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

[Michael Coslo]

On Nov 1, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Bob Davis wrote:

> 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.

	Let me be quite direct here.


	We are a small club running a large QSO party. THe expenses are  
significant, from paper products to software to mailing and shipping.

	The costs of running the party will empty our coffers in a short  
time, the summary sheets often come in with donations. Without the  
summary sheets, apparently the donations drop to around zero.  
Projected lifetime of the party would be one year.

I'm trying to figure a way to eliminate the paper summary sheets  
without killing the party. I know some people will not participate in  
the party because of that summary sheet. It is too much trouble to  
fill out and mail - despite an online form to print and mail. Some of  
them have spent a lot of time explaining our shortcoming, certainly  
more than filling out the form.

	But there, that is it. We are not dinosaurs, we are not stupid  
people. We are making our way through the world on a different path.
	


> 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.

	We do accept Cabrillo. We have accepted Cabrillo for years and  
years. Where does this rumor that we don't accept Cabrillo come from?

>
> 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")

	Thee you hit the nail lon the head, Bob. The PAQSO Party is wierd.  
We are not like the other contests, and if you want to know the  
truth, we like that just fine.

	But make no mistake about it, that we are wierd and different in no  
way makes those other parties and contests better than us.


>
> 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.

	With all due respect, Bob, the problem just isn't so easy.  I see a  
LOT of different software packages. They have a LOT of different  
outputs - and most of them are called "cabrillo". Different softwares  
score and keep track of different aspects differently. They do  
sections differently, They do Canadian sections all over the map.

Which software do I modify the PAQSO party to accept?

-73 de Mike KB3EIA -