It's nice that they are talking and trying to fix any ambiguity. I don't
think the suggested change works though. It reads:
*_New Rule 2.2:_ Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed
time between the first
QSO and the last QSO logged minus the longest OF UP TO two breaks during
this elapsed
time where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes each.*
'minus the longest OF UP TO two breaks' is bad. It suggests that if you have
a 2 hour break and a 3 hour break, they will only minus the 3 hour break! It
does work for a 6 hour break :-)
73, John GW4SKA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Chudek - K0RC" <k0rc@citlink.net>
To: "John GW4SKA" <ska@bartg.org.uk>
Cc: "Al Kozakiewicz" <akozak@hourglass.com>; <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
Hello John,
I have done just that. I exchanged my concerns regarding the new wording
of rule 2.2 for the ARRL RTTY RU with Al Dewey, KØAD, the author of the
CAC paper.. I also noted that the rule changed from defining Off Times
to defining Operating Time. My question was whether it was the intention
of the CAC to change the rule or
only clarify the existing rule. Here is his response:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"It was the CAC's intention to CLARIFY the rule - not change it.
We spoke with a number of prominent RTTY contesters and confirmed that
there was good rationale for the rule. As you point out, however, the
existing rule is very confusing - especially for those who are not doing
a full time effort. /
//
//
/The existing wording was not meant to exclude the single six hour break
but I can see how one might interpret it that way./
//
//
/The PSC is working directly with the Contest Branch on this one since
it is only a clarification. So far, I have not been able to engage the
Contest Branch on it so nothing has been done yet. I hope to have get
this resolved with them before the next RTTY RU./
//
//
//
/We did have quite a bit of discussion within the CAC before concluding
it was better to define Operating Time than Off Time./
//
//
//
/Referring to your specific issue, what would you think of the following
wording?"/
*_New Rule 2.2:_ Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed
time between the first
QSO and the last QSO logged minus the longest OF UP TO two breaks during
this elapsed
time where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes each.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I replied to Al that this new wording should eliminate the ambiguity of
the old rule. If the contest branch accepts this new wording I believe
the intention is clear and also deals with the previously undocumented
"one block of 6 hours" as being an acceptable operating practice.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/6/2013 2:14 PM, John GW4SKA wrote:
Interesting thread but why has it taken so long to do what should have
been done first; ask the contest management?
Rather than debate this, I sent an email asking for confirmation that the
rule change would not >require taking 2 blocks of off time.
Al
AB2ZY
They are the ones who will bounce your log out if you guess (or debate)
and come up with the wrong conclusion.
John GW4SKA
----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Kozakiewicz" <akozak@hourglass.com>
To: <k0rc@citlink.net>
Cc: <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
30 - (6 + 0) = 24
Here's the pseudo SQL ;^)
SELECT OPTIME=(MAX(QSO_TIME) - MIN(QSO_TIME)) FROM QSOs WHERE CALL='K0RC'
{build temporary table of off time blocks; left as an exercise for the
student)
SET OFFTIME=(SELECT SUM(TOP 2 BLOCKLEN FROM OFFTIMES ORDER BY BLOCKLEN
DESC)
IF OFFTIME <6 THEN
Rule is broken
ELSE
Rule is not broken
ENDIF
You're insisting on reading an interpretation into the rule (that everyone
must take a minimum of two breaks with one lasting at least 30 minutes)
that has no rational basis given the history and context.
Rather than debate this, I sent an email asking for confirmation that the
rule change would not require taking 2 blocks of off time.
Al
AB2ZY
From: Robert Chudek - K0RC [mailto:k0rc@citlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:17 PM
To: Al Kozakiewicz
Cc: rtty@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
Here's my log:
720 QSOs, 1 per minute for 12 hours
0 QSOs, not operating for 6 hours
720 QSOs, 1 per minute for 12 hours
My "first QSO" is at 0000z. My "last QSO" is 30 hours later.
Please write a formula that will satisfy this rule:
*2.2 Operating Time will be calculated using the elapsed
time between the first QSO and the last QSO logged
minus the longest two breaks during this elapsed time
where such breaks are a minimum of 30 minutes each.*
As written, the proposed rule must find two breaks during the 30-hour
period. I only see one "longest break" in my log, which does not satisfy
the stated rule. IF they will accept a SINGLE 6-hour break, the rule
should state that as acceptable. As written, this new rule is worse than
the original text.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
________________________________
On 7/6/2013 10:41 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
Nowhere does it say that you must take two breaks. Only that the off time
will be calculated by summing the length of the longest two. If you take
one break of 6 hours, the rule is satisfied and there is no need to add in
time from an additional break.
Here's a reductio ad absurdum: Off times have a definition. On times do
not. By your interpretation of the rule, it could be satisfied by taking
a 3 hour break; making one QSO; then taking another 3 hours break.
What possible rational purpose would this serve?
Al
AB2ZY
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Chudek - K0RC
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 1:23 AM
To: rtty@contesting.com<mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
This is still wrong. In your example 6+0=6 you are counting hours. The
suggested new rule requires a count of two off times. There is only one
off time in 6+0=6.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/5/2013 11:50 PM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
1+1=2
6+0=6
QED
Al
AB2ZY
-----Original Message-----
From: RTTY [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Turner
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:01 AM
To: RTTY Reflector
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: (may be snipped)
On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 20:42:43 -0400, Al wrote:
One of those longest 2 blocks could well be of zero length.
REPLY:
I thought we got rid of the New Math. One plus zero equals two?
73, Bill W6WRT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com<mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com<mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com<mailto:RTTY@contesting.com>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6469 - Release Date: 07/06/13
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3345 / Virus Database: 3204/6472 - Release Date: 07/07/13
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|