I still think there ought to be a separate "Skimmer" class. That way, no
one does anything to violate the rules, the Skimmer users comnpete against
themselves, and everyone else not using Skimmer competes in their own
classes.
I'm curious how many of the logs in the "Skimmer" class would have an
unusual number of busted calls.
73, Zack W9SZ
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Pete Smith wrote:
> I'm intrigued to note that while this petition has been being pushed
> through individual e-mails, it has not yet even been mentioned on
> cq-contest. Could it be that the sponsors realize theirs is a minority
> position, and want to get as much of a head-start as they can?
>
> I think it's ironic that those who are leading the charge to ban this
> particular technology are also those who are most over-estimating its
> impact. I began working with Skimmer believing it would be a real contest
> paradigm-changer. I still believe this is true for a few specific cases,
> such as CW Sweepstakes. For the rest, though, I think the impact will be
> very similar to packet, and will mostly overlap. The same foolish people
> who over-rely on packet will over-rely on Skimmer, and will pay the price.
> People who cheat with packet will probably add Skimmer to their arsenals.
> It will be harder to catch through statistical analyses (since you won't be
> able to know, for sure, when a given station was first heard by a given
> Skimmer), but greedy cheaters will still be catchable, and cautious ones
> still won't be.
>
> Banning the technology from contests will have no useful effect. By all
> means, retain a single-op unassisted class without it (like packet), and
> let the marketplace decide.
>
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|