CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
From: sawyered@earthlink.net
Reply-to: sawyered@earthlink.net
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:50:53 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
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 honorable people do it the right way, 
that's how you know.

Could M/S rubber clock the log and sometimes operate as M2 and be undetected?  
Sure, if its not abused. Could M2 actually operate M3 occasionally?  Sure.

Personally, I am happy to see skimmer be devloped like many other facets of 
contesting.  It just needs to stay in "assisted" with packet.  Then start 
worrying in that class how to prevent "skimmer assisted" from turning into 
"robo wars".  All I can say is...I am glad I am not in the assisted class!

I hope that the enthusiasm for the technology continues even if it is 
unsuccessful in infiltrating the "unassisted" class.  Otherwise, the motivation 
for the enthusiasm becomes questionable.

Ed  N1UR
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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