I am 100% with Randy here. Skimmer is very similar to packet (and even more
efficient as I read and hear) in what is offers and the same statistical
methods can be used to detect skimmer use as packet use. Allowing skimmer in
unassisted makes the category pointless and similar to assisted.
All the calls in CW and SSB modes have to be copied by operator. It is that
simple. Anything else is assisted.
And two other issues:
This strange argument of unnassisted winning assisted coming up now and
then. It is clear that packet is help and can increase your score a lot.
Naturally the very best guys with very best stations are in unnassisted
usually so they do overcome this 10-20% disadvantage to assisted stations.
It is simple. I could easily make 100 more DXCC in CQWW assisted, very easy
and huge benefit. That means ca 15% in score which is HUGE.
Another argument about skimmer helping those in less avdvantageous
locations...?! Opposite to that. Skimmer would help most those who have big
pileups and very limited time on 2nd radio. If they are able to find mults
between their 200 per hour rate it is huge advantage for them. The same way
they get much more help from packet. It would make it much much more
difficult or me to compete stations in southern and western EU because now
the additional SO2R multipliers help me keep up.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Randy Thompson
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:11 AM
To: 'doug smith'
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
I don't think it matters if the skimmer is 2 feet or 2 miles away. Or if
you own it or someone else does.
My simple test. If you get CALLS and FREQUENCIES from something other than
your own ears and your own turning of the knob on the radio, then it is
Note, this opinion still allows things like waterfall displays or band
scopes that let you "see" signals on the band, but does not identify them.
Yes, I realize that guys using code readers do not pass the "your own ears"
requirement. Same for RTTY. Open to suggestion on how to word this better.
Skimmers and software defined radios (see
http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/) are way cool and lots of fun. But, we
need to be careful how we decide to apply them in the context of contest
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of doug smith
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:18 PM
> To: Fabian Kurz
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
> >I believe use of skimmer should put you in assisted. Anything that
> you calls and frequencies (and did not come from your own
> knob twisting and
> ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage.
> Should it make a difference whether it's Skimmer running on
> your own equipment (i.e., subject to the 500m-circle rule) or
> Skimmer data obtained over the Internet?
> (this is a question, not a statement!)
> >There will always be some scum in the contesting community that
> cheats. No matter what we do, there won't be a way to
> completely eliminate it. Making the rules less restrictive to
> reduce cheating is a step in the wrong direction.
> Agreed. Are there *really* enough people cheating to make it
> worth messing with the rules? Unless cheating is a LOT more
> widespread on the coasts and/or in Europe, there just isn't
> enough of it going on to be worth worrying about.
> On 4/22/08, Fabian Kurz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 07:01:16AM -0400, Pete Smith wrote:
> > > If CW Skimmer is banned in this category, the temptation to cheat
> > > will be almost overwhelming.
> > It's the same temptation to cheat with DX-Cluster, excessive power,
> > etc. I don't see the difference.
> > There will always be some scum in the contesting community that
> > cheats. No matter what we do, there won't be a way to completely
> > eliminate it. Making the rules less restrictive to reduce
> cheating is
> > a step in the wrong direction.
> > Let them cheat and be happy with it; just don't force honest and
> > skillful (unassisted) operators into using Skimmer, Cluster
> or other
> > means of assistance, which may increase the score by a few
> percent but
> > decrease the fun of contesting by 30dB.
> > 73,
> > --
> > Fabian Kurz, DJ1YFK * Dresden, Germany * http://fkurz.net/
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> Doug Smith W9WI
> Pleasant View, TN EM66
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list