[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted or not assisted question

To: "Michael D. Adams" <mda@ab1od.org>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Assisted or not assisted question
From: K0HB <kzerohb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:04:24 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
It may sound heretical coming from an avid CW operator but I categorically 
reject the notion that the term "assistance" applies to any single-channel 
signal decoded off the air at a single-operator station.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 5, 2012, at 10:00 AM, "Michael D. Adams" <mda@ab1od.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Paul O'Kane <pokane@ei5di.com> wrote:
>>> Second, RTTY and other digital modes
>>> require a single-channel decoder, and it would have required some special
>>> language to outlaw one kind of decoder but allow other kinds of decoders.
>> Please consider this - it's simple and unambiguous.
>>   CW decoders, whether single or multi-channel, are
>>   not permitted for Single Op.
> I'd suggest a slightly different phrasing:
> "For phone and CW, devices, utilities, or receiver features which
> process received signals to provide automated audio or text
> suggestions as to the callsign or information being received are not
> permitted for single-operator, unassisted entries."
> Rationale:
> * This makes a clear break between phone and CW, which are customarily
> decoded by brainpower and not by machine, and digital modes which
> customarily have required mechanized interpretation.
> * This is somewhat "future-proofed" against the probability that at
> some point, someone's going to release a gadget that can parse weak
> phone signals to pull out a callsign, and "lawyer-proofed" against
> those that might try to create a gadget that verbalizes a received CW
> signal rather than displaying it.
> * This leaves open the possibility of using a tool that presents a
> received CW signal on a waterfall, without interpretation, as would be
> needed by a hearing-impaired person trying to copy CW.  (Some might
> see this as a form of "decoding", but I would argue that since a brain
> is still required to interpret the received signal, it's not
> necessarily "assistance".)
> * This avoids touching the can of worms about whether single- vs.
> multi-channel signal reception is permitted in single op, and how that
> corresponds to the use of panadapters, spectrum scopes, SDRs,
> waterfalls, etc.  (The line between assistance and unassisted probably
> passes through this fog bank, and I'm not clever or experienced enough
> to say precisely where it falls.)
> * This addresses a weakness in the "boy and his radio" standard -- the
> possibility that today's receivers can decode CW.   (If I turn on my
> K3's CW decoder, that's certainly "assistance", even if the use of the
> RTTY or PSK decoder when working those modes isn't.)
> --
> Michael D. Adams (AB1OD)
> Poquonock, Connecticut | mda@ab1od.org
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
CQ-Contest mailing list

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