CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
From: "Ken Claerbout" <k4zw@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:29:36 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
  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 becomes a part of what is now 
unassisted single op, it is going to impact my motivation for competing in 
these events.  I still get a kick out of knowing that the score I produce is 
solely my own work and without assistance.  I can also appreciate those who 
enjoy adding new technologies to their operating.  What's wrong with making 
this a part of the assisted category?  Better yet, change assisted to single op 
anything goes to cover other technologies sure to come down the pipe.  Name it 
something sexy like Single Op Technology class.  No, I'm not advocating the 
addition of another class.
   As I commented to W4PA awhile back, who would have thought the day might 
come when SSB contests would become the true measure of an operator?  Yes I'm 
sure a voice recognition skimmer is in the works but good luck with that on 20 
meters!
   I have no doubt some will use skimmer to cheat just as they do with Packet 
or by the other means they employ.  But for heavens sake, lets not make this a 
part of "the most prestigious category" because of what the lowest common 
denominators in our sport might try to do.  I believe there is still some honor 
left among our ranks.  To the contest sponsors, think long and hard about this. 
 Once this genie is out of the bottle, it ain't going back in.


Ken K4ZW      

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

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