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

[John Bednar]

Bob,

I believe I understand the rules and what is required for log
submission.

I did not state in my email that the PaQSO Party rules accepts
Cabrillo. But, if I remember correctly, Mike did post a message
earlier saying that submitting a Cabrillo file is OK this year.

On the subject of dupe sheets...really. Dupe sheets were used before
computer logging existed so you didn't call the same station more
than once. The early computer logging output sheets similar to the
hand written sheets. Now it is a thing of the past with computer
dupe checking and sponsor log checking. I just made a suggestion
that they be eliminated. If the PaQSO Party sponsors want to keep
them, it's ok with me. Is there a program that supports PaQSO Party
and prints a real dupe sheet?

You missed the point of the VE section comment. The current VE
section list does not cover all Canadian sections and Territories.
Now that you are aware of this, I'm sure you agree that some sort of
rules clarification is needed. As I said, this decision should be
made without regard to what programs are using now. I realize there
are impacts to existing records. 

John
k3ct at verizon.net


> -----Original Message-----
> From: paqso-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:paqso-
> bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of Bob Davis
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:10 PM
> To: paqso at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: [PaQSO] RE: QRP, Mults, Scoring, et al
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PaQSO mailing list
> PaQSO at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/paqso