[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

[Julius Fazekas]

Pete,

Actually, it kinda saddens me that "the temptation to
cheat will be almost overwhelming" is the main reason
for allowing skimmer technology in SO unassisted. This
implies that many are already willing to cheat, if it
means "winning".

Seriously, all this does is make "SO unassisted"
meaningless. So we might as well just have SO and
forget about assisted and unassisted altogether. Which
would eliminate all cheating correct? 

We probably should eliminate the power categories as
well, because those folks obviously want to cheat to
win as well, so no temptation, no cheating. Right?

I firmly think that user skimmer should be considered
assisted or multi-single, same as using the web, IMHO.
I guess I'm firmly in the "ham and a radio" camp.

In my mind, if people need to cheat to be the best,
then they aren't really the best. Are they?

Technology presents a lot of ethical issues, none of
which should be taken lightly. I realize this is a
touchy area. Please don't take this as a personal
attack, it's not. It's only my passionate opinion,
FWIW.

Cheers,
Julius
n2wn

--- Pete Smith <n4zr at contesting.com> wrote:

> In this week's radio-sport.net newsletter, there is
> an excellent article on 
> the current deliberations about how to handle CW
> Skimmer in contest rules 
> (http://www.radio-sport.net/skimmer1.htm). 
> According to the article, ARRL 
> and CQ rule-makers are in contact, and are leaning
> toward putting Skimmer 
> in the Assisted category.
> 
> I can appreciate their dilemma, but hope that they
> will think carefully 
> about this.  I am posting this here because I don't
> know who to write, 
> specifically, but I know it is likely they will read
> it here.
> 
> Take Sweepstakes and CQWW as examples.  The most
> prestigious category, by 
> far, is single-op unassisted.  If CW Skimmer is
> banned in this category, 
> the temptation to cheat will be almost overwhelming.
>  In SS, 50 additional 
> QSOs over the last 12 hours can make the difference
> between finishing fifth 
> or first.  In CQWW, an extra 75-100 multipliers
> would be a similarly huge 
> advantage.
> 
> The problem is that it will be almost impossible to
> detect a decisive level 
> of cheating.  The statistical methods used to detect
> packet cheaters simply 
> won't work.
> 
> In SS, I would use Skimmer to fill the bandmaps (in
> my contest logger) for 
> all the bands that are open at my QTH.  Then I would
> choose the one with 
> the most activity, and go either from the bottom
> down or the top up, 
> working the stations on the bandmap with my second
> radio.  The pattern of 
> operation this would produce, for any log-based
> analysis, would be 
> indistinguishable from what a good unassisted
> single-op would do.
> 
> CQWW would be a little trickier, because of the
> importance of 
> multipliers.  A covert Skimmer user would have to be
> careful not to be too 
> quick to grab multipliers as soon as they are first
> skimmed, particularly 
> if it produces a pattern of band changes versus new
> mults that will show a 
> "supernatural" ability to know when a new mult shows
> up on a given 
> band.  Again, the secret would probably be to change
> to a given band and 
> work your way up or down the bandmap in a way that
> mimics how a non-Skimmer 
> op would do it.
> 
> I can hear some people reacting now - "Ooooh, he's
> telling people how to 
> cheat."  C'mon, guys, I'm not the sharpest blade in
> the drawer, and 
> certainly not the most accomplished, motivated or
> ingenious 
> contester.  Anything I can think of is probably
> being mulled over by others 
> right now, as we wait for the rule-makers'
> decision(s). I just hope they 
> won't make a decision that makes the cheating
> problem worse.
> 
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> "If Skimmers are outlawed, only outlaws will have
> Skimmers"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 


Julius Fazekas
N2WN

Tennessee Contest Group
TnQP http://www.tnqp.org/

Elecraft K2/100 #3311
Elecraft K2/100 #4455
Elecraft K3/100 #366