I don't have a problem with other people using code readers. I myself
can still copy close to 55 wpm and have pretty good CW ears in the
QRM/QRN. I don't use any assistance in copying CW.
But I can't copy RTTY or any digital modes by ear. I have to use a
computer to do that. Maybe by next year ...
:-)
My own personal preference in most contests is totally unassisted by
packet, skimmer, etc. But that's just me.
73, Zack W9SZ
On 12/30/10, Bob Naumann <W5OV@w5ov.com> wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I think what you did was admirable, and appropriate.
>
> I would rather have someone think they can't use skimmer at all than to
> think they might be able to use any function is might be capable of.
>
> As I've said before, we all know what functions of skimmer we're talking
> about when we talk about them being unacceptable for unassisted single ops.
>
> Too often we try to focus on what triggers something to be considered
> assistance. This is the wrong way to look at the issue.
>
> The focus instead should be "what are the characteristics of an unassisted
> single op"?
>
> Simply, an unassisted single op locates all potential qsos and copies all
> callsigns himself with nothing else doing those things for him.
>
> Again, if this unassisted single op cannot copy CW on his own, I think an
> exception can/should be made to allow him to use some sort of "code-reader"
> to get involved in the fun too.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Smith
> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:10 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|