[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW + Skimmer

Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] [CQ-Contest] NAQP CW + Skimmer
From: Jim Brown <>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:54:22 -0800
List-post: <">>
> How can one rationally argue against skimmers, while allowing spotting 
> networks?

As usual, the debate has ignored the original post, which was about a 
SPECIFIC CONTEST (NAQP) that has never permitted spotting networks for 
single ops, but DOES permit it for multi-ops. Many contests have this 
sort of rule -- that is, using a spotting network puts you in a 
different entry classification.

There is, indeed, a debate within the contesting community about how to 
treat the use of a skimmer IN THE STATION, and how to treat a skimmer 
OUTSIDE THE STATION (that is, via the Reverse Beacon Network).  Allowing 
skimmers and spotting DOES change the nature of a contest, and one of 
the pleasures of certain contests is that spotting is either allowed or 
not, depending on what part of contesting you happen to enjoy.  And THAT 
was the point of K6LL's post.

When I first moved to CA from Chicago, I started from scratch on DXCC 
and other awards, and  was most interested in increasing my credits for 
those awards. I was also a little pistol, and appreciated all the help I 
could get, including spots.  For that reason, I entered most contests in 
a class that permitted me to use the cluster.  I also choose to the use 
the cluster when I'm part of a club effort for Sweepstakes, because that 
yields the highest score for the club, which takes SS quite seriously

Now that I've lived here for a while, I'm entering some contests in a 
class that does not permit the cluster.  Sometimes I'll run high power, 
sometimes low power, sometimes QRP. Each way of doing it presents 
different challenges and different pleasures.

73, Jim K9YC


TowerTalk mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>