-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Eric Scace K3NA <eric@k3na.org>
> Hi Randy et al --
>
> We are seeing a blizzard of rules proposals and counter-proposals.
> But we don't actually know if there is a "problem" yet with CW skimmers.
>
> Rather than changing rules, let's do this:
>
> 1. For the next two years, when reporting a score, also answer this
> question:
> "Did you use a CW Skimmer or its equivalent?"
> This question applies to all entrants: single op and multi-op.
>
> 2. Publish the line scores with a mark indicating the answer to that
> question.
>
> 3. In 2010 June, review the results of the past two years to determine
> a) Does the use of a CW skimmer have a material impact on scores?
> b) If yes, do the award categories need to be changed in some way?
> Or is disclosure sufficient?
>
> -- Eric K3NA
Hi Eric:
If the Skimmer was just a single program which was roughly frozen at its
current capabilities, I would agree with you. However, I think
it will rapidly evolve and that others will create programs with greater
capabilities. Taking the basic skimmer technology and creating a "robot"
which would totally automate working the stations is a logical next
step.
Two years is a VERY long time. I think a discussion of whether we as a
community want to draw a line before contests are being won by
automated stations is appropriate now.
73,
Mark, KD4D
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|