[Cwo] Mult rule change - and announce

[k6rb at baymoon.com]

This is very good, Alan. As for publicity and mentioning logging programs,
I can't recall any other contest making a big deal about which logging
programs support it. We should just keep hammering away at N1MM. If that
single entity supports us, we're home, because anyone can download it for
free, as opposed to WriteLog, which costs money. And, frankly, I could
care less about WIN-TEST. If we get a big EU turnout, the WIN-TEST folks
will have had to download N1MM, and will probably give WIN-TEST an earful,
later. So, the heck with 'em.

Ideally, I'd like to see N1MM and WriteLog support us. As you know, I sent
emails to both. Pete mentioned something about an "N3" or "K3" who said
it's a done deal with N1MM. Do you know about that?

I thought I might try to write a module for WriteLog but it involves
knowing a decent amount about C++ programming, and I know zilch about C++.
We could put something out on the CWops reflector asking if any of the
members might be able to help out, but let's hold off until after the DC
dinner (this weekend).

I was thinking that maybe N5RR, who wrote CWops Award Manager (CAM)
software, might be able to help us?

Meanwhile, I think we can publicize this event without having any logging
programs mentioned. Let the people who are interested inquire of N1MM,
WriteLog, and others about whether they intend to support it. When we know
for sure that one or more are doing so, we'll announced it. I don't want
to announce the minor-league players because it will detract from the
credibility of the event, right now.

Rob K6RB

> Attached is rules rev 8.
>
> I got a very confused reply from an old friend, DK3GI about what is a
> mult.
> The term "unique" is evidently very solidly defined in contesting as being
> a
> call that appears ONCE on ONE log during the contest.  We thought this
> might
> be a problem earlier, but I didn't think it would be serious. It is
> serious,
> especially for a non-English speaker.  So, I've changed the wording and
> eliminated the word "unique".
>
>
> On another front; publicity.  I've been waiting until we get rules on the
> web site and resolving issues like this mult rule before going out to
> publications. I think we're at that point now although the web site is
> still
> not ready yet.  The big hole I see is the lack of software support. We've
> gotten "we'll put it on our list of things to do" by both N1MM and
> Writelog.
> Win Test gave no indication of even receiving our request, and N6TV
> doesn't
> think we will. N3FJP said NO (he seems to be dropping support for anything
> now). However, GenLog and SD both seem enthusiastic and said they will
> support us.
>
> The question is what to say about logging support in our announcement. I
> don't want to delay, but I do want to indicate that CWO will be supported
> by
> "most" loggers and actually list the loggers we know are on board. The
> problem is that GenLog and SD are bit players. I suppose we could point to
> those two and thus embarrass the others for lack of support? Might be
> self-defeating.   Suggestions?  Word-smithing is everything.  ;-)
>
> Rob has a short announcement that looks good, but makes no mention of
> this.
> I seem to have misplaced it.
>
> Tks & 73,  Alan  AD6E
> _______________________________________________
> Cwo mailing list
> Cwo at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>