Paul,
> It is worth repeating, because it is true: "There is
> general agreement that the use of skimmer puts us in
> the Unlimited (Assisted) category."
Regardless of what you say, it is *not true* that there is
*general agreement*. ARRL and the CQWW Contest Committee
may have codified *their view* into the rules for their
contests. That's fine as it protects the interests of the
entrenched group of elite/master operators who regularly
appear in the top 10 boxes and at the top of their respective
section/state/country listings. Those who disagree with the
dictates of the sponsors - and new hams who do not have an
anti-technology bias or a misunderstanding of history - will
vote with their logs and not enter the contests that stifle
technological experimentation.
However, the current Luddite-inspired rules *do not* mean
that there is *general agreement* that the position of those
two sponsoring organizations are right any more than their
acceptance of SO2R means their position on that technology
is right in the eyes of many amateurs.
Quite simply, attempting to pick and choose among technologies
to decide which technology belongs in which class is *wrong*.
Get back to the criteria "does it involve another person in
making or facilitating QSOs" and "is the equipment and antennas
used located within the prescribed boundaries of the station."
If you want a contest of pure operator skill, define a class
that limits the entrant to a single 100 W transceiver with a
single receiver and antennas no more than 1/4 wave tall or
longer than 1/2 wave and no more than 50 feet/15 meters above
ground at their highest point. Once you move beyond that point
technology enters the equation and the situation becomes one
not of operator skill but choosing the appropriate technology
for maximum advantage or limiting the choice of technology to
maximally disadvantage other entrants.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 9/17/2010 11:39 AM, Paul O'Kane wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"<lists@subich.com>
>
>> No, there is not "general agreement" that the use of
>> skimmer (when located within one's own station) should
>> put the operator in the unlimited category any more
>> than there is general agreement that the use of other
>> enhanced technology should not put one in the unlimited
>> category.
>
>
> Not true!
>
>
> 1. From the "General Rules for ARRL Contests Below 30 MHz"
> www.arrl.org/general-rules-for-arrl-contests-below-30-mhz
>
> 2.1.1. Use of ... multi-channel decoders such as
> CW Skimmer, etc) is not permitted.
>
>
> 2. From the CQWW 2010 Rules www.cqww.com/CQWW-Rules-2010.pdf
>
> A. Single Operator categories: ..... QSO alerting
> assistance of any kind (this includes, but is not
> limited to, packet, local or remote Skimmer and/or
> Skimmer-like technology, Internet) places the entrant
> in the Single Operator Assisted category.
>
>
> 3. From the CQ WPX Rules 2010 www.cqwpx.com/rules.htm
>
> (e) Use of QSO alerting assistance is limited to the
> Single Operator Assisted and Multi-Operator categories.
> QSO alerting assistance ... includes, but is not limited
> to ... local or remote call and frequency decoding
> technology (e.g., Skimmer)...
>
>
> 4. IOTA Contest 2010 www.rsgbcc.org/hf/rules/2010/riota.shtml
>
> 4.2 Operators:
> • Single operator QSO alerting assistance of any kind
> (this includes, but is no limited to, packet, local or
> remote Skimmer and/or Skimmer-like technology, Internet)
> places the entrant in the Single-operator Assisted
> category
>
>
> It is worth repeating, because it is true: "There is
> general agreement that the use of skimmer puts us in
> the Unlimited (Assisted) category."
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|