[RTTY] contest change

Mon Jul 8 14:46:25 EDT 2013

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 at citlink.net>
To: "John GW4SKA" <ska at bartg.org.uk>
Cc: "Al Kozakiewicz" <akozak at hourglass.com>; <rtty at 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 at hourglass.com>
> To: <k0rc at citlink.net>
> Cc: <rtty at 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 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
>
>
> -----
> 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 at 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