[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

Tue Apr 22 16:32:39 EDT 2008

Ah, but packet implies someone off-site feeding spots using antennas and
radios outside your station limits.  Skimmer for your own use (not using the
web site aggregator) would have to use your antennas, along with all the rf
problems and stuff that goes along with it.  

And where do you draw the line with skimmer?  If I use it (like I tried in
arrl dx cw) on just the audio output of the radio, is that assisted?  If I
have narrow filters in and only have it help as a single channel decoder is
that assisted??  If I open the filters to 3kc and copy stations on either
side of me is that assisted?  If I have a cheap sound card or radio with a
limited bandwidth IF output and can only capture 10khz, or 20khz, is that
assisted?  What if I spend more time playing with the technology than making
contacts, what class am I in then??  Doug's 'single op distracted'??

David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://www.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net

> -----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 12:21
> 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.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 11:01 AM
> > To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
> >
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest