> If it quacks like a duck ....
>
Well, I have a little yellow rubber duckie that looks like a duck, floats
like a
duck, and quacks like a duck when you squeeze it (ducks will come down
out of the sky, land, and quack back). But come dinner time it's not a
duck.
If you want to call this thing an operator, then it's going to have to be an
operator. Or else we'll need a rules change. It's a possibility, so it
should
be discussed. But I'd suggest caution in asserting that it's an operator
under
the present rules.
Now, if you receive spots from a skimmer located outside of your station,
shared (networked) or private (outside your perimeter), then the duck
rule probably places you into the assisted or unlimited categories in most
contests that have such a thing. But the skimmer technology isn't limited
to
"spotting" and can be integrated into your operating position. It's useful
for band-awareness including many of the things that one might use a
spotting network for, but it's not a spotting network.
It quacks like a rubber duckie.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <n2qt@verizon.net>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dead horse: CQ WW rules apparently prohibit
CWSkimmeruse
> Since the spots output from the skimmer look like the spots from packet
> (ie callsign and freq) then it seems sensible that the two methods are
> also
> equivalent, ie assisted.
>
> If it quacks like a duck ....
>
> Mark n2qt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
> To: "'Scott Robbins'" <w4pa@yahoo.com>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dead horse: CQ WW rules apparently prohibit
> CWSkimmeruse
>
>
>>
>>> "The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the
>>> station in the Single Operator Assisted category."
>>>
>>> It doesn't say "The use of DX packet cluster, the use of
>>> Telnet on the Internet, the use of 2M FM repeaters..." or
>>> anything else.
>>
>> I don't know how one can consider CW Skimmer, as long as it
>> is running on hardware in the operator's own shack, to be "DX
>> alerting assistance" instead of simply a technological way to
>> operate an infinite number of simultaneous receivers. The
>> ability to copy CW by machine (WriteLog, CW Get, MixW, etc.)
>> has been around for many years ... unfortunately, CW Skimmer
>> only further extends, enhances and democratizes that ability.
>>
>> There are those of us who may not LIKE the technology and
>> believes that is devalues operator skill but there is nothing
>> that can be done to outlaw CW Skimmer any more than one can
>> outlaw CW decoders, memory keyers, mechanical pencils or
>> digital signal processing.
>>
>>> A piece of computer software decoding CW signals is not a
>>> person performing a spotting function. If the callsign is
>>> decoded by a method other than the human ear, that is not a
>>> person spotting a callsign, it's a machine. A computer. A
>>> computer is not a person. The rule says PERSON. Not person
>>> operating a computer that spots the callsigns for you.
>>
>> This logic would put any operator who uses CW decoding software
>> into the assisted (or multi operator) category. The logic is
>> simply flawed ... every operator "Spots" a station calling CQ
>> before they work them. Simply put, your logic would require
>> that we drive cars using reins and verbal commands instead of
>> a steering wheel and foot pedals.
>>
>> Technology drives change which drives innovation which drives
>> technology. The cycle is called progress and there is no
>> much that anyone can do to stop progress.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Scott Robbins
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:41 AM
>>> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
>>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Dead horse: CQ WW rules apparently
>>> prohibit CW Skimmeruse
>>>
>>>
>>> >The "assisted" category always referred to operators receiving
>>> >information indirectly from other operators via the packet
>>> cluster or
>>> >similar networks.
>>>
>>> It does not refer to that at all in the CQ WW rules.
>>>
>>> The rules say (verbatim):
>>>
>>> "The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the
>>> station in the Single Operator Assisted category."
>>>
>>> It doesn't say "The use of DX packet cluster, the use of
>>> Telnet on the Internet, the use of 2M FM repeaters..." or
>>> anything else.
>>>
>>> It says: DX alerting assistance of any kind.
>>>
>>> If I have a piece of software that is alerting me and
>>> pointing my attention to stations on the bands that I have
>>> not worked, that I have not found, that I have not copied the
>>> callsign of by ear - that is definitely DX alerting
>>> assistance. It doesn't specify WHO or HOW that assistance is
>>> obtained.
>>>
>>> Is a piece of software that copies callsigns and tells you
>>> where they are assistance? You bet it is.
>>>
>>> We can take the rules even further.
>>>
>>> Verbatim from CQ WW rules:
>>>
>>> "Single Operator High: Those stations at which one person
>>> performs all of the operating, logging, and spotting functions."
>>>
>>> Those stations at which one PERSON performs ... SPOTTING functions.
>>>
>>> A piece of computer software decoding CW signals is not a
>>> person performing a spotting function. If the callsign is
>>> decoded by a method other than the human ear, that is not a
>>> person spotting a callsign, it's a machine. A computer. A
>>> computer is not a person. The rule says PERSON. Not person
>>> operating a computer that spots the callsigns for you.
>>>
>>> There are actually two parts to this discussion we are having
>>> on this forum at the moment. One is: What should CW
>>> contesting be? The other is: What is
>>> allowed within the rules of a given CW contest?
>>>
>>> Scott W4PA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> ______________________
>>> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
>>> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
>>> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|