"1 at - 0 Enter" == "1 at 0 Enter"?

This section from the manual may help clarify. Broadly speaking, because many parameter ranges have negative values, you need to distinguish between setting an absolute negative value, and a relative subtraction of a value.

Manual Control of Non-Intensity Parameters (etcconnect.com)

See this is my complaint. Why are there two different versions of the documentation that say different stuff? I google "ETC Eos Documentation" and am led to this: https://www.etcconnect.com/Products/Legacy/Console/Eos-Family/Eos/Documentation.aspx

which does not say the same stuff as what the stuff you linked to says. I know it's on the console itself at Tab 100 but the formatting of that version is unreadable. 

My current theory is that this would technically be considered a microbug, since when working with parameters that use 0-100, Eos only requires you to use the "+ -" for subtractions if the value is zero. If the value is not 0, you do not need to put the plus in front of the minus. Those cases include basically 100% of manual use-cases. This quirk only gets ugly when you're doing the wacky stuff I'm doing programmatically via OSC.

The link you posted is referencing legacy documentation, as noted by the URL and numerous indications on the page.

That may be the case, but:

1. What I linked to is the first Google result

2. Nobody pays attention to what's in the URL other than maybe the domain name

3. Most users don't necessarily know the immediate ramifications of the term "legacy" in the context of software documentation

4. The link Hans.Hinrichsen linked to is technically on the first page of Google results, but it is under the heading, "Eos Family Online Help", and "Eos Family Online Help" != "this is the documentation". To the contrary, "Eos Console Documentation" == "this is the documentation", but that link—THE VERY FIRST GOOGLE RESULT—is for version ONE POINT SEVEN POINT OH. 

5. Absolutely nothing in the pdf itself indicates it is out of date, other than the software version, which no one pays attention to

6. If you have to pay attention to the software version to avoid spending an hour reading the wrong documentation courtesy of Google, then wtf.

7. Typing in "etc eos" into the search bar here provides 0 results. You have to select the right thing in 2 enumerators and then clear out the search bar to get it to do anything, and then the stuff that you get it to do does not provide the html link provided above, but instead the pdf I linked to, and that pdf then takes approximately 7.2 billion years to load, and then who even knows if that is the correct one or if the html version is the correct one or if the Tab 100 one is the correct one.

8. It should be this: you type in "ETC Eos documentation" into Google, the first google result is the correct one that the ETC people actually want you to use (and all the other ones are exclusively available in a section expressly marked as ARCHIVE), and that first correct Google result is labeled something extremely similar to or identical to "ETC Eos Documentation".

This wasted hours of my time last night.

If you are not able to use the Computer or internet correct, don't blame it on others.
And as you pointed out, it is google, not ETC. So it is realy hard to now what google is presenting you.
Maybe you should go write google your complain!

I always do have the current manual on my Tablet, so if i need to read it, i am not using the internet to download anything.

If you are not able to use the Computer or internet correct, don't blame it on others.
And as you pointed out, it is google, not ETC. So it is realy hard to now what google is presenting you.
Maybe you should go write google your complain!

I always do have the current manual on my Tablet, so if i need to read it, i am not using the internet to download anything.

1. Googling "grand ma 3 documentation" immediately results in the correct link at the very top with absolutely zero ambiguity

2. Googling "blender documentation"immediately results in the correct link at the very top with absolutely zero ambiguity

3. Googling "chamsys documentation" immediately results in the correct link at the very top with absolutely zero ambiguity

4. Googling "midas m32 documentation" immediately results in the correct link at the very top with absolutely zero ambiguity

5. Googling "[insert name of software designed by company that focused on user experience here] documentation" immediately results in the correct link at the very top with absolutely zero ambiguity

Finally, Googling "etc eos documentation" results in an extremely incorrect link at the top that looks exactly like the correct link and the correct link is the third result and is labeled such that it looks like the incorrect link. You can't even get to the correct link through ETC's website. This is absolutely absurd. 

And people go around saying "RTFM", and then when you do go "rtfm", the company has their SEO setup in such a way that you can't even find the right f-ing manual.

And this forum post has absolutely nothing to do with documentation; that should tell you something. I did consult documentation before making this post.

Why would you use Google first, if you could go to the website of the manufacturer instead? Google is the one at fault here, not ETC.

PS. It seems that you are a bit frustrated using the software as well. I was too in the beginning, coming from another console. It helped me enormously to do an in-person training for just one day. 

"You can't even get to the correct link through ETC's website. This is absolutely absurd." The search algorithm on the website is just as half-assed as the search algorithm in the macro editor, and even when you finally get it to return something, it doesn't even return the html version but instead returns the pdf version that takes 7.2 billion years to load and apparently isn't the correct version anyway. 

Yeah, so every company is responsible for their own SEO. There is nobody at Google who is responsible for making sure each lighting console company sets up their SEO properly for their documentation.

The first problem I had was with pretty advanced OSC syntax that was horribly documented, then there was something else I forget, and then it was this problem, that I don't think anyone else in the history of using Eos would have seen as a major problem since I don't know why anyone else would be dependent on "Chan 1 at - 0" behaving as expected. I depend on that because I'm writing my own algorithms that drastically increase Eos's capabilities.