CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

To: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>, "'Kerr, Prof. K.M.'" <k.kerr@abdn.ac.uk>, "'Michael Coslo'" <mjc5@psu.edu>, "'cq-contesting cq-contest'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
From: <ve4xt@mts.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:21:29 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
It seems the only people now arguing that computer logging, auto-tune 
amplifiers or the like should 
constitute "assistance" are those arguing for the unfettered release of Skimmer 
into the contesting 
ethos.

It has always been clear, spelled out in many rules, that "assisted" classes 
refer to those operators 
receiving spotting information (callsigns and QRGs, not merely spikes on a 
bandscope). There has never 
been a mention of automation of the administrivia of contesting being 
"assistance". 

So to argue that to place Skimmer into "assisted" classes means that you must 
also place any other 
automated feature of a station into assisted is simply a red herring. The smart 
readers of this forum 
have not bought into that particular bit of seafood.

I am not anti-Skimmer: but I do not buy the argument that our forefathers 
intended to restrict the 
definition of assistance only to that information coming from other people. 
Spots are spots.

73, kelly
ve4xt

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>