--- "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv@subich.com> wrote:
> I don't know how one can consider CW Skimmer, as long as it
> is running on hardware in the operator's own shack, to be "DX
> alerting assistance" instead of simply a technological way to
> operate an infinite number of simultaneous receivers.
The difference is whether the human -- the OPERATOR -- has primacy or the
technology does. We have defined alerting assistance in contests to generally
be obtaining callsign and frequency information where a station is located from
some other source than you (the single op) finding the station and copying the
callsign yourself. It does not matter if the callsign and frequency was
provided by another person via the packet network or whether it was provided by
a piece of software. You did not find that station's frequency. You did not
copy the callsign yourself. That is assistance.
The rule says:
The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the station in the Single
Operator Assisted category.
I don't think the language is ambiguous. It says "of any kind".
> There are those of us who may not LIKE the technology and
> believes that is devalues operator skill but there is nothing
> that can be done to outlaw CW Skimmer any more than one can
> outlaw CW decoders, memory keyers, mechanical pencils or
> digital signal processing.
None of those examples you provide (memory keyers, mechanical pencils, digital
signal processing) provides me with DX altering assistance. A piece of
software that tells me the callsign and the frequency of a CW signal DOES.
> > A piece of computer software decoding CW signals is not a
> > person performing a spotting function. If the callsign is
> > decoded by a method other than the human ear, that is not a
> > person spotting a callsign, it's a machine. A computer. A
> > computer is not a person. The rule says PERSON. Not person
> > operating a computer that spots the callsigns for you.
>
> This logic would put any operator who uses CW decoding software
> into the assisted (or multi operator) category. The logic is
> simply flawed ... every operator "Spots" a station calling CQ
> before they work them. Simply put, your logic would require
> that we drive cars using reins and verbal commands instead of
> a steering wheel and foot pedals.
Yes -- CW decoding software would put them into the Assisted category.
You are correct -- every OPERATOR spots a station calling CQ before they work
them. Every OPERATOR. A computer spotting stations for you with a piece of
software and telling you the frequency said station is on is NOT an OPERATOR.
Information provided about callsigns and frequencies of signals on any given
band during a contest that you did not find and copy yourself is DX altering
assistance. What else could we possibly call it?
Caveat here: I'm playing devil's advocate. If the CW Skimmer is legal for CQ
WW SOAB unassisted use, you can bet I'm going to figure out how to use this
thing to my advantage. It would be CAKE to set up 3 or 4 rigs with Skimmers,
extra computers on a network, and let them fly. All I have to do is operate
the run radio and point and click on the callsigns the Skimmer decodes for me.
Believe me when I tell you -- I'll do it.
This is "unassisted single op?" OK, if it is, I'm game. If it's not, so be
it.
Scott W4PA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|