This issue has me concerned about the future of contesting, especially CW
contesting, my real interest. Now that I think about it, I agree that we
should not have to record the contests, or to list the frequencies
(although it is recommended if possible). I will offer part of a direct
email from W4PA (I am pretty sure Scott would not mind) where he makes the
following observation:
"Given the history of non-interference over technical developments, my
feeling is that it will be allowed for unassisted single ops, and that will
be the end of finding packet cheaters."
Scott is correct. If we allow machines to copy the CW for us, it opens up a
whole Pandora's box of issues. A Skimmer code reader, with real time
frequency links and real time text covering signals over a broad swath of a
band would require any serious competitor to adopt this technology or be
left behind. It makes any "signature" of packet cheating almost impossible
to detect. It's feasible from a technological standpoint. For me,
personally, I think that would end competitive contesting. It has to come
sooner or later, I suppose, but I don't want it to end this way.
Therefore I would propose that all CW (and SSB) contests include
prohibitions against any form of artificial CW (or voice) detection and
copying. Let RTTY and other digital modes lead the technology in that
direction. Stay with "brain decoding" of CW and voice, and strive to
preclude cheating based on sophisticated decoding and packet assistance. I
believe that this just might be the place where we say that technology, per
se, will not be allowed to take radio sporting off the historical track of
mental and physical capability and determination. There is precedence: golf
(limits on balls and certain clubs) and baseball (wood bats), for instance.
Jim George N3BB
At 07:00 PM 3/11/2008 -0500, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>As much as I have full and utmost respect for Jim and his abilities, I have
>to side with Ron on this one, not just for the reasons that Ron elucidates
>so well, but also for the fact that it amounts to the presumption of guilt,
>which goes against everything we've strived to create in today's society and
>violates tenets that date back to the Magna Carta.
>
>Presuming the guilt of everyone for the sake of a handful of cheaters is a
>complete perversion of natural justice.
>
>We would fight to the death if the police tried such a tactic on something
>meaningful like homicide or fraud, why do we give in so easily when it
>applies to something as trivial as amateur radio contesting?
>
>It is also why I'm opposed to any proposal that requires complete recordings
>of contests.
>
>Harrison Bergeron's got nothing on Winston Smith.
>
>(One's a Vonnegut reference, the other is Orwellian.)
>
>73, kelly
>ve4xt
>
>ps: Jim, I hope this doesn't mean I can't stop by sometime when I'm in
>Austin...
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ron Notarius W3WN" <wn3vaw@verizon.net>
>To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 4:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get out of jail free card
>
>
> > Oh? Really?
> >
> > So what you're telling us is that anyone running an older radio (like a
> > Ten
> > Tec Corsair, or a Drake TR4C-Sherwood, or for that matter any radio that
> > doesn't have a computer interface) can't compete for an award because they
> > don't have the capability of storing the QSO frequency?
> >
> > Thanks. Nice to know I'm DQ'd from winning anything before I turn the
> > radio
> > on. Way to go.
> >
> > Sorry Jim. In your zeal to ferret out cheaters and cheating, you're also
> > severly impacting those of us who manage to be somewhat competitive with
> > equipment that didn't just come off the boat. Or are you saying that only
> > those who can afford to buy the latest and greatest deserve to compete?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Jim George
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:46 AM
> > To: Joe, K8FC; Scott Robbins
> > Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Get out of jail free card
> >
> >
> > Good point. This is a key. It will be important for the contest sponsors
> > to
> > require the frequency of the QSOs be part of the database submitted in the
> > Cabrillo files. That should make a "signature" clear. The upcoming RDXC
> > does just that.
> >
> > Jim George N3BB
> >
> > At 02:03 PM 3/10/2008 -0600, Joe, K8FC wrote:
> >
> >
> >>snip
> >
> >
> >
> >> it seems to me that any log
> >>submitted by a station using the tactics you have outlined would obviously
> >>show like a sore thumb. Let's say the station was bouncing around using
> > the
> >>skimmer output, the log would show the various frequency transitions in a
> >>short period of time. No way a non-assisted station would be S&P up and
> >>down the band and logging qso's one right after another. To me it would
> >>be
> >>very obvious. Effective S&P methods deem that you cover the band in a
> >>linear fashion as to not miss the possible mults.
> >>
> >>73's
> >>
> >>/joe k8fc
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|