The proposal was that all scores, in every category, would disclose
whether a skimmer was used during the period up to the June 2010 review.
If it was determined then that skimmer had an enormous impact on scores,
then those scores can be backed out of the record tables.
on 08 Jun 04 Wed 17:26 Bill Tippett said the following:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:06 PM, <w1md@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
> But if "Skimmer" was part of the "Assisted" category then your "unassisted"
>
>> record wouldn't be affected...or did I miss something in the translation?
>> I'm assuming your 10m SBSO effort was of the unassisted kind...
>>
>
>
> Correct, but the issue on the table is whether Skimmer
> constitutes assistance. Yes my records were all unassisted. I
> also had a competitor who claimed his multiplier totals (comparable
> to multi-multis) were because he was using the Sub receiver in
> his FT-1000MP <ggg>. I bet he also had a good Internet connection!
> ;-) BTW CQ reclassified him to Assisted at least a couple of times.
>
> Since it will be virtually impossible to distinguish Skimmer
> spots from Packet spots, I predict the next step in cheating will
> be to claim you're using Skimmer (if allowed for unassisted) even
> if you are actually using Packet (i.e. assisted). :-(
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|