CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

To: 'Michael Coslo' <mjc5@psu.edu>, cq-contesting cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
From: "Kerr, Prof. K.M." <k.kerr@abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:46:43 +0100
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>



Mike wrote:

So how do we determine it's actual impact? We allow it's use for a time so 
gauge that impact. If Skimmer users start dominating classes, then it might be 
time to direct it's use to one category or another.

-73 de Mike N3LI -

To Mike and anyone else who is interested, I have a real problem with this 
approach. The argument over how much impact 'packet' in all its various forms 
has on contesting is well covered territory. It has been pointed out for years 
on this reflector that there are relatively few examples of the same guy with 
the same station going assisted and unassisted in comparable events to help 
draw proper conclusions. The purest scientific test is not possible since it is 
impossible to run the same contest twice, 'with' and 'without' packet, all 
other variables controlled. However, despite the possibly deserved label of 
'single operator distracted', no-one seriously doubts that packet, cluster etc 
would be/is an advantage to contesters and thus, appropriately, this is deemed 
'assistance'.

I submit that it will never be possible to gather adequate data to make the 
comparison and come to a reasonable conclusion regarding whether or not skimmer 
is 'having an impact'.

Furthermore, I suggest, as I did a few days ago, that this is not the point. I 
cannot see the relevance of whether or not skimmer impacts on scores. What 
matters is how this technology is perceived. Just like packet, it seems that 
this technology finds, identifies and displays potential QSO partners in a way 
that, without this gizmo, the single operator could not manage. I think that it 
is playing with words to imply that, because the current wording of rules 
infers external or 'other person' assistance, skimmer is not covered. The key 
issue is surely to determine whether or not skimmer is a form of assistance?

I just cannot conceive how this technology is anything other than such 
assistance and suggest that allowing it in what is to be considered otherwise a 
SO Unassisted class is wrong.

Keith GM4YXI (GM7V)
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest


The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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