[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

Tue Apr 22 23:43:58 EDT 2008

That Joe! What a card! It's April 22 - not April 1st!

You said: "With Skimmer the operator must still tune the radio,
listen/verify the call, send the exchange and log the QSO just 
as any other single operator".

That is so funny. You know that skimmer copies all the calls in the
receivers' band pass and displays all of the calls to the operator without
him doing anything aside from looking at the computer screen.

I am ROTFL! Thanks Joe - that's a hot one! 

73,

Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 8:22 AM
To: 'Randy Thompson'; 'Pete Smith'; CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

Randy, 

> If I replaced the word skimmer with packet in your argument, 
> then all the same issues would be true. 

If you replace "skimmer" with "packet" one has an entirely 
different situation.  With packet the information is coming 
from another OPERATOR and that, by definition, should place 
one in the multi-op category.  The "assisted" category has 
been an attempt to avoid making those who choose to use packet 
compete with the multi-operator stations.  

No matter ho you feel about the technology, the use of skimmer 
does not change the most fundamental "one operator performing 
all functions" nature of the single operator entry and more 
than memory keyers, voice keyers or computer logging (with 
SCP, dupe checking, etc.) changed the fundamental nature of the 
category.  With Skimmer the operator must still tune the radio, 
listen/verify the call, send the exchange and log the QSO just 
as any other single operator. 

Will skimmer change the way some people operate a CW contest? 
Of course.  Could it change the "competitive balance" and allow 
operators in areas that are not geographically favored to be 
more competitive by finding more multipliers?  Certainly.  

Technology always creates winners and losers. The early users 
of CW wheels (mechanical memory keyers) and tape loops (early 
voice keyers) had an advantage over mere mortals who did not 
have the technology but there was no thought to creating an 
"assisted" class or serious effort to band the technology. 

Any attempt to marginalize skimmer by forcing its users into 
as "assisted" category is nothing more than a petty attempt 
by the elite and those who benefit from favored locations to 
maintain the status quo and deny otherwise top operators a tool 
that might give them a compensating advantage. 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 

> -----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 8:21 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.
>  
> 
> > -----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

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest