.  Have a look at the log submission requirements.  If
Nittany ARC accepts Cabrillo, it's news to me.

One cannot gloss over a simple fact: The major contest programs don't
support PAQP because of the non-standard (I was about to write "wierd")
scoring structure, which makes generating accurate log output a major PITA.
Thus, we can safely call "herculean" the efforts of people like WB3W (who
continues to support and develop his product) and KA3JWE (who, last I heard,
doesn't).

>>>
Likewise, if the Canadian section list is changed, it should be
changed because sections were split not because some programs didn't
log the VE sections listed in the rules.
>>>

But if the case is that the PAQP sections don't jibe with the RAC sections
as used in other larger contests, where is the impetus for software
developers to bodge-job their product just to satisfy PAQP?  It's just plain
*simpler* to adjust the sections in the PAQP Rules than expect software
developers - who are developing contest software in their spare time - to
juggle code.  Let's face it - the people who participate in PAQP are a small
minority compared to, say, CQWW or Sweepstakes.  So if Sweepstakes uses RAC
sections a certain way, the developer spends his time wisely and makes his
program recognize that section list.  Why would he spend his time making
*another* section list for some comparatively piddly little contest?  If you
were he, to which customer would *you* give priority?

I'm not advocating change for change's sake.  That way lies madness.  I'm
advocating certain subtle changes to make things easier for the
participants.  That has the potential to bring more participants into the
PAQP, which has all manner of wonderful benefits, like greater participation
in and perpetuation of a contest we all enjoy immensely.

Let's do a compare-and-contrast exercise.

Option 1. You fire up your favourite contest logger and select "PA QSO
Party".  Operate.  After the contest, you have the application generate a
perfect log, which, once you email the output to NARC, completes your
participation.  Everything happens exactly the same way as with every other
contest you operate.

Option 2.  You download an additional application (one of the dedicated PAQP
loggers) several days/weeks before PAQP and adjust yourself to the software
learning curve.  Operate. Post-contest, generate the app's proprietary log
output, print it, stick it into an envelope, fill out your summary sheet,
print that, stuff it into the same or another envelope, stick stamps on
it/them, and mail it all off to NARC.

Option 1 is where I'd like to see the PAQP go.  Option 2 is what we have
now.  The question is: Which is simpler?  You make the call.

Cheers,

Bob NQ3X

http://nq3x.livejournal.com

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, an
inconceivably large number of electrons was terribly inconvenienced.