Okay, I'll keep the ball rolling. I anticipate quite a discussion on this
subject on CQ-Contest.
Comments inline, below.
73,
Steve, N2IC
Kevin Stockton wrote:
> Great writeup by N4ZR. Skimmer looks like a very cool program. VE3NEA has
> been really helpful, guiding me through some technical issues concerning
> Morse Runner.
>
> But, I am extremely concerned about the use of this program, and others
> similar in function, in major contests. The implications from the thread
> regarding the use of chat rooms in CQ 160 appear to be... The rules do not
> prohibit it, so that means it is legal. If this is the prevailing logic in
> the contest community then there is nothing to stop contesters from using CW
> skimmer in a contest to copy the calls for us... the last time I checked,
> that sounds like RTTY. Nothing against RTTY but it is different from a CW
> contest and it should remain that way. Even if it is the logic by one
> contester that person has an extreme advantage over all other competitors.
>
> I turned in a good score in the sweepstakes but my accuracy won't be as good
> as the other top scorers and I'll fall a few places. Should I stop trying to
> improve my accuracy and just hook up CW skimmer for the next contest?
You're missing the real point of CW Skimmer.
It has very little to do with improving CW accuracy. The more far-ranging use
of
CW Skimmer is that it will allow a single-op to obtain a view of all activity
on
a band, without any outside assistance. That's right....it will populate your
bandmap without having to be connected to telnet/packetcluster. This is SO2R
(or
SO(N)R) taken to the extreme - you don't even have to tune the second radio.
You can argue that this would put a participant in the assisted category. The
"assisted" category has come to mean "outside assistance". This isn't "outside
assistance", it's simply computer assistance. Before you outlaw computer
assistance, consider another example of computer assistance - Pressing the F1
key to CQ on one band while listening on another band. You would have a heck of
a time doing that without computer assistance, wouldn't you ? Try sending CQ on
a paddle while listening on a second radio !
>
> I have no problem with the program or its use in chasing DX, or rag chewing.
> The problem lies in all of the gray areas concerning its use in contesting.
> Is it legal or not? The current paradigm of thought by some says that it is
> legal, because it isn't in the rules. But I just can't subscribe to that
> line of thinking. There needs to be a rule along the lines of:
>
> "All translation of Morse Code to English must be done by the operator
> without assistance from outside sources."
Kevin, I think you would be surprised to know how many of the SS QSO's you made
had a code reader on the other end. Good CW readers have been around for
several
years. For these folks, CW is nothing more than another digital mode, like
RTTY.
If you outlaw code readers, you are condemning CW contesting to a slow death.
There just aren't enough new hams in your age group, who are willing to put in
the effort to become proficient CW operators. At least allowing code readers
will keep them in the game.
>
> Even if it is outlawed, people will still use decoding programs, just like
> they still run 5 KW. But at least they won't be able to cop out and say,
> well it doesn't say I can't do it.
>
> 73, Kevin/N5DX
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|