> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-trlog@contesting.com [mailto:owner-trlog@contesting.com]On
> Behalf Of n6tr@teleport.com
> Sent: Monday, November 01, 1999 6:14 PM
> To: Clive_Whelan@compuserve.com; trlog@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [TRLog] Cabrillo
>
>
>
> > Is the Cabrillo file as produced by POST really a full and
> > acceptable file for CQ WW submission.
>
> Maybe - probably. I haven't written the software that reads the
> file yet, but I don't think there will be any issues (for those
> who don't know - I write the software used by the CQ WW Contest
> committee to check the logs).
>
> > I can't see how the dupes are visible to the checkers , but the
> > score is certainly the same as results from standard POST run.
>
> Dupes do not have to be marked in your log. The Cabrillo format does
> not allow them to be indicated. There are no dupe penalities for
> electronic logs - so it doesn't matter.
>
NO DUP penalties for electronic logs, since when? I never heard that?
Why would there be none? Is it because the contest administrators can throw
them
out automatically?
Is it because by definition an electronic log has no dups?
I guess I may not have read the rules lately!
> Tree
>
> --
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/trlogfaq.html
> Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
> Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
> Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/trlogfaq.html
Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
|