I suggest two enhancements to Kelly's wording:
1. "receipt" should be replaced by "receipt and usage", because one has no
control over another station coming on the run frequency and volunteering
that VY1JA is on 14217. However, this "unavoidably received" information is
not used by operators who want to remain squeaky clean as "unassisted".
2. "Spotting information" should have a time element attached. That is,
only spots from within the contest period. Otherwise, the wording below
will include such things as operating patterns based on prior contests,
e.g., VY1JA was on 14217, 14227 or 14237 between 22-00Z in previous
contests. I don't think we want to cast the restriction that wide.
The biggest issue is how "passive receipt" will be interpreted by readers of
the rule. First off, it needs to include other humans, not just
technologies. Second, I'm not satisfied that it adequately describes the
prohibited assistance in acquiring QSO partners. Unfortunately, I haven't
come up with a better alternative, which just supports Randy's comment about
the difficulty in writing rules.
73,
Ed - W0YK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Kelly Taylor
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 June, 2008 19:35
> To: Randy Thompson; 'CQ-Contest@contesting. com'
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
>
> I think the key is to define what constitutes assistance.
> Once you have done that, then an operator either IS or IS NOT
> assisted.
>
> Assistance, for the purposes of this contest, shall be
> construed to mean the passive receipt of spotting information
> from packet networks, computerized wideband receivers or any
> technology hereafter developed. Spotting information shall be
> construed to mean information regarding a station's callsign
> and frequency. Passive shall mean that the operator has not
> had to take any action - save for turning a system on or
> connecting to a network - to receive spots. Examples of this
> technology include but are not limited to packet, DX Cluster
> and Skimmer.
>
> Note: this means that bandscopes do not constitute spotting
> assistance. They don't now. This also means that anything
> that is not the provision of spotting information is not
> assistance, to clear that red herring off the table.
>
> Once you insert this rule into the existing rules, it's
> covered. And it also covers RTTY and SSB, since there's
> nothing here that prevents automatic decoding of signals you
> have found on your own.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd@charter.net>
> To: "'CQ-Contest@contesting. com'" <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
>
>
> > You can't expect the sponsors and rule makers to be
> clairvoyant. Or to
> > work
> > in a vacuum!
> >
> > I have seen very few actual rules proposals floated here
> compared to the
> > volume of dialog on the subject of skimmer. You never know
> what twist of
> > phrase that someone suggests will generate an "ah ha"
> moment for a contest
> > sponsor tasked with writing rules.
> >
> > To those who have contributed proposals, they have been
> very thoughtful.
> > They have also demonstrated just how hard it is to make
> simple rules that
> > are easily understood while not being open to too much
> interpretation.
> > Keep
> > them coming.
> >
> > Randy, K5ZD
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> >> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> David Gilbert
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:28 PM
> >> To: Sherman Banks
> >> Cc: CQ-Contest@contesting. com
> >> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> >>
> >>
> >> I would hope that the major contest sponsors and rule makers,
> >> in response to technology changes such as CW Skimmer, would
> >> try to refine their category definitions and regulations
> >> based upon a rational and forward-looking thought process
> >> focused upon what best serves and promotes the sport of
> >> contesting rather than on how consistent the arguments might
> >> be on any particular side of the issues, or on whether or not
> >> there is already inconsistency in the rules. Possibly I am
> >> expecting too much ...
> >>
> >> Dave AB7E
> >>
> >>
> >> Sherman Banks wrote:
> >> > I think what we (the not so smart people according to VE4XT), are
> >> > looking for is consistency in the arguments.
> >> >
> >> > Packet spotting was banned for SO because other operators
> >> are feeding
> >> > the SO with information on the location of stations. This
> >> is a correct
> >> > interpretation since a SO should not be getting assistance
> >> from others
> >> > operators.
> >> >
> >> > With Skimmer we now hear that it is automated spotting
> of calls and
> >> > decoding CW that provides an unfair level of assistance.
> >> Since there
> >> > are no additional operators providing these call signs and
> >> all of the
> >> > equipment used for Skimmer is within the station circle,
> >> then it must
> >> > be the technology that people are opposed to.
> >> >
> >> > But automated encoding of CW by a computer is OK. So is the Super
> >> > Check Partial that is made from thousands of other operators. The
> >> > anti-Skimmer crowd needs to draw the line on where
> >> technology should
> >> > not be allowed. It appears that the line being drawn is in the
> >> > decoding of CW since most everyone feels that automated CW
> >> encoding is
> >> > OK. But there were no gripes about the Writelog CW decoder
> >> - another inconsistency example.
> >> >
> >> > To me, the pro-Skimmer crowd has been more consistent with
> >> the intent
> >> > of SO and the original packet ban. The anti-skimmer crowd
> >> seems to be
> >> > more vocal making the numbers appear larger but I need
> to see some
> >> > consistency in the argument against using computer assistance and
> >> > where the line is drawn in that assistance.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|