Joe is 100% right, logical in the true spirit of ham-spirit.
Contesting is a technological sport, including mastering of technology,
operating skills and knowledge of propagation.
Yuri, K3BU.us
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"
Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:28 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: 'Steve London' , cq-contest@contesting.com
>
> > I'm sure that the log adjudicators will be setting up a
> > private network of skimmers that they will log into to grab
> > skimmer spots through the skimmer telnet interface. That will
> > provide a database of skimmer spots that will be used for
> > later detection of skimmer cheaters.
>
> No skimmer network can duplicate the skimmer spots I receive
> from my own copy of Skimmer running on the S&P radio. That
> is totally contained in my station and not the product of any
> other operator. The use of a locally run, non-networked
> Skimmer is no different than a memory keyer or computer
> logging with history file and super check partial. Perhaps
> less "assistance" than history and SCP files complied by
> OTHERS!
>
> Skimmer technology will change contesting just as the
> memory keyer, DVK and computer logging have changed
> contesting. However, the technology horse is out of
> the barn and half way to town - unless you are willing
> to "ban" all technology to the assisted category, a
> precedent has already been set that says technology
> is fine as long as it does not involve another operator
> during the contest.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve London
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:33 PM
> > To: Pete Smith; cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Pete Smith
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that it will be almost impossible to detect
> a
> > > > decisive level of cheating. The statistical methods used
> > to detect
> > > > packet cheaters simply
> > > > won't work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bzzzt.
> > > >
> > > > With several network skimmers located at various places,
> > all feeding
> > > > their telnet outputs to a single database, the same
> statistical
> > > > methods used to detect packet cheaters can be used to
> > detect skimmer
> > > > cheaters.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not talking about the reverse beacon network, Steve -
> > I'm talking
> > > about using a Skimmer to feed your logging program locally.
> There
> > > will be no network benchmark for those.
> >
> >
> > You have missed my point.
> >
> > I'm sure that the log adjudicators will be setting up a
> > private network of skimmers that they will log into to grab
> > skimmer spots through the skimmer telnet interface. That will
> > provide a database of skimmer spots that will be used for
> > later detection of skimmer cheaters.
> >
> > This will work every bit as well as using packet spot history
> > to detect packet cheaters.
> >
> > 73,
> > Steve, N2IC
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|