I'm with Fabian, DJ1YFK. Let them use whatever they like.
Cheers,
Terry
G4MKP
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
cq-contest-request@contesting.com
Sent: 23 April 2008 03:42
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 64, Issue 31
Send CQ-Contest mailing list submissions to
cq-contest@contesting.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cq-contest-request@contesting.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
cq-contest-owner@contesting.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CQ-Contest digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (Michael Dinkelman)
2. Re: Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (doug smith)
3. Re: Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (Joe Subich, W4TV)
4. Re: Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (Steve London)
5. More Cheating (Doug Renwick)
6. Re: Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (Tod -ID)
7. Re: More Cheating (Peter Voelpel)
8. Re: Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (Pete Smith)
9. SNS Practice this week (Mike Wetzel)
10. Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (Ken Claerbout)
11. Re: Rule Change Debate on Skimmer (Ed Muns)
12. Re: Crown Plaza Room Still Needed (somata90924@mypacks.net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:08:25 -0700
From: Michael Dinkelman <mwdink@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: Contest Reflector <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <200804221708.m3MH8QxY032763@mail815.megamailservers.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 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.
>
>
>
Personally I would expect a higher standard of behavior from those who
can TRULY aspire to
the top ten and while they may certainly have a willingness to push to
the limits within the rules,
not a step beyond...
1) if the skimmer is allowed, they will use it
2) if the skimmer is not allowed, they won't
for a TRUE competitor, temptation has nothing to do with, just the rules
.... but then, I'm just naive. (and don't burst my bubble :>)
cheers
dink, n7wa
p.s. notice this email makes NO statement whether it should or should
not be allowed
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:17:51 -0500
From: "doug smith" <dougw9wi@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: "Fabian Kurz" <mail@fkurz.net>
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID:
<7972c7820804220617p5a0bc9cbuea828b68d3713d1b@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
K5ZD:
>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.
Should it make a difference whether it's Skimmer running on your own
equipment (i.e., subject to the 500m-circle rule) or Skimmer data
obtained over the Internet?
(this is a question, not a statement!)
DJ1YFK:
>There will always be some scum in the contesting community that
cheats. No matter what we do, there won't be a way to completely
eliminate it. Making the rules less restrictive to reduce cheating is
a step in the wrong direction.
Agreed. Are there *really* enough people cheating to make it worth
messing with the rules? Unless cheating is a LOT more widespread on
the coasts and/or in Europe, there just isn't enough of it going on to
be worth worrying about.
On 4/22/08, Fabian Kurz <mail@fkurz.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 07:01:16AM -0400, Pete Smith wrote:
> > If CW Skimmer is banned in this category,
> > the temptation to cheat will be almost overwhelming.
>
> It's the same temptation to cheat with DX-Cluster, excessive power,
> etc. I don't see the difference.
>
> There will always be some scum in the contesting community that
> cheats. No matter what we do, there won't be a way to completely
> eliminate it. Making the rules less restrictive to reduce cheating is
> a step in the wrong direction.
>
> Let them cheat and be happy with it; just don't force honest and
> skillful (unassisted) operators into using Skimmer, Cluster or other
> means of assistance, which may increase the score by a few percent but
> decrease the fun of contesting by 30dB.
>
> 73,
> --
> Fabian Kurz, DJ1YFK * Dresden, Germany * http://fkurz.net/
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
==
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN EM66
http://www.w9wi.com
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:21:55 -0400
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: "'Randy Thompson'" <k5zd@charter.net>, "'Pete Smith'"
<n4zr@contesting.com>, <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c8a47b$d6976d80$0400000a@laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
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
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:35:23 -0600
From: "Steve London" <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: cq-contest@contesting.com, "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
Message-ID:
<3ebaa37a0804220635j38b3cf47i16d4f204acb91120@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
> 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.
Bzzzt.
With several network skimmers located at various places, all feeding their
telnet outputs to a single database, the same statistical methods used to
detect packet cheaters can be used to detect skimmer cheaters.
> 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.
And indistiguishable from a packet cheater
If skimmers (and packet) are such an "advantage", then why do the single-op
unassisted guys almost always beat the assisted guys ? The usual guys who
operate assisted - K3WW, KI1G, K6LL, etc., aren't exactly slouches using
inferior stations.
73,
Steve, N2IC
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:35:53 -0600
From: Doug Renwick <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] More Cheating
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <018b01c8a47d$cb748ee0$f76da58e@doug4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
There are always those who believe that by ignoring a problem, the
problem will go away. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Part
of the article was about cheating in a DX column, not about DXing in a
how-to-cheat column.
Doug
The water jump is long and the barrier may be high,
you might break every bone, but it's so much fun to fly!
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] More Cheating
The article was about DXing, not contesting.
