WN3VAW added, after raising example of a same-as-an-existing contest
that's fully enshrined in Cabrillo:
>To put it another way, IMHO (YMMV): If a contest claims to be using a
>Cabrillo-style format, then somewhere in the fine print they should state
>WHICH of the existing defined formats they are using. If they are doing so,
>I have no problem calling it "Cabrillo." But if they've gone off and done
>their own thing, then it's not.
Exactly - work with what is in the spec. Use an existing QSO template
& refer to it as given in the Cabrillo spec. Do not add anything that is
not in the spec. There will be no defined contest-name for such
contests, but the soapbox-field could be used for that (or RDA number or
whatever). This then leaves one deviation: either no contest-name field or
one that is blank - something you simply can't get around as the Cabrillo
spec is obviously an opt-in deal (for example, Asia-Pacific Sprint only is
in there because we asked for it - puny little contest obviously isn't
something somebody is going to decide to include for us ;^).
Things get really messy when new QSO templates or unique things for
the summary sheet bits are devised. I think there are one or two
contests that have their unique bits in the Cabrillo spec, but still have
bits that are not. Simply get it in the spec, or work with what we've
already got. Otherwise, everyone has to go & figure out what that
contest wants as they've essentially hijacked Cabrillo.
Of course, all of this assumes that Cabrillo was ever meant to be
what we were hoping it would become.
73 & H(L)NY (you too, Hans), VR2BrettGraham
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|