Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>> If Skimmer acts like Packet WE DON’T LIKE IT! If Skimmer is
>> even nearly as efficient as the world wide spotting network
>> now it WILL MAKE THE UN-ASSISTED CLASS MEANINGLESS. We do
>> everything to avoid it in this case.
>
> It simply DOES NOT MATTER whether you like it or not - if you
> don’t like it, don't use it.
>
> The rules do not prohibit technology or we would not have
> memory keyers, computer logging, history files and SCP. The
> rules speak only to participation by individuals other than
> the station operator.
Not strictly true! Take the 2007 CQWW rules as an example
(http://www.cqww.com/2007_rules_cqww.pdf)...
Section III.A.1 Single Operator High: Those stations at which _one_
_person_ performs all of the operating, logging, _and_ _spotting_
_functions_. The use of _DX_ _alerting_ _assistance_ _of_ _any_ _kind_
places the station in the Single Operator Assisted category. (my
emphasis on the underlined parts)
I haven't checked the specific wording in the WPX or ARRL rules, but I
think it's fair to say the CQWW rules are quite clear that Skimmer would
place an entrant in the Assisted category due to Skimmer being "DX
alerting assistance".
Andrew AC6WI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|