Ev,
You have got to be kidding, right? Or are you auditioning for the John
Cleese role in the latest presentation of "Argument Clinic"?
I suggested using "00(0)" as a 'placeholder' for a non-existant (ie
non-sent) RS(T) report. You have chosen to interpret that as my saying that
"RST" is a placeholder? Are you really missing the point that much, or are
you just looking for an excuse to argue?
As far as thinking "strategically" versus "tactically..." I'm sorry, I just
spent the last 5 hours finishing up editing my club's newsletter and my
brain is fried. But what you are proposing strikes me as using a
thermonuclear device to swat the fly... it will work, but do you really need
anything that drastic?
The only reason we have this minor problem (and it is a minor problem) is
that those who wrote the robot software and/or Cabrillo specs never allowed
for the possibility that a signal report wouldn't be part of the exchange.
That can easily be remedied in a future update to the spec and/or software
upgrade. In the meantime, though, there are two simple solutions to the
problem at hand, neither of which requires a complete overhaul or
replacement for the Cabrillo specs at this time:
(1) Permit the use of a "dummy" RST, the '00(0)' noted originally, to take
the place of an RS(T) report that was not sent in the contest, with the
explicit understanding that this represents "No RS(T)" and is used only to
prevent the robot from choking;
(2) Make a very small addition to the rules of
no-RS(T)-in-the-exchange-Contests, exact wording TBD, but something on the
lines of "Since a signal report is not required as part of the exchange, for
logging purposes, a signal report of '59' or '599' is assumed unless
otherwise noted."
Either of these should satisfy the existing software robots, and solve a
very small problem, without resorting to a massive change at this time.
73
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 03:47:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Ev Tupis <w2ev@yahoo.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] A Strategic Wrap-up [was: A Plea to Cabrillo
Contet Robot Writers]
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
----- Original Message ----
May I make a small suggestion?
Why not put an RST of "00(0)" in the submitted log instead?
---------------------------
In this case, the Cabrillo-spec doesn't view RST as a placeholder. A
placeholder, by Cabrillo-spec inference, is <space>.
Thinking strategically (not tactically)... if an event claims to allow
Cabrillo-formatted submissions, then the thought flow goes something like
this...
A. A sponsor should require participants to submit logs that accurately
reflect their activity. This is the only way to accurately adjudicate an
event and provide historical accuracy. Follow the Cabrillo spec when
determining how to apply it to their event. Do not stray from the spec.
B. Software authors should generate Cabrillo-formatted submissions that
comply with both the Cabrillo-formatting spec and the sponsor's
Cabrillo-compliant "data-to-include" spec. Data is placed by column and
placeholders are spaces.
C. Robot authors should parse in accordance with the spec. QSO data is to
be found in fixed locations within a fixed-length QSO field.
D. Sponsors and their Robots should reject files (both from authors and
submitters who use authors products) that fail to comply. "Dumbing down"
the spec because some folks can't follow specs injects unnecessary turmoil
on many levels.
E. If the Cabrillo-format spec or the sponsor's "data-to-include" spec are
ambiguous, then there should be a safe mechanism to offer meaningful
well-intended input and eventual resolution (without individuals taking
things personally).
Again, this is strategic (planning that avoids later problems) thought, not
tactical (executing an idea) thought.
Sincere kind regards to all,
Ev, W2EV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|