[UK-CONTEST] N1MM in UK

Sat Feb 18 08:08:17 EST 2006

Tom, I wasn't arguing that point. In fact I agree with you, the old .LOG 
format and separate summary sheet was better, BUT, the current rules 
state what I have said, and if I was to enter the 21/28 Contest again 
under its current format, or any other RSGB HF Contest,  I would do 
exactly as required by the rules and submit a Cabrillo log. I would 
however make it clear what section I was in.

One of the problems we have is that many of our rules were written 
before computer logging was invented and the scoring and categories now 
do not line up in with
other generally accepted systems. It is a dilemma for those that set the 
rules. In the early days we used to say that the tail should not wag the 
dog, ie the software should not dictate the rules. Things have changed, 
Cabrillo now dictates the rules and maybe other apects should follow also

We are in accord Tom.

Chris G3SJJ

Tom Wylie wrote:

> I have to disagree with SJJ on this one and it wont be for the first 
> time..
>
> As a contest adjudicator (21/28 Mhz - though for how much longer I 
> dont know), Cabrillo has little or
> no relevance.   The old summary sheet was much better.
>
> I have great difficulty in deciding exactly which section an entrant 
> is entering -
>
> |Multi - all - low"    has little relevanct to the stated sections of 
> the Contest and if they are fortunate (or unfortunate - as the case 
> might be) to state their antenna, then it gives a more definitive 
> opportunity to decide whether it is restrict or not.
>
> Very few overseas entrants complete the cabrillo form adequately or 
> properly to give the information the RSGB requires.   Cabrillo was 
> written by americans, for americans, for american contests and we have 
> tried to capitalise on this for our own ends.
>
> It is of little use when adjudicating one of the bigger GB Logs, when 
> 90% of the QSOs are unique
>
> Therefore I have taken a step backwards and do the logs manually - 
> when a summary sheet is very helpful.   At least it has all the 
> relevant information.
>
> Either that - or the RSGB re-does its definition of open and 
> restricted - to high and low power - where the antenna is irelevant.   
> We seem to have gone down that road as far as the QRP section is 
> concerned, when you are restricted by power, but not antenna.
>
> Tom
> GM4FDM
>
> G3SJJ wrote:
>
>> Not sure about your logic here Dave. Cabrillo does not support points 
>> allocation although there is space in the header, the rules for RSGB 
>> HF Contests don't require a summary sheet and claimed score listings 
>> are no longer published. There is ano call for claimes scores to be 
>> submitted in the General Rulkes unless you are submitting paper log, 
>> whatever they are!!
>>
>> Can't think that I have calculated scores for such as 160m Contests 
>> or Field Days for several years now. There is certainly a case for a 
>> sanity check on your own log to weed out any funnies and I have used 
>> Excel to do that over a number of years. There is a program called 
>> SH5 which pulls out some good check and stats now.
>>
>> I was amused by a request, I think on this Reflector, for Wronglog to 
>> support AFS scoring. Yer what? Presumably the guy had difficulty with 
>> adding a zero into his Q total!! I guess AFS points could come down 
>> to 1 point per Q now. The only reason it was put at 10, as I recall, 
>> was to allow points deduction for errors in the exchange, ie 3 points 
>> per error. That has since been abolished. So for AFS and Cumulatives 
>> you only need a program that will accept an incoming serial number 
>> and produce a Cabrillo file. Can't think that I have had an NA, WL or 
>> MM file rejected.
>>
>> The requirement for multi-operators in such as IOTA, CW and SSB Field 
>> Day, LP FD and the old 21/28 contests are different in that 
>> networking and Cluster are vital. I always found NA to be very easy 
>> to set-up and WL was abominable. I think this is where N1MM really 
>> comes in to its own apart as well as all the other good things about it.
>>
>> 73 Chris G3SJJ
>>
>>
>> G3RXP wrote:
>>
>>  
>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________________
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "G3SJJ" <g3sjj at btinternet.com>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [UK-CONTEST] N1MM in UK
>>>
>>>
>>> . With the Cabrillo  standard now, there is no requirement to submit 
>>> a claimed score and the
>>>  
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>>> logging program doesn't need this facility. Therefore, scoring during
>>>> and after most RSGB HF Contests is unnecessary.
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> I agree with you on the lack of scoring info per contact in the 
>>> Cabrillo file , however I would never send a log off without having 
>>> a claimed score. It not only gives the station a good idea on how he 
>>> is doing during but also for scrutiny after the test.
>>> I would not accept any logs as an adjudicator without a claimed score.
>>>
>>> So having a program that's scores correctly is a big benefit, saying 
>>> that I do use N1MM most of the time now, and checking the log after 
>>> the contest is essential.
>>>
>>> PS -  Thanks for your input re- N1MM and the 160 scoring in the  
>>> RSGB Test.
>>>
>>> Dave G3RXP
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> UK-Contest mailing list
>>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>>     
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> UK-Contest mailing list
>> UK-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/uk-contest
>>
>>
>>   
>
>
>