An interesting viewpoint, that, from K0HB. Ahhh, well, his "system" might
well describe the mechanical pencil that I used for many years to write
into my paper log during contests. So, I think he is going to have to be
correctly described as being less than careful in describing what he calls
"assistance".
We're also going to have to draw inferences what he means by "assistance",
although I think we're safe to assume that he means any such "system"
places an operator into the "assisted" category. Except, frankly, I think
that the "assisted" category is defined by the contest sponsor rather than
by K0HB.
Yes, I'm going to have to critique the incautious language here.
Essentially
the K0HB interpretation cannot be implemented because either it is
ill-conceived or it is at least poorly communicated. I certainly couldn't
interpret this language correctly if it were part of the contest rules.
Please help us, Hans. We'd like to understand your moral outrage or
whatever it is, but you're going to have to understand that, whatever
technological advancements we may encounter along our way to the
future are going to have to be dealt with in clear-minded fashion with
language in the rules that can be understood unambiguously.
----- Original Message -----
From: "K-ZERO-HB" <k-zero-hb@earthlink.net>
To: "Bill Parry" <bparry@rgv.rr.com>; "Tom Taormina" <Tom@k5rc.cc>;
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Cheating with Technology
>
>>
>> I just don't understand where we are going with this. It appears that
> folks
>> want to pick the technology that suits them and call it fine. (SO2R, or
>> propagation software, or logging software, or remote stations, at al. and
>> call them cutting edge technology that improves us all. Other technology
> for
>> some reason is "persona non gratis" (anything having to do with packet is
>> equated with sexual assault of children).
>>
>
> My working definition of "assistance" is any person or 'system' which
> helps
> identify and 'capture' specific stations and place them in the log. That
> includes spotting networks, packet, 'skimmer', 'super-check-partial', and
> other similar 'things'.
>
> My definition does NOT include software which does 'housekeeping'
> functions
> like duping, transcribing the log. It also does NOT include SO2R skills,
> station design skills, antenna design skills, and other skills of the
> operator in tilting the playing field in his/her favor.
>
> As long as a single human operator hunts down and identifies target
> stations for his/her log, then personally copies the exchange without
> outside 'hints', he/she is a Single Operator Unassisted.
>
> This definition does not preclude advanced technology in station design or
> radio design. It DOES preclude technology which allows the 'automated'
> capture of information or the manufacture of QSO's from information
> provided by automated means.
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB/W7
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|