Hi, Bob.
I pretty much expected to get some "feedback" from that comment, and
from my own personal bias I might want to argue the same thing. I was
merely trying to illustrate that CW Skimmer isn't really the fundamental
issue here when discussing what may or may not be "taking the sport out
of radiosport".
But if we stand back a bit and look at things from a distance, what's
really the difference between these two scenarios:
1. I'm operating from my QTH and W5OV is simply listening from his
QTH. W5OV hears an interesting station and spots it to DX Summit. I
have N1MM set up to post spots from DX summit to the bandmap. I see the
spot, N1MM tells me that I need it, and I work the station. W5OV
provided ONLY the initial information and I acted on it.
2. I'm operating from my QTH and W5OV is sitting five feet away from me
listening on a spare receiver. W5OV hears an interesting spot and
passes me a piece of paper with the callsign and frequency written on
it. I read the note, decide on my own that I need it, and work the
station. W5OV provided ONLY the initial information and I acted on it.
I don't really see any difference (if anything, I had to make an
evaluation in the second case that I didn't have to in the first case),
and it's one of the reasons that I've never fully bought into the idea
that assisted and multi-op are fundamentally different concepts ... at
least as far as QSO alerting goes. Admittedly I'm a shades-of-gray type
of person, but possibly you can find a fundamental difference between
the two situations above and explain it to me. About the only thing I
can come up with is that if W5OV were in my shack I would be able to
advise him where I wanted him to look (frequency or beam heading) ...
but that represents an opportunity to act illicitly, not necessarily an
illicit act itself.
I'm not a total anarchist, though. I do think QSO assistance (another
op actually making a QSO) is a different story and clearly represents
more than one op. Heck, I'm even in the boat that says having someone
fix your amp or antenna while you continue operating is "multi-op".
Again, I'm not trying to argue the ethics, morality, legitimacy, or
desirability of any rule definition. As far as I'm concerned, the
contest sponsor alone determines that (without any need to justify it)
and his only burden is to clearly and unambiguously explain it to the
rest of us.
73,
Dave AB7E
On 11/30/2011 9:48 AM, w5ov@w5ov.com wrote:
> Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion; it is not necessarily
> representative of the official position of any contest committee I may be
> a member of.
>
> Dave,
>
> It is my opinion that there is no circumstance where having a second
> operator involved would not be considered multi-operator.
>
> Regardless of what he's doing, he MUST be considered a second operator.
> Therefore, having more than one operator would shift such an operation to
> a multi-operator category.
>
> 73,
>
> Bob W5OV
>
>
>
>> Hi, Mark.
>>
>> Yes, I am aware of all that, but I still don't think the original
>> comment was actually trying to address a rule issue, particularly
>> becauseeliminating unassisted categories covers a lot more ground than
>> just CW Skimmer ... it also would include allowing packet or internet
>> spotting clusters and possibly even having a second op in the shack
>> feeding you spots from a second receiver..
>>
>> Regarding the various opinions on what constitutes "sport" in
>> contesting, that also could extend to other areas besides callsign
>> spotting as dozens of previous reflector threads have flogged. Super
>> Check Partial, Call History files, logging programs that insert the
>> exchange for you, and memory keyers could all (depending upon one's
>> personal perspective) be viewed as taking at least some of the
>> individual "sport" out of contesting. That's why I keep trying to make
>> the point that the "sport" in radiosport for any particular contest is
>> precisely and exclusively whatever the contest sponsor says it is ...
>> period. It is not based upon what we used to be fond of.
>>
>> 73,
>> Dave AB7E
>>
>>
>> On 11/29/2011 7:31 AM, Mark Bailey wrote:
>>> Hi Dave:
>>>
>>> Yes. Some contests, including WAE, don't have "unassisted" categories.
>>> There are people
>>> advocating the elimination of "unassisted" categories in the other
>>> contests.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Mark, KD4D
>>>
>>> On 11/29/2011 12:13 AM, David Gilbert wrote:
>>>> I'm confused regarding the point here. In what major contest is the
>>>> use
>>>> of CW Skimmer allowed for unassisted categories (other than in Blind
>>>> Mode)? Isn't all of that already covered in the rules? Kind of like
>>>> it
>>>> not being legal to have three people rotating through the chair while
>>>> claiming single op. Or not being able to run a KW while claiming QRP.
>>>> Did I miss something?
>>>>
>>>> Dave AB7E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/28/2011 6:12 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
>>>>> In my opinion, Jim has it exactly right.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Jim Reisert AD1C
>>>>> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 12:34 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't care if you built the skimmer setup yourself without any
>>>>> outside help, and you're only getting spots from your own skimmer. I
>>>>> don't even care if you wrote the software yourself! Taking a break
>>>>> from running to find stations to work is an important skill which
>>>>> separates the great S/O unassisted stations from the good ones. In my
>>>>> opinion, having hardware/software to do this for you takes the "sport"
>>>>> out of Radiosport.
>>>>>
>>>>> 73 - Jim AD1C
>>>>>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|