Please, let's not start a discussion about cheating by DXers on this
contesting reflector. There are many more appropriate forums for this.
73,
Steve, N2IC
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:12:53 -0600
From: "Tod -ID" <tod@k0to.us>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: "'Randy Thompson'" <k5zd@charter.net>, "'Pete Smith'"
<n4zr@contesting.com>, <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c8a482$f4ab9b50$5f01a8c0@CHEM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I want to line up on Randy, K5ZD's team, for this debate.
His last sentence summarizes his thoughts [and mine] perfectly"
> Anything that gives you calls and frequencies (and did not
> come from your own knob twisting and
> ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage.
I also endorse his P.S. and would add to it -- " in fact, it doesn't even
occur to them to cheat"
Since we have already solved the packet use matter [unlimited or assisted
category] I had thought the skimmer solution was obvious and was a bit
puzzled why it continues to be discussed. But then, discussing whether one
should send nnRST or just nn as an exchange went on for many days.
Tod, K0TO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Randy Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:21 AM
> To: 'Pete Smith'; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>
> If I replaced the word skimmer with packet in your argument,
> then all the same issues would be true. If we are going to
> make categories based on cheating potential, then the only
> option appears to be combining all the single op categories
> into one. Anything goes.
>
> That would be sad for those of us who really enjoy the
> "classic" definition of single operator.
>
> I believe use of skimmer should put you in assisted.
> Anything that gives you calls and frequencies (and did not
> come from your own knob twisting and
> ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage.
>
> Randy, K5ZD
>
> PS - For people who are honorable, the temptation to cheat is
> easily overcome.
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:19:28 +0200
From: "Peter Voelpel" <df3kv@t-online.de>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] More Cheating
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <005401c8a483$e10ff6d0$1490a8c0@ap200>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I feel quite comfortable operating my station remote from the shack in my
living room from time to time.
Before using TRX-Manager I was using wireless microphone and headset which
did not allow to qsy.
73
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Paul O'Kane
Sent: Montag, 21. April 2008 21:10
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] More Cheating
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Renwick" <ve5ra@sasktel.net>
> Quote from QST May, 2008, How's DX:
> "... some hams used remote stations ..."
It seems to me that remote control operation, however challenging it may be
technically - or as a legitimate pursuit in its own right, is incompatible
with amateur- radio award chasing and contesting.
Why? Because it replaces amateur-band RF with wired circuits and, by
definition, it requires the operator to be located away from the station.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:30:50 -0400
From: Pete Smith <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: "Steve London" <n2icarrl@gmail.com>,cq-contest@contesting.com
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20080422102232.05482510@mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 09:35 AM 4/22/2008, Steve London wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Pete Smith
><<mailto:n4zr@contesting.com>n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
>In this week's <http://radio-sport.net>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>http://www.radio-sport.net/skimme
r1.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.
>
>
>Bzzzt.
>
>With several network skimmers located at various places, all feeding their
>telnet outputs to a single database, the same statistical methods used to
>detect packet cheaters can be used to detect skimmer cheaters.
I'm not talking about the reverse beacon network, Steve - I'm talking about
using a Skimmer to feed your logging program locally. There will be no
network benchmark for those.
>
>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.
>
>
>And indistiguishable from a packet cheater
But much more inclusive. In SS, in particular, a lot of "fresh meat"
certainly goes unspotted, but Skimmer will find it.
>If skimmers (and packet) are such an "advantage", then why do the
>single-op unassisted guys almost always beat the assisted guys ? The
>usual guys who operate assisted - K3WW, KI1G, K6LL, etc., aren't exactly
>slouches using inferior stations.
That's a harder one to answer, but I believe that Skimmer potentially
offers the sort of decisive advantage that people attributed to packet, but
which rarely materialized. Moreover, I suspect that the very best ops
aren't using packet. It's not that the packet guys aren't good, but for
one reason or another,including personal preference, they aren't in the
same class with the very best.
73, Pete N4ZR
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:57:40 -0400
From: "Mike Wetzel" <mjwetzel@comcast.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] SNS Practice this week
To: "'Cq Contest Reflector'" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Cc: "Smc \(smc\)" <smc@w9smc.com>, 'Jim George' <n3bb@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <019d01c8a489$36f65fd0$0301a8c0@rockne>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Since Bill added a regular NS Ladder this week (and cancelled the one the
week of Dayton) we will have an SNS also.
Activity has been super the past few weeks, much thanks to all who have
turned the keyer down and participated.
Announcing the NCCC's (Northern California Contest Club) weekly Thursday
night running of the SNS and NS.
The Slow Speed NS practice is from 0200z to 0215z (Friday UTC, Thursday
local time). That's starting at 10:00pm EDT, 9:00pm CDT, 8:00pm MDT and
7:00pm PDT, local time Thursday.
