[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

[Tod -ID]

I want to line up on Randy, K5ZD's team, for this debate.  

His last sentence summarizes his thoughts [and mine] perfectly"

> Anything that gives you calls and frequencies (and did not 
> come from your own knob twisting and
> ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage.

I also endorse his P.S. and would add to it -- " in fact, it doesn't even
occur to them to cheat"

Since we have already solved the packet use matter [unlimited or assisted
category] I had thought the skimmer solution was obvious and was a bit
puzzled why it continues to be discussed. But then, discussing whether one
should send nnRST or just nn as an exchange went on for many days.

Tod, K0TO








> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Randy Thompson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:21 AM
> To: 'Pete Smith'; CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
> 
> If I replaced the word skimmer with packet in your argument, 
> then all the same issues would be true.  If we are going to 
> make categories based on cheating potential, then the only 
> option appears to be combining all the single op categories 
> into one.  Anything goes.
> 
> That would be sad for those of us who really enjoy the 
> "classic" definition of single operator.
> 
> I believe use of skimmer should put you in assisted.  
> Anything that gives you calls and frequencies (and did not 
> come from your own knob twisting and
> ears) is assisting you in your operation and providing an advantage.
> 
> Randy, K5ZD
> 
> PS - For people who are honorable, the temptation to cheat is 
> easily overcome.
>  
>