[PaQSO] More about scoring and software

[Bob Davis]

The Organizer (KB3EIA) quoth:

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

You know, I really couldn't say, and for that I apologize profusely.  I've
been part of a rumor mill, and that sucks.  Sorry!

It occurs to me that something I have not - and CAN not - express with
sufficient emphasis is the fantastic job you and your lot in NARC do to
provide us a contest about which to gripe. ;-)  Honestly, I'm glad you're
doing it, because I haven't the ability, determination or thick skin to
survive the effort.

>>>
Thee you hit the nail on 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.
>>>

No such implication was intended, I assure you.  One of the highlights of my
year is PAQP; I only missed it this year because it was my wife's 40th
birthday on the Saturday, so our romantic getaway precluded participation.
Next year I'll be out there with whacking great bells on, yacking away. ;-)

>>>
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?
>>>

Let me restate my position.  It's not necessary to pick just one software
application.  It appears to be necessary to bring PAQP's definitions of what
constitutes a section into line with, say, ARRL SS definitions, which more
software appears to have standardized in some manner.  There was talk on
this reflector prior to PAQP 2007 regarding the manner in which PAQP treats
RAC sections.

I now consider output immaterial, since you've kindly pointed out my
misconception about your acceptance of Cabrillo. ;-)

The most crucial manner in which the PAQP can accomodate modern software is
in the QSO point structure.  As I and others have mentioned, N1MM, to name
but one, is an application which will not accomodate fractional QSO points.
Another writer on this list has given us a method where the current point
weighting may be retained, while removing the fractional points.  For me,
this is a crucial issue, not merely because I like to use N1MM, but because
the simpler it is for the average amateur to participate in PAQP, the more
participation we'll enjoy.  It follows that *everyone* then has more fun,
dunnit?

Goody mentioned the relative ease with which one can modify the existing
software.  For that I'm grateful.  At the same time, I have to admit that I
won't go that route.  I am a radioamateur, not a code-junkie. ;-)  I have
neither the knowledge nor inclination to go mucking about modifying a
program.  I have enough problems just getting on the air with a decent
signal and finding time to operate.

That's why I'm so strongly advocating making the PAQP as "turn-key" as
possible.  I have little enough time to prepare for an on-air event and
actually get on the air.  Therefore, I want to be able to sit down at my
station desk, flip a couple of switches, boot up my logger, and just make
contacts.  The harder it is for me to participate in an event, the more
prep-time I have to devote, the less inclined I am to do so. In this, I know
I'm not alone.

At the same time, I understand PAQP ain't necessarily broke.  It works just
as it is.  I'm merely advocating making it easier for the casual operator to
participate, which can only be good for everyone involved in PAQP, from the
most casual to the hardest-core.  Yes, that'll mean some extra work for the
organizers.  But I think that extra work will pay off a nice dividend in
both short and long terms.

Respectfully,

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.