> Unfortunately, now that the Skimmer technology has progressed to a
> "networked" stage, I could not, in all good conscience, differentiate it
> from the cluster.
Your logging computer can operate EITHER "stand alone" within your sphere of
influence OR be connected to a network of computers that exchange
information outside your sphere of influence.
Whether a device can be networked or not has no relevance.
If you are a Single Operator, you are not networked to anything. The guy in
his tent, out in the field., a pile of technology, no additional human
assistance. Single Operator. One person. Using technology and his individual
skills.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey@nl.rogers.com>
To: "'Joe Subich, W4TV'" <w4tv@subich.com>; "'Robert Naumann'"
<w5ov@w5ov.com>; <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>I fully agree with you Joe. To a point...
>
> Unfortunately, now that the Skimmer technology has progressed to a
> "networked" stage, I could not, in all good conscience, differentiate it
> from the cluster. If the CW Skimmer had remained a stand-alone technology,
> similar to a CW decoder or memory keyer, then I would agree that it was
> not
> assistance. As this is obviously no longer the case, and regardless of the
> accuracy of the information provided, the skimmer must now be considered
> in
> the same vein as the cluster as it has the potential to provide
> information
> from outside the operator's sphere of influence.
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
>> Subich, W4TV
>> Sent: April 23, 2008 16:04
>> To: 'Robert Naumann'; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>>
>>
>> > That is so funny. You know that skimmer copies all the calls in the
>> > receivers' band pass and displays all of the calls to the operator
>> > without him doing anything aside from looking at the
>> computer screen.
>>
>> So, have you looked at Skimmer output data? I'd like to hear
>> half the rare multipliers that show up in the data from
>> Pete's skimmer (P5, E4, 1S, etc.). The operator STILL needs
>> to copy the correct call, make the QSO, log the QSO correctly, etc.
>>
>> I'm tired of this pervasive "not invented here" syndrome when
>> it comes to technology. If you use a memory keyer (assisted
>> sending), computer logging (assisted logging), a
>> single/five/seven channel CW decoder (WriteLog - assisted
>> receiving), a panadapter (spotting assistance), shared
>> history files and SCP, etc. it's OK. However, add a new
>> technology that does not involve another operator, suddenly
>> it's cheating? Bull! That's hypocrisy and hubris of the
>> highest form.
>>
>> This "I've got mine - I don't want you to have yours"
>> attitude has got to end in contesting. The simple rule is:
>> "does this involve an other operator?" If it does not
>> involve another operator - either in the same shack or
>> remotely via Packet/telnet
>> - then it is and should be within the rules.
>>
>> If you want to limit technology, limit all of it, including
>> memory keyers, computer logging, history files, SCP, antennas
>> with elements totaling more than 1/2 wave and higher than 15
>> meters (50'). Otherwise, stop trying to pick and choose the
>> technology. Competition will weed out those technologies
>> that are not worthwhile those that are not worthwhile will
>> fade those that are effective will thrive just as technology
>> has evolved over more than 50 years.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> Robert Naumann
>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:44 PM
>> > To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > That Joe! What a card! It's April 22 - not April 1st!
>> >
>> > You said: "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".
>> >
>> > That is so funny. You know that skimmer copies all the calls in the
>> > receivers' band pass and displays all of the calls to the operator
>> > without him doing anything aside from looking at the
>> computer screen.
>> >
>> > I am ROTFL! Thanks Joe - that's a hot one!
>> >
>> > 73,
>> >
>> > Bob W5OV
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
>> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich,
>> > W4TV
>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:22 AM
>> > To: 'Randy Thompson'; 'Pete Smith'; CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
|