Lets just go back to no computers allowed, no internet spots
no computer dupe checking -- big paper dupe sheets, etc.
HI -- GL
73 Hny/MX
Dave N4DB
----- Original Message ----
From: Dave Hachadorian <k6ll@arrl.net>
To: Towertalk reflector <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 12:25:54 PM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW + Skimmer
The rule is now LESS clear because Skimmer is mentioned. Is
Skimmer allowed in broadband mode (to find EVERY CQ'ing station,
on EVERY band), or only narrowband mode (used only as a
single-signal code reader)? If you allow broadband mode, the
entire nature of the contest changes.
My suggestion would be to return to the original rule, and add:
"Broadband code readers (> 3 KHz input bandwidth) are not
allowed.
NCJ is not the only contest sponsor struggling with Skimmer
issues. The Stew Perry 160 contest just went through a
last-minute re-write of the rules addressing "Skimmer-like
devices."
Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
Yuma, AZ
-----Original Message-----
From: Aldewey@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:38 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW + Skimmer
I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on
this
subject on behalf of NCJ.
When multi-channel band decoders for CW started to show up
several years
ago, there were strong feelings on both sides of this issue.
Some felt
strongly that, as long as there was no assistance from any source
outside the
station , including the Internet and packet cluster of course,
than it should
be treated like any other technological advance. Others felt
that is it
indistinguishable from packet spotting assistance and even,
perhaps,
superior to it.
Although NCJ does not have an official "Contest Committee",
issues related
to the NCJ contests are discussed among all the NCJ contest
managers.
Often, input is solicited from others also. Final decisions rest
with the
Contest Manager for each of the 6 contests we sponsor. For the
Sprints, it was
obvious that the allowing the use of multi-channel band decoders
made no
sense because of the QSY rule. It really came down to being an
issue for
the CW NAQP. We decided to allow it in the Single Operator Class
as long as
there was no connection via the internet or any other outside
source. In
2009, the NAQP rule was changed to state:
"Technological methods of copying the information in the contest
exchange
are permitted as long as they are entirely contained within the
station."
This rule was intended to allow technologies like CW Skimmer as
long as
they were self contained within the station. It has been in
place for two
years. Ironically, because we did NOT get any feedback on this,
we began to
suspect that they rule was unclear. Did some people, perhaps,
think this
was referring to MASTERDAT and Contest Exchange Data bases? So,
for 2011,
we change the rule to state:
"Technological methods of copying the information in the contest
exchange
(e.g. CW Skimmer, Code Readers, etc.) are permitted as long as
all
components are entirely contained within the station."
So we have not CHANGED the rule - we have only CLARIFIED it.
Also, we understand the danger of identifying a specific tool
such as CW
Skimmer in the rules but, at this point in time, this is what
contesters are
aware of. This is why we identified it as an example. As new
technologies arrive, this will have to be revisited. The fact
that adding CW Skimmer
as an example rather than just using the words "technological
methods" sort
of proves this point.
I realize that this is a very sensitive subject. In fact, I
cover this
topic in a little more detail in my editorial for the Jan/Feb ,
2011 issue of
NCJ. I also realize that this will not make everyone happy.
Personally,
I do not plan to use CW Skimmer myself in NAQP as I enjoy the
challenge of
finding the multipliers myself.
73,
Al, K0AD
In a message dated 12/23/2010 6:47:48 A.M. Central Standard Time,
k1ttt@verizon.net writes:
that just goes to prove my point that brand names should be
avoided. CW
Skimmer is well known for generating spotting information so many
people see
that name and assume that is its only purpose. but it also makes
a nice
audio passband code reader. In this case it is lumped in with
'code
readers' for copy 'exchange information', after specifically
excluding all
sources of spotting information... so 'obviously' the writer of
the rule change
understands that it can be used just as a code reader and wants
to allow
that while excluding the user from decoding a whole band for
spotting
purposes. While this is an improvement over other ways of
writing the rule, it
would still be better to leave off that brand name software and
just state
that audio bandwidth code readers are ok for making contacts.
Dec 23, 2010 06:44:53 AM, daven2nl@gmail.com wrote:
I normally bite my tongue when these discussions come up,
however
I'm quite surprised and even more disappointed at the apparent
rule
change in the NAQP that allows local CW Skimmer usage by single
operators. I am curious how this rule change came about - was
there any
previous discussion? Does NCJ even have a contest committee?
Granted, I may not currently have a dog in this fight since I am
currently stationed overseas, however the NAQP has always been a
favorite contest of mine, and I was fortunate to have had a
measure of
success over the past decade of participating in the CW event. I
most
certainly was planning on participating competitively again upon
reassignment stateside. With some prior knowledge of the NAQP,
the way
I see it, there are three basic requirements for a top finish in
this
event:
(1) A favorable geographical location with good propagation (I.E
West
Coast in January; W9 and W4 in August).
(2) A relatively good station, preferably SO2R capable.
(3) The skill set required to effectively S&P and operate SO2R
while
maintaining rate, with an understanding of propagation.
Perennial top
ops such as W9RE, N2IC, KL9A, and N6MJ usually rack up anywhere
from
200-400 QSOs through effective SO2R technique, which separates
them from
the rest. This is a true showing of skill and operator prowess.
By adding a local skimmer, much of (3) is negated. In a minute
or
two, the CW Skimmer user can see *every station CQing on every
band*.
Every band opening. Every multiplier is shown. Sure - Skimmer
picks up
a lot of garbage, but it is easy to know that W0BH is in Kansas
and my
skimmer sees him on 10m where I need the state for a mult. It
does not
matter how good W9RE or N2IC is at skill set (3) above, because
the
computerized 2nd op of the CW Skimmer user will find it first in
almost
every instance.
As a result, this rule change has serious implications which
puts
it separate from other contesting advances the Skimmer proponent
uses as
a defense. CW memory keyers and computer logging does not find
QSOs for
you. CW Skimmer does. With the elimination of (3) above, is
there
really any point in competing anyway? Sure - there are still
some
skills required, such as timing with SO2R, but the unscrupulous
op only
needs to blast away without an interlock.
Again, I am disappointed that this change came about without
even
consulting with the perennial top finishers who have operated
this
contest for years. In my opinion, the change should have been
the
addition of an "unlimited" category, which allows single
operators to
use packet, a local skimmer, or the Reverse Beacon Network.
There are
no certificates issued for this contest, so I don't believe a
new
category would cause much heartache for the sponsors. I still
fail to
understand the psyche that seemingly portrays "Assisted"
category
participants in a negative light. This psyche leads people to
either
lie that they were unassisted, or try to force feed these game
changing
rules into the "One man and his radio" historical Single
Operator Category.
73, Dave KH2/N2NL
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|