Hmm... seems that I'm being chastised for having publicly stated that
the rule change may not be noticed by lots of folks (particularly those
who go by the rules as published in the NCJ) and then attempting to do
something to bring it to their attention.
I'm sorry that I'm not aware of all the intricacies of the Skimmer
arguments (or even that the use of the word "Skimmer" is too specific)
but I had ten minutes to do this - not much time for research,
particularly for one who has never used Skimmer.
It should be noted that I included a URL for the actual rules. It was
included in the expectation that folks reading my warning in their club
news letter or whatever would be sufficiently prudent to check it out
rather than simply accept what someone they've never heard of is
reported to have said on some reflector.
There is nothing to prevent someone more expert in this topic than I
from posting something like, "Well, Jim's heart is in the right place
but he apparently isn't aware that certain uses of Skimmer is OK in NAQP
SO and here's a suggested replacement for his message to send to your
clubs."
73 es Happy New Year
Jim Smith VE7FO
On 12/25/2010 1:41 AM, Jim Smith wrote:
> Wow, thanks to Al and Bruce for reversing this rule.
>
> I think it is incumbent on the rest of us to get the word out as well as
> we can to minimize the number of folks who use Skimmer because they
> didn't hear about the rule change.
>
> I've sent the following to both the BC DX Club and the Orca DX&
> Contesting Club for posting on their web sites.
>
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> URGENT *** NAQP CW CONTEST RULE CHANGE *** URGENT
>
> If you're planning on entering the CW North American QSO Party you may
> have noticed that, until today, Dec 24, the rules stated that the use of
> Skimmer will be allowed in the Single Op category.
>
> The use of Skimmer by single ops in the upcoming NAQP CW has now been
> disallowed.
>
> See
> http://www.ncjweb.com/naqprules.php
>
> Entry Classification
> Section 5.a.ii.
>
> Please note that, if you're an NCJ subscriber, the Jan/Feb issue has
> already gone to print so will still show the old rules.
>
> 73, Jim VE7FO
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>
> Best way I can think of to get the word out is to send something like
> this to every contest club that you know of.
>
> I'm sure that some folks won't get the word and will use Skimmer. For
> the sake of the adjudicator, let's hope it's just a few.
>
> Merry Xmas
> Jim Smith VE7FO
>
>
> On 12/24/2010 3:01 PM, Aldewey@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> All;
>>
>> I want to thank everyone for the feedback provided on this NAQP CW issue -
>> especially some very thoughtful responses that were sent directly to Bruce
>> and I off the list. Although a number of responses were received in
>> support of the change, the vast majority did not feel this was the time to
>> introduce this change to NAQP.
>>
>> As Bruce points out, the amended rules for 2011 (that prohibit the use of
>> automated tools in the Single Operator category) are now available on the
>> NCJ Web Site and will apply to all 2011 NAQPs. Because the Jan/Feb, 2011
>> issue of NCJ has already gone to print, be aware that the printed rules
>> shown in your copy of NCJ that you receive in the mail in the next couple
>> weeks
>> will not show this change.
>>
>> Have a happy holiday, everyone.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Al, K0AD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 12/24/2010 12:32:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>> bhorn@hornucopia.com writes:
>>
>> Although the nature of contesting has been one of technological advances
>> over the years that have increased scoring opportunities, it's evident from
>> the postings on this list that the contesting community is not ready to
>> adopt CW Skimmer-like technologies in the single-op category at this time.
>> For
>> this reason and the fact that the CW NAQP contest will be used as part of
>> the team selection criteria for WRTC 2014 starting in 2011, we've returned
>> the single-op criteria to the pre-2009 definition that prohibits the use of
>> automated tools. The rules on the NCJ web site have been updated to
>> reflect this change.
>>
>> 73 de Bruce, WA7BNM (bhorn@hornucopia.com)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|