Hi, Pete,
Well, my original hypothesis didn't only include CW Skimmer ... it
included cluster spots in order to make the idea applicable to both CW
and SSB. That would indeed mean that CQ'ing stations would predominate
the spots telnetted to N1MM in Blind Mode.
Thus far I've gotten replies to my original post that could be sorted
into three basic categories:
1. It would be OK for unassisted information to telnet spots to N1MM
for conversion to Blind spots because human recognition (decoding in the
case of CW, hearing the phonetics in the case of SSB) would still be
necessary to make the contact.
2. It would NOT be OK for unassisted operation to telnet spots to N1MM
for conversion to blind spots because knowing that there was a real
station there (most likely CQ'ing), without the operator having to do
anything before trying to make the contact, would represent a
significant advantage beyond my original desire to simply make 2nd VFO
QSY more efficient.
3. I'm trying to cheat
At this point, I'm willing to accept that #2 is the conservative
judgment, although quite honestly I think that I can glean as much
information from a good waterfall display as I would be able to from a
bandmap full of blind spots. I can easily tell whether a trace on a
waterfall is a station or not, and I can even tell whether he is running
or not by just looking to see if his trace consistently takes up most of
the span of the display. Still, I'm forced to make that assessment on
my own without any assistance at all from anything else, so that's
probably enough to make a difference.
As far as the opportunity to undetectably cheat is concerned, I've never
understood that argument. If I wanted to cheat, there are plenty of
ways to do so. I could easily:
a. telnet full spots from a cluster to N1MM and simply work them in
frequency sequence to simulate tuning with VFO B. In my opinion, the
folks that get caught operating assisted while claiming unassisted are
either greedy or stupid.
b. use high power while claiming low power
c. cross reference the SCP file with various lists of submitted logs to
find the callsigns of stations who are typically active in contests but
never submit a log, and then insert them into my log as claimed
contacts. If I had two or three co-conspirators, they wouldn't even
show up as uniques.
d. etc.
You get the idea. There are lots of ways to cheat that are at least as
difficult to detect as would be operating N1MM in Blind Mode. Besides,
if I wanted to cheat for unassisted operation, why would I bother to
pretend I was using Blind Mode ... why wouldn't I just use normally
telnetted spots from CW Skimmer or the clusters?
Except for being accused of trying to subvert the rules, this has for me
at least been an interesting discussion and I'd like to thank those who
responded. If anyone is still unclear regarding what my motives were,
please reread the last nine words of item #2 above.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 10/23/2010 3:17 AM, Pete Smith wrote:
> How would you implement this? If you run CW Skimmer in blind mode,
> nothing gets Telnetted. If you run it in normal mode, unless you tell
> it to spot everything, it will pick out which traces on its bandmap
> are CQing, and will only forward them to N1MM's proposed "blind mode"
> bandmap. This would confer a pretty big advantage, making it, in my
> view, clearly "Assisted", and would be very hard to detect if one
> chose to cheat this way in the unassisted category.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at
> www.conteststations.com
> The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at
> reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
> spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
>
>
> On 10/22/2010 1:40 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> ...The ONLY differences between what I just described and what I
>> hypothesized as a blind mode for N1MM are:
>>
>> 1. I'd be able to use the keyboard to change the frequency of VFO B
>> instead of having to move my hand over to the mouse.
>>
>> 2. CW Skimmer would determine for me (with probably less accuracy)
>> which traces were stations and which were noise/clutter.
>>
>> If point number 2 equates to assisted operation, fine! I can accept
>> that and I have the answer to my questions. I'd rather know for sure
>> than sit here trying to guess.
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|