I can appreciate their dilemma, but hope that they will think carefully about this. I am posting this here because I don't know who to write, specifically, but I know it is likely they will read it h
If I replaced the word skimmer with packet in your argument, then all the same issues would be true. If we are going to make categories based on cheating potential, then the only option appears to be
It's the same temptation to cheat with DX-Cluster, excessive power, etc. I don't see the difference. There will always be some scum in the contesting community that cheats. No matter what we do, ther
Personally I would expect a higher standard of behavior from those who can TRULY aspire to the top ten and while they may certainly have a willingness to push to the limits within the rules, not a s
K5ZD: you calls and frequencies (and did not come from your own knob twisting and ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage. Should it make a difference whether it's Skimmer
Randy, If you replace "skimmer" with "packet" one has an entirely different situation. With packet the information is coming from another OPERATOR and that, by definition, should place one in the mul
Bzzzt. With several network skimmers located at various places, all feeding their telnet outputs to a single database, the same statistical methods used to detect packet cheaters can be used to detec
I want to line up on Randy, K5ZD's team, for this debate. His last sentence summarizes his thoughts [and mine] perfectly" I also endorse his P.S. and would add to it -- " in fact, it doesn't even occ
I'm not talking about the reverse beacon network, Steve - I'm talking about using a Skimmer to feed your logging program locally. There will be no network benchmark for those. But much more inclusive
As I was reading Pete's note, I kept thinking how is this any different than Packet? Then along comes K5ZD to steal my thunder. I can only speak for myself but if something like Packet or Skimmer bec
K5ZD replied to N4ZR: Agree. What exactly is "classic"? CW readers, CW keyers, software logging, automatic band switching, SO2R technology, etc. are "classic", but local skimmer is not? What's the di
Pete, Actually, it kinda saddens me that "the temptation to cheat will be almost overwhelming" is the main reason for allowing skimmer technology in SO unassisted. This implies that many are already
No more "overwhelming" than sneaking a look at the cluster, or stroking up the amp, or plugging in a low-serial unique here and there. I am absolutely opposed to the mindset of "the cheaters will us
Guys, I have been following this skimmer debate on and off for some time with an increasing feeling of horror and dismay. I haven't had the time or desire to interject but this is a short post. Surel
You have missed my point. I'm sure that the log adjudicators will be setting up a private network of skimmers that they will log into to grab skimmer spots through the skimmer telnet interface. That
The argument that "if you can't detect people cheating, then make it legal for that category" has no basis in contesting as we know it. Various power levels exist now, how do you know? Because honora
Ah, but packet implies someone off-site feeding spots using antennas and radios outside your station limits. Skimmer for your own use (not using the web site aggregator) would have to use your antenn
I don't think it matters if the skimmer is 2 feet or 2 miles away. Or if you own it or someone else does. My simple test. If you get CALLS and FREQUENCIES from something other than your own ears and
That Joe! What a card! It's April 22 - not April 1st! You said: "With Skimmer the operator must still tune the radio, listen/verify the call, send the exchange and log the QSO just as any other singl
talk about classic ( and remember a classic 57 chevy was not a classic in 1957), how many in a big contest (CQWW?) use only a stick and a mechanical key? (with no computer help at all) mike w7dra ___