Dick,
> Packet, of course, spawned a new category. While the term
> Assisted was used, and sometimes the rules say use of a
> spotting network automatically makes you multi-op, we
> shouldn't get lost in the fact that packet requires help from
> other people.
That's correct - it involves other individuals and is therefore
multi-single.
> The real reason packet spawned a new
> category was the way it affected the competition. Contesters
> realized that not having to tune for mults and QSOs was a
> very different way of operating and might provide an unfair
> advantage over those who tuned for mults and QSOs.
No, the real reason the cluster spawned a new category was because
those who used the cluster did not want to compete against tag-team
operators.
> Rather than basing category decisions on names ("assistance",
> "technology", etc.), or how the variations are implemented,
> we should base our decisions on how the competition is affected.
If you want to base decisions on "how competition is effected"
then you need to reexamine all categories. If "how completion
is effected" is your criteria high power/low power/QRP should
be based on an EIRP (effective isotropic radiated power) and
not just power. If "effect" is the criteria, the vertical/dipole
and amplifier station belongs in the "low power" category and the
barefoot/yagi station belongs in the "high power" category. As
the categories currently stand, the only thing that matters is
transmitter power and the involvement of other individuals.
It is not appropriate to "lock the barn after the horse is out."
Skimmer is simply a repackaging of technologies that have been
available for many years (SO#R and CW decoders) with a new
interface. How do you deal with another product that packages
the same components differently - what if WriteLog were to
accept the broadband I/Q audio from the transceiver and display
the calls/frequencies directly without any intervening telnet
interface?
> SO2R, on the other hand, is a technology that has sparked
> many category debates. While the issue has been settled by
> the contest sponsors, it comes up again and again because
> people understand that it can change the nature of the
> competition. But, unlike Skimmer, SO2R requires *more*
> operator skill, not less.
The top operators are where the are because they optimize all
their resources - not because they copy CW better than the
other entrants. They know which band to be on at a given
time, they are more skilled at moving multipliers, they have
better knowledge of short term openings, they know the habits
of the regular but "rare" stations, etc.
Skimmer technology is not going to change any of that - it will
be just one more source of information for the operator. Skimmer
is not going to find the weak/fluttery backscatter/side scatter
signals - it doesn't know where to point the beam. It's not
going to find the weak Asian signals on 160 and 80 - it won't
be able to select the right receiving antenna or manipulate the
null steering to get rid of the noisy streetlight or multi-multi
in the next county. Skimmer is not likely to copy the unstable
auroral signals or chirpy/drifty signals. Yes, skimmer will
copy the strong stable signals that are calling CQ but will
find the multipliers running a pile and giving their call once
every five minutes?
> So, let's normalize the equation by comparing top operators
> who compete SO-Unassisted. We really don't know what would
> happen if two titans like K5ZD and K1AR competed with equal
> stations, one with packet and the other without. But it's
> easy to see that such a competition wouldn't compare their
> skills apples-to-apples. This also would be true if one used
> Skimmer and one did not. Does it make any sense at all for
> them to compete in the same category?
I think the Luddites are overestimating the impact of this
technology. Skimmer is being given skimmer too much credit
and too much value is being placed on copying CW by ear.
Like any productivity enhancing technology skimmer may make a
difference between two otherwise identically skilled operators
but it is not going to suddenly make a third quartile operator
number one. Skimmer may shake up the order slightly as some
operators become more skilled at utilizing it to its full
potential but it is no more a "class changer" than SO2R or
computer logging.
For the single radio operator skimmer is not likely to do much
beyond what can be accomplished by effectively tuning the second
receiver (in band) while running. For the SO2R operator skimmer
may make the second radio more productive by effectively increasing
second radio S&P time. Still, SO2R is a far bigger determinant of
the outcome than skimmer will be.
The skimmer effect is similar to computer logging - if the
operator continues to use a single radio, the reduction in
time spent on logging is not going to significantly increase
his score. If, on the other hand that increased efficiency
is applied to operating SO2R the score will increase significantly.
It is not the technology ... skilled operators without skimmer
will continue to beat lesser skilled operators with skimmer just
like there are single radio operators (e.g., K3ZO) who regularly
beat lesser skilled SO2R operators.
When skimmer is given a fair analysis and in context of all the
other technologies, this issue not one of "assistance" - it is
nothing more than "not in my back yard." Skimmer, with all its
limitations, is likely to have a far smaller impact than SO2R.
It may provide the opportunity to get a small handful of extra
multipliers but not necessarily more than could be found by
improving the operator's "second receiver" utilization.
To those who ask, "why should I have to compete with someone
using skimmer?" I ask, why should I have to compete with someone
using SO2R or big antennas?
An operator who wants to be number one needs to use all of the
technology and operator skills at his disposal - computer logging,
SO2R, adequate antennas and any other available technology. The
operator who rejects SO2R, or big antenna, or skimmer does so with
full knowledge that he has chosen to limit his options.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick
> Green WC1M
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:49 AM
> To: 'Joe Subich, W4TV'; 'Martin Luther'; 'Robert Chudek -
> K0RC'; 'cq-contesting cq-contest'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
>
>
> W4TV wrote:
>
> > Technology has never been used to differentiate between stations.
>
> Just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it isn't
> appropriate now.
>
> Rather than basing category decisions on names ("assistance",
> "technology", etc.), or how the variations are implemented,
> we should base our decisions on how the competition is affected.
