The problem with this whole discussion is that the "dead horse" becomes very
alive when you talk about enforcement. I'm 'relatively' new to contesting
(15 years or so). From my perspective, the honor system has always been
trusted as a way to know if contest participants were cheating or not. As
our contest log checking has become more sophisticated we are finding out
that some contest participants are potentially less honorable than others -
maybe. Tools like DX Clusters, Skimmer, Live scores, chat rooms, etc. all
call for clarification of the rules that are currently in place.
I would propose that each contest sponsor make specific clarifications with
their contest announcements about technological updates over the past year
that may effect the implementation of the rules. We would still be relying
on the honor system, but at least that eliminates the current gray areas
that exist due to the fact that the rules don't always address new
technologies directly, and are therefore left up to the interpretation of
the contest participant.
There is a difference between a contestant who plays within the rules, but
is able to exploit all the advantages of those rules (i.e. enough hardware
[read money] for an SO2R setup, stacked monobanders, new rigs with roofing
filters and dsp, etc.) and a contestant who stretches the rules to gain an
advantage. Skimmer is a stretch.
73 de Al, KE1FO
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Scott Robbins <w4pa@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The "assisted" category always referred to operators receiving
> information
> >indirectly from other operators via the packet cluster or similar
> networks.
>
> It does not refer to that at all in the CQ WW rules.
>
> The rules say (verbatim):
>
> "The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the station in the
> Single
> Operator Assisted category."
>
> It doesn't say "The use of DX packet cluster, the use of Telnet on the
> Internet, the use of 2M FM repeaters..." or anything else.
>
> It says: DX alerting assistance of any kind.
>
> If I have a piece of software that is alerting me and pointing my
> attention to
> stations on the bands that I have not worked, that I have not found, that
> I
> have not copied the callsign of by ear - that is definitely DX alerting
> assistance. It doesn't specify WHO or HOW that assistance is obtained.
>
> Is a piece of software that copies callsigns and tells you where they are
> assistance? You bet it is.
>
> We can take the rules even further.
>
> Verbatim from CQ WW rules:
>
> "Single Operator High: Those stations at which one person performs all of
> the
> operating, logging, and spotting functions."
>
> Those stations at which one PERSON performs ... SPOTTING functions.
>
> A piece of computer software decoding CW signals is not a person
> performing a
> spotting function. If the callsign is decoded by a method other than the
> human
> ear, that is not a person spotting a callsign, it's a machine. A
> computer. A
> computer is not a person. The rule says PERSON. Not person operating a
> computer that spots the callsigns for you.
>
> There are actually two parts to this discussion we are having on this
> forum at
> the moment. One is: What should CW contesting be? The other is: What
> is
> allowed within the rules of a given CW contest?
>
> Scott W4PA
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|