At 13:04 8/3/2010, Les Rayburn wrote:
>As Steve pointed out, Bill Moore's objection to allowing card checkers to
>accept print outs of LoTW credits until such time as ARRL programmers can
>fully implement VUCC into LoTW doesn't seem to hold water on a number of
>fronts;
>
>I'll briefly cover why I think Bill is missing the point of the suggestion:
>
>
>1.) Bill maintains that card checkers would lack the experience with LoTW to
>be able to verify the print outs. I'm puzzled by this assertion, since by now
>most card checkers have a lot of experience at checking "mixed submissions"
>for DXCC credit, where a submitter is providing both LoTW print outs and paper
>cards for verification.
No.
The card checker never sees the LOTW records for a "Hybrid" DXCC submission.
He only has to check the cards and OK's the application list you bring to him.
After checking your card he mails your paper work to the League.
At the League your paper and LOTW records are married and the fees calculated.
If you used any LOTW credits your totals are posted to your DXCC account.
With VUCC there is no account to post them too.
>I've checked with three card checkers in our area, and all of them feel that
>this should not present a hardship for card checkers. The ability to "pull up"
>the actual LoTW account is not intended to be the norm, but only to provide a
>second check as a deterrent to cheating, and a means to resolve disputes.
If the checker only has to lookup 3 or 4 LOTW records it shouldn't be
much of a problem.
Now what about the guy who has a 100 LOTW records for him to lookup
for a 100% LOTW VUCC Award.
To me that is a real imposition on the "Volunteer" checker.
>In most cases, the card checker will be relying on the print out from LoTW
>provided by the submitter, and a the list of grids worked.
I am opposed to using "Print outs" for checking. Too much room for cheating.
If each is manually looked up by the checker, no problem.
>2.) Mr. Moore also maintains that many LoTW entries do not contain the grid
>location of the DX station. True enough, but it fails on it's own merits for
>two reasons.
>
>Number one: The VUCC rules in paragraph 7 recognize that many paper cards will
>also lack grid information, and provides a remedy.
>
>
>(b) For the convenience of the Awards Manager in checking cards, applicants
>may indicate in pencil (pencil ONLY) the
>
>grid locator on the address side of the cards that DO NOT clearly indicate the
>grid locator. The applicant affirms that
>
>he/she has accurately determined the proper location from the address
>information given on the card by signing the
>
>affirmation statement on the application.
I see no problem with that solution on the stop-gap measure.
>Number two; This problem will continue even when VUCC is fully integrated into
>LoTW. How does the league plan to determine the grid location for those
>contacts? How will it address stations that have moved since submitting their
>original logs, portable operations, and rovers?
Yes, they will exist. I don't think an automated checking system can do
anything except ignore them.
It's OUR problem. We need to notify the other party that the need to edit
their "Station Data" in TQSL and re-submit their logs.
Remember his error effects every QSO record he has submitted to LOTW.
>Ultimately, I think we'll have to go with rule #7( b ) above. The submitter
>will have to pencil in the grid square and log it on the application
>form...just like we've been doing since 1996.
I don't. After VUCC goes Online we get what the QSL record says, no
more, no less. (see above comment)
>I won't characterize Bill's objections to the proposal, which seems to offer
>immediate relief from the high costs associated with paper QSL chasing
>associated with VUCC. But I will say that in light of these facts, I hope he
>and other ARRL officials will avoid knee jerk reactions and objections to a
>proposal that seems to offer the best solution to our current state of
>affairs.
Is the whole purpose of this stop-gap measure is to save "QSL Costs" ???
What should we pay for each LOTW QSL over and above our normal application
fees ???
I hope now one thinks this should be a "Freebie" from the ARRL.
If so, what is the incentive for the League to add the VUCC Award to LOTW ???
>I respectfully request that my Division Director and VHF Men who are ARRL
>members contact their elected officials and the ARRL and request that we move
>forward immediately to accept the proposal to allow LoTW printouts to be
>accepted immediately.
I don't. Lets get the real VUCC going by the end of the year.
This stop-gap measure is only going to make it more difficult to develop
the "Real" VUCC Module.
Anyway, that's my input to my Director.
I just can't see wasting any more resources like we did on the "NEW' website
!!!
>73,
>
>Les Rayburn, N1LF
>EM63nf
>------
>Submissions: vhf@w6yx.stanford.edu
>Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@w6yx.stanford.edu
>Human list administrator: vhf-approval@w6yx.stanford.edu
>List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
73
Bob, K1VU
FN42ma
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|