>
> While packet is driven by other operators, and a local copy
> of Skimmer is driven by software, they have a remarkably
> similar effect on the competition. If I use either one of
> these tools, I can grab spots for new multipliers and new
> stations from the bandmap. If I don't use these tools, I have
> to tune the radio to find new multipliers and new stations.
> It takes a lot more time to tune the band manually, time
> during which I could be doing something else (running, S&Ping
> another band, sleeping, etc.) I would argue that it takes
> more skill to manually find an equivalent number of new
> multipliers and new stations, but it's inherently less efficient.
>
> Now, let's not get into an argument over whether packet and
> Skimmer really are superior to manual contesting. I know that
> the winner of the SO-Unassisted category often has a higher
> score than the winner of the SO-Assisted category. This may
> indicate superiority of manual contesting, but I'm more
> inclined to believe that our most skilled ops almost
> universally compete in the Unassisted category. They can do a
> lot of things better, such as run like the dickens and filter
> QRM/QRN with their magic ears. It doesn't matter which
> category they choose: they'll win it.
>
> So, let's normalize the equation by comparing top operators
> who compete SO-Unassisted. We really don't know what would
> happen if two titans like K5ZD and K1AR competed with equal
> stations, one with packet and the other without. But it's
> easy to see that such a competition wouldn't compare their
> skills apples-to-apples. This also would be true if one used
> Skimmer and one did not. Does it make any sense at all for
> them to compete in the same category?
>
> Here's another way to look at it. I've managed to get myself
> into the top ten USA a number of times. But anyone who
> follows my posts on 3830 knows that I'm often woefully behind
> the winner in mults, especially in contests like CQ WW and
> IARU, where mults play a huge part. Usually I can run up a
> respectable number of QSOs, but sometimes I'm staggered by
> how far behind I am in mults. I run SO2R and do a lot of mult
> chasing on the second radio. It's tedious, time-consuming
> work to scan up and down a band looking for mults while CQing
> on another radio. Often I have to wait for QSOs to complete
> before I hear the callsign of the station calling CQ. If I
> could use packet spots, or Skimmer, to populate my bandmap, I
> know I could work more mults. Using packet, I still might
> have to tune for additional new ones
> -- the ops who post the spots don't have the same antennas
> and propagation as I do. But if Skimmer lives up to its
> potential, I might not have to do any tuning at all: every
> CQer that can be heard by my station will be in the bandmap.
>
> So if anyone should be lobbying for Skimmer in the Unassisted
> category, it's me! Then maybe I could beat the current top
> dogs. Well, maybe not, but I'm sure I would get a lot closer.
> It doesn't seem right: I don't have their skills for finding
> new mults, so I use Skimmer as a substitute. Suddenly, the
> importance of that skill set is diminished. Is it really fair
> that I've used a technological edge to overcome their skill
> advantage? I don't know if it's fair or not, but it's
> certainly not the same competition. Like I said, you have to
> look at the result of the innovation, not what it's called or
> how it's implemented.
>
> There have been a number of technological innovations since I started
> contesting: autotune amps, band decoders, high-performance
> receivers, SteppIR antennas, noise-cancelling headphones, and
> rotor presets, just to name a few. Although each of these
> improvements can provide an operating advantage, I don't
> think anyone would consider them worthy of their own
> category. They just don't change the nature of the
> competition all that much.
>
> SO2R, on the other hand, is a technology that has sparked
> many category debates. While the issue has been settled by
> the contest sponsors, it comes up again and again because
> people understand that it can change the nature of the
> competition. But, unlike Skimmer, SO2R requires *more*
> operator skill, not less.
>
> Perhaps one way to look at innovations, then, is whether they
> require more or less operator skill to increase the score. I
> think it's pretty clear that Skimmer will reduce the amount
> of skill required to increase the score. Again, this is the
> way the innovation affects the competition, not what it's
> called or how it's implemented.
>
> Two other innovations have made a huge difference in
> contesting: computer logging and packet. By all rights,
> computer logging (and code/message
> generation) should have created a new category. It provides a
> huge advantage over manual logging. So, why didn't we create
> a new category? I don't know the answer, and don't know if it
> was even debated. But I suspect it was because contesters
> flocked to computer logging because it was a lot more fun and
> less tedious. Evidently, the "skill" of being able to log
> quickly by hand wasn't valued enough by the top operators to
> make them insist on preserving it in a separate category.
>
> I don't see that happening with Skimmer. I'm not hearing our
> top Unassisted operators saying, "Wow, I can't wait to
> contest with Skimmer!" Why not? Because they know it will be
> similar to contesting with packet. A skill they treasure,
> tuning to find stations, will be replaced with
> point-and-shoot from the bandmap. If they wanted to compete
> that way, they would have been competing Assisted all these years.
>
> Packet, of course, spawned a new category. While the term
> Assisted was used, and sometimes the rules say use of a
> spotting network automatically makes you multi-op, we
> shouldn't get lost in the fact that packet requires help from
> other people. As we say in the software biz, that's just an
> implementation detail. The real reason packet spawned a new
> category was the way it affected the competition. Contesters
> realized that not having to tune for mults and QSOs was a
> very different way of operating and might provide an unfair
> advantage over those who tuned for mults and QSOs.
>
> As Ward has pointed out, the unfortunate argument over
> Assisted and Unassisted is just semantics. We can fix that
> easily, as he has demonstrated. Let's look past the words and
> get to the substance. Let's look at how the competition is affected.
>
> 73, Dick WC1M
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|