> I did a poor job of saying what I was thinking when I said:
> >Also, if I were Tree or others involved; I think I would find it very
> >difficult to believe that a machine could be made to do *exactly* what Rule
> >7 presently says!
>
> As one example: Sub-Rules 1, 2, and 6 say "may be", while Sub-Rules 3, 4,
> 5, and 7 say "will be". It seems to me that the writers intended that some
> judgement latitude would be exercised for 1, 2 and 6, but there is no
> latitude for the others.
>
> Also, it seems that the "2%" mentioned in 1. is not applied rigidly at
> present.
>
> Basically, I just meant that humans still need to be ultimately responsible
> for the final say in some instances.
Humans are very much involved in the "final" say with respect to DQing
an entry. As far as I know, there are no DQs in the SS. One or two
stations had some interesting things in their log that were investigated
into. The program generates the data - and the human decides what to
do about it.
There were MANY logs with error rates above the DQ criteria. This is
why the rules that say things like "Log with error rates above x% WILL
be DQed" need to be changed to "MAY be".
Tree
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|