> Yes, but what's to stop me from designing a CU2QSO version of the "TACO"
> (Totally Automated Computer Operator) that someone used for HF CW
> contesting, and having it complete the QSO. That "TACO" design would be
> easier then the CW version.
>
> >I think the main reason that this doesn't feel right to many of us is that
> >it removes the operator from much of the QSO process and starts to feel too
> >much like packet. Since packet spotting is an evil thing, then this starts
> >to feel like an evil thing as well.
>
> I agree it's TOO automated! If you design a "TACO" program it's
> COMPLETELY automated and that's CHEATING! How do you PROVE that?
This hasn't been addressed by contest rules yet. I tried to force the
discussion back in 1986 when I had the Z80 op make QSOs in the Field
Day without any human interaction.
Tree
|