Prof. Kerr writes:
> I just cannot conceive how this technology is anything other
> than such assistance and suggest that allowing it in what is
> to be considered otherwise a SO Unassisted class is wrong.
There is no doubt that technology of any kind provides
"assistance" to the operator. That applies to productivity
enhancing technologies like memory keyers, digital voice keyers,
computer logging, computer duping, history databases, callsign
databases, propagation prediction software, multiple receivers,
band scopes, etc. If it the technology did not provide
assistance the operator would have no inventive to invest in,
and master, that technology.
The question is not whether that technology provides assistance -
or makes a measurable impact - instead the question is whether
the technology fundamentally changes the nature of the competition.
Fundamental change has traditionally been defined in terms of
things like assistance from a second operator (whether on site
or remote), remotely located receive or transmit sites, or high
power. The differences have not been based defined in terms of
the productivity enhancing technology employed by a single operator.
> What matters is how this technology is perceived. Just like
> packet, it seems that this technology finds, identifies and
> displays potential QSO partners in a way that, without this
> gizmo, the single operator could not manage.
This argument is not unique to skimmer ... it has been made and
rejected in relation to SO2R and other productivity enhancing
technologies for years. Without memory/voice keyers, operators
can not manage SO2R - without access to second transceivers and
the other hardware, single operators can not manage the multiplier
accumulation they do. The argument can even be applied to other
hardware - specifically large antenna systems - in that they
permit the operator to find, identify, and work QSO partners
that they could not possibly manage without the "assistance" of
the large antennas.
In the current environment, when operated within a station's
"magic circle," a skimmer technology is nothing more than a new
an unique method of employing technologies already available to
the single operator. To suddenly redefine those technologies
in a way that disallows them in the traditional single operator
class is wrong.
One thing the skimmer debate has highlighted is the widening
divide between those who have access to and use technology and
those who do not. If technology - as opposed to the number of
operators - is to be a defining characteristic of radiosport,
rather than single out skimmer by disallowing it for the single
operator class, the entire contest community needs to reach a
uniform consensus concerning the technologies and the appropriate
cumulative level of technology.
Those discussions need to include things like the trade off
between power levels and antennas, whether SO#R should be
treated differently than single radio, whether skimmer should
be treated as SO#R, whether the operator should be located
within the same circle as all other station facilities, and
how much productivity enhancing technology is appropriate in
each class. None of these questions are easy and none can be
addressed alone. Failure to address all technologies - both
hardware and software - and all of their possible combinations
will do nothing but make the current inconsistencies (e.g.,
high power with restricted antennas vs. low power with big
antennas or CW decoders in SO#R vs. skimmer) worse, risk
"disallowing" technologies that would permit more people to
participate in contesting, or by applying inappropriate
standards, perhaps result in the decline of one or more modes.
Nobody can predict what new or innovative technological
applications might appear in the future but to begin disallowing
certain technological combinations on an ad hoc basis sets a
very bad precedent.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kerr,
> Prof. K.M.
> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 1:47 PM
> To: 'Michael Coslo'; cq-contesting cq-contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
>
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> So how do we determine it's actual impact? We allow it's use
> for a time so gauge that impact. If Skimmer users start
> dominating classes, then it might be time to direct it's use
> to one category or another.
>
> -73 de Mike N3LI -
>
> To Mike and anyone else who is interested, I have a real
> problem with this approach. The argument over how much impact
> 'packet' in all its various forms has on contesting is well
> covered territory. It has been pointed out for years on this
> reflector that there are relatively few examples of the same
> guy with the same station going assisted and unassisted in
> comparable events to help draw proper conclusions. The purest
> scientific test is not possible since it is impossible to run
> the same contest twice, 'with' and 'without' packet, all
> other variables controlled. However, despite the possibly
> deserved label of 'single operator distracted', no-one
> seriously doubts that packet, cluster etc would be/is an
> advantage to contesters and thus, appropriately, this is
> deemed 'assistance'.
>
> I submit that it will never be possible to gather adequate
> data to make the comparison and come to a reasonable
> conclusion regarding whether or not skimmer is 'having an impact'.
>
> Furthermore, I suggest, as I did a few days ago, that this is
> not the point. I cannot see the relevance of whether or not
> skimmer impacts on scores. What matters is how this
> technology is perceived. Just like packet, it seems that this
> technology finds, identifies and displays potential QSO
> partners in a way that, without this gizmo, the single
> operator could not manage. I think that it is playing with
> words to imply that, because the current wording of rules
> infers external or 'other person' assistance, skimmer is not
> covered. The key issue is surely to determine whether or not
> skimmer is a form of assistance?
>
> I just cannot conceive how this technology is anything other
> than such assistance and suggest that allowing it in what is
> to be considered otherwise a SO Unassisted class is wrong.
>
> Keith GM4YXI (GM7V)
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|