CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>, "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
From: "Stan Stockton" <k5go@cox.net>
Reply-to: Stan Stockton <k5go@cox.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:03:56 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
> What mustn't happen, in my opinion, is 
> the banning of CW Skimmer.  All the
> analogies to other sports fall down 
> because there would be no practical 
> way
> to detect its use, and because the 
> potential advantage conferred is so
> great.  People who want to use it 
> should be able to.

Pete,

There is no practical way to determine 
whether a single
operator has two other operators in the 
room, spotting
stations for him to work or working them 
for him on a second or third radio. 
There is no practical way to determine 
whether someone is running 3KW instead 
of 1.5KW.  The list goes on and on.  It 
seems unreasonable to me to say that we 
need to allow an innovation (leading to 
automated QSO machines which will 
replace good operators and diminish the 
sport) because we cannot detect whether 
they are cheating.

What is that great potential advantage 
of allowing Skimmer?

To attract those who don't currently 
like CW?
To turn it into more of a computer game 
or RTTY type operation?
To make it easier for stations to 
contact each other?

How many people do you suppose will call 
CQ
with a bogus callsign to see it show up 
on a skimmer
list or lists or just play with the 
system?  How many people will jump on 
that station only to perhaps (or not) 
find out it is bogus?

How many people will call CQ, be there 
for a few minutes and then leave while 
people are piling up trying to work the 
guy who just left?.

How much confusion and additional
QRM will be created when many hundreds 
of
stations that would have been calling 
people they
found to work are now calling CQ to see 
if they can
generate a few answers as a result of 
Skimmer?

And for those who argue that Skimmer is 
not
assistance because it does not involve 
another person
giving you the information, what is the 
difference
between someone calling CQ for the 
specific purpose of telling another 
station or stations who he knows to be 
using Skimmer that he is on such and 
such frequency and sending him an e-mail 
or calling on the phone to say the same 
thing?  The answer is that Skimmer is 
better in that regard because in one 
fell swoop he is confirming that he can 
be heard at the other station's location 
and telling him he is on a certain 
frequency with one transmission.

In my opinion there is no question that 
for the good of the CW Contesting Sport 
Skimmer should be banned in all 
categories.

For those who are tired of the subject 
matter, I understand.  I am sometimes 
tired of it myself.  I went to
Walmart yesterday with a list from my 
wife.  I took the list out of my pocket 
and was "skimming" it and focused on 
SOAP.  I stood there in bewilderment for 
approximately 5 seconds trying to figure 
out what the P stood for. :-) - True and 
I chuckled aloud.

This is an important discussion and 
could have a dramatic effect on the part 
of the hobby that many love.

Stan, K5GO 

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

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