CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

To: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane@ei5di.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
From: w5ov@w5ov.com
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:27:55 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I somewhat agree with EI5DI here which is a somewhat rare thing! I do
think a different perspective is needed when one analyzes what types of
technology should constitute assistance or not.

The criteria I keep coming back to is "could the operator perform those
functions on his own if you were to remove the technology in question from
the single operators configuration?"

For all of them - keyers, logging programs, integrated rotor controls,
etc.; the answer is yes. All of these technologies only do what an
operator could do.

Then you have something like this Skimmer. Not only would the single
operator not be able to do what skimmer does, if you had a dozen of the
world's top operators working with him, they could not decode an entire
passband of callsigns simultaneously.

So, this is clearly a new technology and cannot be equated to any other
technology used in CW contesting to date.

The likening of any date mode contesting to this situation is absurd since
no one can operate RTTY or any other data mode without some sort of
technology. Those modes are by definition a technology-assisted mode.
Should RTTY skimmers be allowed? Probably not but that is a different
discussion.

73,

Bob W5OV


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

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