> 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.
Of course it's ironic. It also shows that this challenge is nothing
but a knee-jerk reaction to change. It is a rear guard action by those
who have not accepted that "proficiency in CW by ear" is no longer a
requirement for access to and participation in amateur radio.
Locally operated skimmers are not "robot operators" as they do not
autonomously answer and work other stations. Given some thought,
the best a local skimmer is likely to do is make second radio
operation marginally more productive but breaking the pile-up on
a rare multiplier might be more difficult if skimmer spots are
fed to the general packet network in wholesale numbers. A locally
operated Skimmer might make Sunday afternoon SS operation more
interesting and result in fewer participants pulling the plug to
watch the Cowboys (or Redskins or Giants or Bears, etc.) but it's
not likely to result in massive changes. Networked skimmers may
increase the number of questionable spots and the number of bad
QSOs in some logs but the better operators will still confirm the
call.
> By all means, retain a single-op unassisted class without it (like
> packet), and let the marketplace decide.
Skimmer, when run on a local receiver as opposed to "linked"
skimmers feeding data from many remote sources, should not be
treated the same way as packet/internet. CW Skimmer is certainly
innovative but all of the technologies incorporated in Skimmer
have been used for years - specifically: bandscope, CW decoder,
and wideband receivers. To segregate a local skimmer to the
"assisted" category is like saying if an operator uses BOTH
computer logging and a DVK he must enter the assisted class but
if he uses only ONE of the technologies he may enter the "real"
single operator class. Put another way, it might be fine for a
single operator to have two antennas as long as only one antenna
is used at a time. However, if the two antennas are "stacked"
that becomes "unfair" and places the operation in a separate entry
class.
Skimmer - in its "local" version - is evolutionary, not revolutionary.
There should be a place for all levels of technology in the single
operator class. Skimmer is not the first evolutionary technology
(code wheels, tape loops, memory keyers, DVK, computer logging,
high dynamic range receivers, digital signal processing, computer
optimized antennas, history files, Super check partial, etc.) and
it won't be the last unless the contest sponsors grant a small
group of anti-technology zealots a veto in what technology is
"acceptable" and what is technology is the "red headed step child"
that can't be lowed to play with the rest of the children.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 8:43 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Petition to Ban Skimmer
>
>
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|