Randy,
> If I replaced the word skimmer with packet in your argument,
> then all the same issues would be true.
If you replace "skimmer" with "packet" one has an entirely
different situation. With packet the information is coming
from another OPERATOR and that, by definition, should place
one in the multi-op category. The "assisted" category has
been an attempt to avoid making those who choose to use packet
compete with the multi-operator stations.
No matter ho you feel about the technology, the use of skimmer
does not change the most fundamental "one operator performing
all functions" nature of the single operator entry and more
than memory keyers, voice keyers or computer logging (with
SCP, dupe checking, etc.) changed the fundamental nature of the
category. With Skimmer the operator must still tune the radio,
listen/verify the call, send the exchange and log the QSO just
as any other single operator.
Will skimmer change the way some people operate a CW contest?
Of course. Could it change the "competitive balance" and allow
operators in areas that are not geographically favored to be
more competitive by finding more multipliers? Certainly.
Technology always creates winners and losers. The early users
of CW wheels (mechanical memory keyers) and tape loops (early
voice keyers) had an advantage over mere mortals who did not
have the technology but there was no thought to creating an
"assisted" class or serious effort to band the technology.
Any attempt to marginalize skimmer by forcing its users into
as "assisted" category is nothing more than a petty attempt
by the elite and those who benefit from favored locations to
maintain the status quo and deny otherwise top operators a tool
that might give them a compensating advantage.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Randy Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:21 AM
> To: 'Pete Smith'; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>
>
> If I replaced the word skimmer with packet in your argument,
> then all the same issues would be true. If we are going to
> make categories based on cheating potential, then the only
> option appears to be combining all the single op categories
> into one. Anything goes.
>
> That would be sad for those of us who really enjoy the
> "classic" definition of single operator.
>
> I believe use of skimmer should put you in assisted.
> Anything that gives you calls and frequencies (and did not
> come from your own knob twisting and
> ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
> PS - For people who are honorable, the temptation to cheat is
> easily overcome.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:01 AM
> > To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
> >
> > In this week's radio-sport.net newsletter, there is an
> > excellent article on the current deliberations about how to
> > handle CW Skimmer in contest rules
> > (http://www.radio-sport.net/skimmer1.htm). According to the
> > article, ARRL and CQ rule-makers are in contact, and are
> > leaning toward putting Skimmer in the Assisted category.
> >
> > I can appreciate their dilemma, but hope that they will think
> > carefully about this. I am posting this here because I don't
> > know who to write, specifically, but I know it is likely they
> > will read it here.
> >
> > Take Sweepstakes and CQWW as examples. The most prestigious
> > category, by far, is single-op unassisted. If CW Skimmer is
> > banned in this category, the temptation to cheat will be
> > almost overwhelming. In SS, 50 additional QSOs over the last
> > 12 hours can make the difference between finishing fifth or
> > first. In CQWW, an extra 75-100 multipliers would be a
> > similarly huge advantage.
> >
> > The problem is that it will be almost impossible to detect a
> > decisive level of cheating. The statistical methods used to
> > detect packet cheaters simply won't work.
> >
> > In SS, I would use Skimmer to fill the bandmaps (in my
> > contest logger) for all the bands that are open at my QTH.
> > Then I would choose the one with the most activity, and go
> > either from the bottom down or the top up, working the
> > stations on the bandmap with my second radio. The pattern of
> > operation this would produce, for any log-based analysis,
> > would be indistinguishable from what a good unassisted
> > single-op would do.
> >
> > CQWW would be a little trickier, because of the importance of
> > multipliers. A covert Skimmer user would have to be careful
> > not to be too quick to grab multipliers as soon as they are
> > first skimmed, particularly if it produces a pattern of band
> > changes versus new mults that will show a "supernatural"
> > ability to know when a new mult shows up on a given band.
> > Again, the secret would probably be to change to a given band
> > and work your way up or down the bandmap in a way that mimics
> > how a non-Skimmer op would do it.
> >
> > I can hear some people reacting now - "Ooooh, he's telling
> > people how to cheat." C'mon, guys, I'm not the sharpest
> > blade in the drawer, and certainly not the most accomplished,
> > motivated or ingenious contester. Anything I can think of is
> > probably being mulled over by others right now, as we wait
> > for the rule-makers' decision(s). I just hope they won't make
> > a decision that makes the cheating problem worse.
> >
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > "If Skimmers are outlawed, only outlaws will have Skimmers"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|