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
|