[RTTY] contest change

Gary AL9A al9a at mtaonline.net
Sat Jul 6 15:18:37 EDT 2013 

Maybe the authors of the "proposed" rule to clarify the intent and meaning 
of the "old" rule need to take a course or two in communicating clearly in 
the English language.  I would suggest they contact the staff that creates 
the IRS tax code - that should clear things up in a jiffy!

73,
Gary AL9A

-----Original Message----- 
From: Robert Chudek - K0RC
Sent: July 06, 2013 9:08 AM
To: Al Kozakiewicz
Cc: rtty at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [RTTY] contest change

"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."

You are correct that I am reading the rule to say that everyone must
take a minimum of two breaks. It says so in plain English. It's not an
interpretation.

I also agree these two breaks must be a minimum of 30 minutes or the
break does not qualify as a valid break.

Please tell me (again) how you turn 1 six-hour break into two breaks
that satisfy the rule as written. Your formula does not do this because
you are counting time, not breaks and there is only one break in my log.
If you can turn 1 break into two, what keeps me from splitting my 1
break into 18 twenty-minute breaks? The log now fails the 30-minute
minimum although it does satisfy the minimum 2 breaks. This is the
consequence of not performing an AND function on two criteria.

I don't agree with your statement "no rational basis given the history
and context".

These new rules are supposed to offer clarity. The past acceptance of
two back-to-back 3-hour breaks in the past is not written anywhere. It
was "common" knowledge, at least among most RTTY operators. I am
complaining that the new rule does NOT address this "exception". The
single 6-hour break should either be  accepted or excluded as meeting
the new rule. This should be part of the new rules, in writing, not left
to speculation and debate.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 7/6/2013 11:34 AM, Al Kozakiewicz wrote:
>
> 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 at citlink.net]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 06, 2013 12:17 PM
> *To:* Al Kozakiewicz
> *Cc:* rtty at 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 at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert 
> Chudek - K0RC
>
>     Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 1:23 AM
>
>     To:rtty at contesting.com  <mailto:rtty at 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 at 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 at contesting.com  <mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>
>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>         _______________________________________________
>
>         RTTY mailing list
>
>         RTTY at contesting.com  <mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>
>
>         http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     RTTY mailing list
>
>     RTTY at contesting.com  <mailto:RTTY at contesting.com>
>
>     http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>

_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

More information about the RTTY mailing list