[Cwo] Mult rule change - and announce

[Alan Maenchen]

I just don't want to get caught in a chicken-egg thing.  Yes, someone at
N1MM promised to do something, but they didn't say what or when. I get a bit
nervous with such lack of commitment. My "project manager" ears perk up. I
hate to just beat on folks directly.  Indirect force is often more
effective. I'm thinking of mass hammering from users... but how to get them
to do that?  Once N1MM is committed, then we can mention them and that
becomes the hammer. But that isn't there yet.

BTW, I noticed DL1EFD has written several Writelog contest modules. I sent
him a note a few days ago asking if he could do one for CWO, but got no
reply.

Rob,  do you have a list of magazines and such (newsletters) to go out to
initially?  I've already covered JA with 59DX, but should hit them again.
Roland gave his ideas for EU.  I used to have a file with many
magazines/newsletters for CQP but now it's hopelessly out of date.  Still,
if I can find it at home it may be a good starting point. Let's come up with
a list now.

My thoughts about publicity:
1)  hit all the magazines, newsletters, and web calendars that we can find.
Now. Assume a 2 month publishing delay.
2)  Build up our CWO web site so it looks ready even if it may not be done
behind the scenes. By June?
3)  Go out with individual spam (I hate to go that far, but it works .. and
it isn't like we're trying to sell soap)... Aug 1 and again Aug 15?

other ideas?

Alan




On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:58 PM, <k6rb at baymoon.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.kkn.net/pipermail/cwo/attachments/20110505/74cd4f9f/attachment.html