Remember to keep your speed to less then 23WPM, stations are listening
getting the nerve up to jump in.
All of the same rules apply to the SNS as the regular one (dupe allowed
after 1 intervening Q) so you are allowed to work the same station as long
as you have worked another station in between (only exception is that you
can work a station on 40 and then can work him/her immediately on another
band (say 80 meters).
Bands will be 80 and 40 meters (around 3540 and mainly 7040). Had a comment
last week about all the activity is on 40 so let's try and use 80 a little
more earlier.
Exchange Format
The QSY rule makes it advantageous to send your report in a manner that
gives others listening to your QSO information about who will have the
frequency next. If you call CQ, you should send your report as follows:
HIS CALLSIGN - YOUR CALLSIGN - NUMBER - NAME - STATE
Example:
K5ZD W4AN 357 Bill GA
If you find a station S&Ping, then at the completion of the QSO the
frequency will be yours. In this case, you will want to send your callsign
last so people on frequency know you are the person to call.
Example:
K5ZD 357 Bill GA W4AN
This is simply done by programming different CW memories with different
messages.
Also remember, you MUST send the callsign of the station you are working and
your callsign with each QSO.
NS Home: http://www.ncccsprint.com/default.htm
Sites to help everyone for sprint contests.
http://www.contesting.com/articles/198
http://n6tr.jzap.com/sprint.html
Mike W9RE
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:29:36 -0400
From: "Ken Claerbout" <k4zw@comcast.net>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c8a48d$acfa7be0$6500a8c0@hsd1.va.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
As I was reading Pete's note, I kept thinking how is this any different
than Packet? Then along comes K5ZD to steal my thunder. I can only speak
for myself but if something like Packet or Skimmer becomes a part of what is
now unassisted single op, it is going to impact my motivation for competing
in these events. I still get a kick out of knowing that the score I produce
is solely my own work and without assistance. I can also appreciate those
who enjoy adding new technologies to their operating. What's wrong with
making this a part of the assisted category? Better yet, change assisted to
single op anything goes to cover other technologies sure to come down the
pipe. Name it something sexy like Single Op Technology class. No, I'm not
advocating the addition of another class.
As I commented to W4PA awhile back, who would have thought the day might
come when SSB contests would become the true measure of an operator? Yes
I'm sure a voice recognition skimmer is in the works but good luck with that
on 20 meters!
I have no doubt some will use skimmer to cheat just as they do with
Packet or by the other means they employ. But for heavens sake, lets not
make this a part of "the most prestigious category" because of what the
lowest common denominators in our sport might try to do. I believe there is
still some honor left among our ranks. To the contest sponsors, think long
and hard about this. Once this genie is out of the bottle, it ain't going
back in.
Ken K4ZW
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:34:19 -0700
From: "Ed Muns" <w0yk@msn.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP29160EDC32F9500F0CF71990E00@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
K5ZD replied to N4ZR:
> 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.
Agree.
> That would be sad for those of us who really enjoy the
> "classic" definition of single operator.
What exactly is "classic"? CW readers, CW keyers, software logging,
automatic band switching, SO2R technology, etc. are "classic", but local
skimmer is not? What's the difference?
> 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.
I agree that local skimmer could provide an advantage over tuning and using
your ears, but so does typing ASCII into your software logger that generates
CW and many other technological advances that single-op unassisted entries
are allowed to use. I'm not convinced skimmer should be allowed in SO
unassisted. I'm just not seeing a clear way to sort out which technologies
are "classic" and which are not. The SO assisted category seems more clear
in that it involves other operators during the contest, as are the multi-op
categories distinct from single-op unassisted. Local skimmer software can
be used solely by a single operator just like the rest of the software and
hardware goodies single ops commonly use today.
> PS - For people who are honorable, the temptation to cheat is
> easily overcome.
;>)
73,
Ed - W0YK
>
>
> > -----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
>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 09:45:11 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
From: somata90924@mypacks.net
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Crown Plaza Room Still Needed
To: Charles Wooten NF4A <nf4a@knology.net>, CQ-Contest@contesting.com,
"'DX,Chat'" <DX-chat@njdxa.org>
Message-ID:
<12914059.1208882712021.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hound.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I also looking for Crowne PL room
zf2ah
lolly-98314@mypacks.net
-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Wooten NF4A <nf4a@knology.net>
>Sent: Apr 20, 2008 6:32 PM
>To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com, "'DX, Chat'" <DX-chat@njdxa.org>
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] Crown Plaza Room Still Needed
>
>N4PN and I are still looking for a room at the Crown Plaza. If anyone has
an
>extra one, please contact me asap.
>
>TNX
>
>Charlie NF4A
>nf4a@clearchannel.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
Joe Hypnarowski
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
End of CQ-Contest Digest, Vol 64, Issue 31
******************************************
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|