CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
From: "Ken Claerbout" <k4zw@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:19:58 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
  A couple of points I'd like to add and then I'm going to QSY and enjoy the 
great weekend we're going to have.

>CW is inherently a mode to be copied by ear. >Nonsense. Visit any museum of 
>telegraphy and you will >see that it was originally envisaged as a machine 
>>application. Yes, those of us who have the skill value it >and like to match 
>our skill against that of others. But >there is nothing sacrosanct in "human" 
>copying. If we >want to insist on that route, fine, but let's not pretend that 
>>there is no alternative."

  I certainly appreciate your prospective Don and I don't think most of us 
would disagree with your point.  But I think we need to keep in mind that the 
machine was likely in a commercial application and not a competitive 
environment, which is where our discussions are taking place.


>Amateur contesting is not a competition to see who >copies CW better than 
>anyone else.  It is a competition >to see who can make the most contacts and 
>work the <most multipliers in a specific time frame given the >resources of 
>the individual's station. 

Oh?  Most contests I participate in have a provision for score reduction in the 
case of  busted calls.  I have on more than one occasion improved my place in 
the final standings because I did a better job of copying than a competitor.  


>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. 

Yes in theory and the same could be said about packet.  Yet, not a contest goes 
by that isn't replete with examples of people operating with their eyes and not 
their ears.


>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. 

   I gotta hand it to you, you come up with some winners but his one might just 
take the grand prize.  There are operators in the contest community who accept 
packet, and likely skimmer too, as part of the sport and realize it has an 
upside.  But they have also seen what packet has done to operator skill.  The 
same is happening in the DX community but that's for another reflector.  I 
don't see anything wrong with asking for just one category that is void of some 
system feeding points to the operator.  A category that compels the operator to 
go and find stations on their own, where one's score is more representative of 
their own work.  If you want to consider that an elitist position, knock 
yourself out.             

Ken - K4ZW  
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>