I'm intrigued to note that while this petition has been being pushed
through individual e-mails, it has not yet even been mentioned on
cq-contest. Could it be that the sponsors realize theirs is a minority
position, and want to get as much of a head-start as they can?
I think it's ironic that those who are leading the charge to ban this
particular technology are also those who are most over-estimating its
impact. I began working with Skimmer believing it would be a real contest
paradigm-changer. I still believe this is true for a few specific cases,
such as CW Sweepstakes. For the rest, though, I think the impact will be
very similar to packet, and will mostly overlap. The same foolish people
who over-rely on packet will over-rely on Skimmer, and will pay the price.
People who cheat with packet will probably add Skimmer to their arsenals.
It will be harder to catch through statistical analyses (since you won't be
able to know, for sure, when a given station was first heard by a given
Skimmer), but greedy cheaters will still be catchable, and cautious ones
still won't be.
Banning the technology from contests will have no useful effect. By all
means, retain a single-op unassisted class without it (like packet), and
let the marketplace decide.
73, Pete N4ZR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|