Eric et al,
I am not sure that the question of whether or not the skimmer has a material
impact on scores is the issue?
It seems to me that it is more a case of how this new technology is perceived
and how it fits into the contest game, and consequently, how THE RULES
accommodate the challenges that this new stuff poses.
One of the great buzzes in ham radio and contesting in particular is finding
those QSO partners. My personal feeling is that I really do not want someone or
something to do that for me. Part of the skill (maybe even most of the skill)
in contesting is finding those QSO partners; run, search and pounce, when,
where, which band, which direction? Do I really get satisfaction or have as
much fun if somebody or something else does this for me? NO!
Of course if someone does want to use really clever technology to find,
identify and display potential QSO partners to them 'on a plate' that is fine.
It is a perfectly valid way to operate but it is, again my opinion,
intrinsically altering the way in which the contest game is played.
This, in my opinion, is a FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT use of clever technology from
all the other neat stuff that we variously use in our shacks and which, again
in my opinion, gets inappropriately dragged into the debate on the meaning of
'assistance'.
I am not really convinced we need to change any rules. Skimmers seem to find,
identify and display potential QSO partners in a way that even the most
talented single operator cannot. So what if the skimmer is in your own shack.
The principal is the same as potential QSO partners being found, identified and
displayed by other hams, or networks of skimmers more than 500m from your
shack, and brought to you via spotting networks of various sorts.
Skimmer use means Single Op Assisted. What may be of value is assessing the
impact skimmer may have on scores would be for guys in the assisted class to
declare use of spotting networks or skimmers or both.
But please, don't let us have skimmers in a class which is otherwise considered
unassisted........................
Keith GM4YXI / GM7V
________________________________
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com on behalf of Eric Scace K3NA
Sent: Wed 04/06/2008 17:10
To: Randy Thompson K5ZD
Cc: Cq-Contest
Subject: [CQ-Contest] rules
Hi Randy et al --
We are seeing a blizzard of rules proposals and counter-proposals.
But we don't actually know if there is a "problem" yet with CW skimmers.
Rather than changing rules, let's do this:
1. For the next two years, when reporting a score, also answer this
question:
"Did you use a CW Skimmer or its equivalent?"
This question applies to all entrants: single op and multi-op.
2. Publish the line scores with a mark indicating the answer to that
question.
3. In 2010 June, review the results of the past two years to determine
a) Does the use of a CW skimmer have a material impact on scores?
b) If yes, do the award categories need to be changed in some way?
Or is disclosure sufficient?
-- Eric K3NA
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|