Does anyone else find it funny that the guy advocating for skimmer on the
grounds of technology advancement is then arguing that contacts should
require a human to be manually involved?
If we can make rules requiring human involvement (I assume as a way of
keeping it a human sport rather than a robot/technology exercise), then why
can't we draw the same line around the skimmer? I.e., we want to keep
humans in the call finding business rather than having skimmer do it.
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe
> Subich, W4TV
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:48 AM
> To: 'Richard L. King'; cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What Skimmer is!
>
>
>
> Richard and many others continue to raise the specter of "robot wars"
> as a result of Skimmer technology. I do not believe that is
> - or needs to be - the end result of skimmer evolution.
> Instead, consider a set of principles defining the required
> minimum level of involvement by the [human] operator in ANY
> contest ...
>
> 1) all QSOs must be initiated by the operator - either by manually
> calling CQ/answering a CQ or by some overt physical action to
> cause a memory keyer, logging computer, voice keyer, tape loop,
> etc. to call/answer.
>
> 2) the operator must determine the operating frequency/band
> and manually
>
> select the station to be answered - whether by "turning
> the knob,"
> clicking up/down with a mouse, pressing arrow keys on a keyboard,
> by clicking on a call in a "bandmap" display or by
> entering a specific
> frequency in a logging program.
>
> 3) the operator must satisfy him/herself that the received
> callsign and
> exchange is correct - either by copying by ear or by use
> of locally
> operate technology (CW decoder, voice recognition, RTTY decoder,
> etc.)
> of sufficient reliability
>
> 4) the operator must acknowledge all received callsigns and
> exchanges -
> either manually or by specifically causing the
> acknowledgement to be
> transmitted (e.g., memory keyer, voice keyer, preset function in a
> logging program, etc.)
>
> Any appropriate technology may be used in transmitting,
> receiving and/or
>
> logging but the hardware/software may not make any
> transmission on an automatic or autonomous basis - that is
> initiate or acknowledge a QSO without overt operator involvement.
>
> Appropriate technology - under the present state of the art -
> includes but is not limited to: memory keyers, computer
> logging, digital voice keyers, multiple receivers capable of
> simultaneous operation on multiple
>
> frequencies and multiple bands (e.g. SO#R), scanning
> receivers, bandscopes, CW Decoders, Computer Aided/Computer
> controlled transmitters and receivers, digital (e.g.,
> RTTY,PSK31, etc.) decoding software, dedicated beacon and
>
> WWV receivers, grayline maps/software displays, propagation
> prediction software, history files, SCP databases, etc.
>
> "Assistance" is defined specifically as any information
> concerning other stations (including calls, frequencies and
> operating schedules), pre-arranged QSOs, or participation in
> station operation (including equipment repair, modification
> or configuration during the contest) provided by any person
> other than the station operator whether provided locally (at
> the transmitting site) or remotely (via telephone, internet,
>
> packet, VHF/UHF voice, wireless LAN, WiFi, or any other means of
> communication).
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Richard L.
> > King
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:11 AM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] What Skimmer is!
> >
> >
> > Hello all.
> >
> > I have watched and read the debate about Skimmer.
> >
> > I admit that my prejudices are against it. But I have to admit that
> > both sides make a strong argument for whether it should or
> should not
> > be allowed or whether it should or should not be limited to
> assisted
> > or multi-op categories.
> >
> > But thinking about Skimmer brings me to what it really is.
> It is the
> > beginning of robotics used by contesters. Think about this and
> > consider that all the past technology advancements still had your
> > brain or your fingers involved in the copying, identifying, and
> > completing QSOs.
> >
> > Many complained about SO2R, but it still requires your
> ears, brains,
> > and fingers to do anything with it. A skill for your brain to be
> > learned.
> >
> > Memory keyers required that you make the decision of what button to
> > push and when to push it.
> >
> > Computer logging requires your brain to identify the data and your
> > fingers to enter the data.
> >
> > But Skimmer is a robot!
> >
> > Not a complete robot yet, but the first step of what could
> eventually
> > be be a totally robotic contesting station. Currently it
> decodes and
> > presents to you a band map of workable stations without any
> operator
> > skill needed. At this stage of development you still need
> to look at
> > the Skimmer list and select who you want to work in a
> manner similar
> > to using packet.
> >
> > The technology is there now for full robotics as we move in that
> > direction. It will soon be possible to have your station
> call and work
> > another station without your presence in the ham shack. It
> will just
> > require a lot of programming and the proper algorithms to identify
> > what needs to copied, entered, and replied to.
> >
> > If we allow Skimmer for the single-operator category now we
> will set
> > the precedent for allowing a full robotic contest station
> to compete
> > in the single-op category later. The single-op winners in
> the future
> > may no longer be the best operators but, instead will be those with
> > the best automated stations.
> >
> > Years ago, N6TR set up a "KL7 sniffer" for SS CW. It was
> supposed to
> > find a KL7 and ring an alarm. I don't think it found a KL7 that
> > weekend, but it was a glimpse into the future.
> >
> > I would really like to continue contesting with my own brain doing
> > most of the copying and decision making. But I have always loved
> > contesting and will likely do what is necessary to remain
> competitive.
> > I think a lot of contesters are like me. They don't really
> want this,
> > but they will have to do it to stay in the game.
> >
> > 73 to you all.
> >
> > Richard - K5NA
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|