That's a woolly definition. The Reverse Beacon Network has the potential to be of greater "assistance" than the cluster, but it is not the work of other operators, any more than your rig or your logg
As a definition of what we consider to be Assisted, to become Unlimited, this is a good start. One significant omission to the definition, as it stands, is skimmer which is an internal CW decoder. Th
Not true! 1. From the "General Rules for ARRL Contests Below 30 MHz" www.arrl.org/general-rules-for-arrl-contests-below-30-mhz 2.1.1. Use of ... multi-channel decoders such as CW Skimmer, etc) is not
Regardless of what you say, it is *not true* that there is *general agreement*. If you say so! I will try to be more specific in an attempt to reach agreement on this point. I expect you will concede
References would help. No one is likely to take that remark out of context :-) In any competitive activity, there has to be rules to limit technology - I know of no exceptions to this principle. Sing
At this rate, I expect we'll soon hear that "black is white". Yes, perhaps they should. That's a long way from saying "anything goes". licensing requirements is simple prejudice This is not a licensi
The technology must be relevant, otherwise you're doing "something else". To use a CW decoder (including Skimmer) in a CW contest reduces CW to the status of "just another data mode". If that's what
I'd go along with that, but with three unambiguous conditions. 1. The tools should not replace amateur-band RF in any part of the signal path between the operators concerned - subject only to the usu
Whether CW decoders work well or otherwise is irrelevant - the issue is whether they are used. This argument has been refuted many times. The key to human communications is understanding. If I don't
This is the old "all technology is good" argument once again. It has been refuted many times. I have claimed that the use of decoders reduces CW to the status of "just another data mode", and have gi
To avoid any misunderstanding, here are the three conditions. 1. The tools should not replace amateur-band RF in any part of the signal path between the operators concerned - subject only to the usua
Yes, it's difficult - but it's not impossible, and we're getting closer. for the op's eyes a communications technology? It doesn't matter - with my proposals anything is OK (any technology whatsoever
Here is what I said in the context of an attempt to define a boundary between SO and SO-Assisted that would be both easily understood and unambiguous. "... with my proposals anything is OK (any techn
Why should they be DQed? Some rules, like laws, become outdated and may need to be reviewed. Contesters are usually competitive. When they need a repeat, they ask - otherwise, repetition tends to was
Really, should we make it a federal offense? I respectfully suggest that any contest which requires entrants to duplicate information on-air (for no apparent good reason - unlike Sprints), but log th
I understand it fully, and have done so for a couple of years. On the other hand, I have no emotional attachment to SS or traffic handling, and that may be why I have an impartial view of this issue.
I'd say the difference is we all know about the RBN, and know where to find it. It aggregates data on all bands from multiple world-wide sites. It is effectively a public skimmer server, one that wil
This whole thread is both laughable and pathetic. It has nothing to do with amateur radio contesting, and everything to do with hybrid communications contesting - and that's not amateur radio. The co
Why is it OK to self-spot on the RBN, but not on the cluster? :-) 73, Paul EI5DI _______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contest
I was referring to the RBN, not Skimmer. Anyone who calls CQ on-air is self-spotting on the RBN - that's partly my point. It's generally considered OK to call CQ on-air, especially in contests. Howev