At 09:35 AM 4/22/2008, Steve London wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:01 AM, Pete Smith
><<mailto:n4zr@contesting.com>n4zr@contesting.com> wrote:
>In this week's <http://radio-sport.net>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>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.
>
>
>Bzzzt.
>
>With several network skimmers located at various places, all feeding their
>telnet outputs to a single database, the same statistical methods used to
>detect packet cheaters can be used to detect skimmer cheaters.
I'm not talking about the reverse beacon network, Steve - I'm talking about
using a Skimmer to feed your logging program locally. There will be no
network benchmark for those.
>
>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.
>
>
>And indistiguishable from a packet cheater
But much more inclusive. In SS, in particular, a lot of "fresh meat"
certainly goes unspotted, but Skimmer will find it.
>If skimmers (and packet) are such an "advantage", then why do the
>single-op unassisted guys almost always beat the assisted guys ? The
>usual guys who operate assisted - K3WW, KI1G, K6LL, etc., aren't exactly
>slouches using inferior stations.
That's a harder one to answer, but I believe that Skimmer potentially
offers the sort of decisive advantage that people attributed to packet, but
which rarely materialized. Moreover, I suspect that the very best ops
aren't using packet. It's not that the packet guys aren't good, but for
one reason or another,including personal preference, they aren't in the
same class with the very best.
73, Pete N4ZR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|