>
> Kelly,
>
> > 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".
>
> You do not have the right to define the debate on your own terms.
> "Assistance" has always been a shorthand to define a situation
> where information was provided BY ANOTHER OPERATOR who was not
> actually making the contacts. The "assisted" entry category was
> created as a way to avoid the need to combine those who used
> packet/internet "alerting networks" into the multi-operator,
> single-transmitter class. "Assistance" has always been about
> the additional operator and not the presence or absence of
> productivity enhancing technology.
>
> In order to claim that "assistance" includes product enhancing
> technology, ALL productivity enhancing technologies - including
> electronic keyers, memory keyers, voice keyers, computer logging,
> computer duping, CW decoding, multiple radios/receivers (i.e. SO#R),
> band scopes, propagation predicting software, third party history
> files, third party SCP databases and every other technology that
> eliminates or reduces the user input necessary to operate a contest
> must be considered assistance. To argue that technologies that have
> been used individually or in limited combinations for many years
> (SO2R/second receiver, CW decoders, bandscopes and a "bandmap")
> suddenly becomes another person when combined into one piece of
> software is not credible.
>
> Arguing that if one places one technological implementation into
> the "assisted class" the individual components of that technology
> must also be assistance is not a red herring. It is hubris to
> argue that one implementation of the technology is a suddenly the
> equivalent of a non-licensed second operator. That technology has
> the ability to do what a human operator can do it not new. If the
> technology did not have the ability to relive the human operator
> of some portion of the effort necessary to operate the station -
> none of if would be used.
>
> Again, "assisted" is an artifact of the attempt to avoid the need
> for those who accept "assistance" from other operators from being
> reclassified as multi-single. Skimmer is not another operator and
> does not belong in the "operator" classification any more than any
> other productivity enhancing technology like, for example, SO#R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of ve4xt@mts.net
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 11:21 AM
> > To: Joe Subich, W4TV; 'Kerr,Prof. K.M.'; 'Michael Coslo';
> > 'cq-contesting cq-contest'
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> >
> >
> > 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|