CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

To: "CQ-Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
From: "Leigh S. Jones, KR6X" <kr6x@kr6x.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:29:35 -0700
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Tonno Vahk wrote:
> Allowing skimmer in unassisted makes the category pointless and similar to 
> assisted.

Or just maybe it makes the assisted category pointless.

Interesting idea, anyway.

> All the calls in CW and SSB modes have to be copied by operator. It is 
> that
> simple. Anything else is assisted.

Just how long do you think that it will be before a skimmer for SSB appears. 
I've
already worked out the technical details.

> I could easily make 100 more DXCC in CQWW assisted, very easy
> and huge benefit.

This is rich.  No objection; read the contest results and you'll note that 
often
a single operator unassisted station will work DXCC on three or four bands
in the course of 48 hours.

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>