In this case, my opinion aligns completely with EI5DI. There is a non-trivial
fraction of contesters who wish to retain a class of operation where they
detect and identify target contacts with their own ears and wetware.
73, de Hans, K0HB
PS: The RBN advertisements don't bother me.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
> On 27/11/2013 20:21, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
> > After 5 years of advocating that any use of CW Skimmer should
> > constitute "assistance", I have changed my mind about where the
> > line should be drawn between Assisted/Unlimited and Unassisted,
> > when it comes to technology.
> > There are at least two reasons for this:
> <snip>
> > 2. Developments over the last 5 years have made CW Skimmer much
> > less a game-changer than other developments, such as the worldwide
> > availability of the Reverse Beacon Network.
> N4ZR may have changed his mind, but CW Skimmer is
> still a multi-channel CW decoder - and he clearly
> expects all CW operators to use it to stay
> competitive.
> <snip>
> > Why is this important? Because no single Skimmer can match
> > the RBN for its contribution to a station's score.
> That may be true, but CW Skimmer is still a multi-channel
> CW decoder. That's the important bit.
> > 3. The cost of local CW Skimmer capability is minimal.
> The cost is irrelevant, the principle is not.
> Inexpensive multi-channel CW decoders are still
> multi-channel CW decoders. Just because calculators
> are cheap, it doesn't mean they're appropriate in
> mental-arithmetic contests.
> <snip>
> > For these reasons, I agree with Rick that the time has come
> > for a definition based on the station's boundary. However,
> > I think the general rule should be "No information from beyond
> > the station boundary, regardless ofmode of reception."
> > Specific exceptions could be added, such as one for "generalized
> > propagation information, such as WWV solar indices".
> Agreed, so long as there is a specific exception for
> multi-channel CW decoders, and for any other technology
> contest sponsors may prohibit in individual events - for
> example, SCP in WRTC 2014.
> > Is it time?
> No, it's not time, and I respectfully suggest that
> it will never be appropriate for single-ops to use
> multi-channel CW decoders in CW contests.
> And now a gripe - I expect I'm not the only cq-contest
> subscriber getting weary of N4ZR plugging the RBN, 16
> times already this month, by adding the following to
> his every post -
> Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> http://reversebeacon.net, <http://reversebeacon.net,/>
> blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
> For spots, please go to your favorite
> ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|