[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
Richard DiDonna NN3W
nn3w at cox.net
Wed Apr 23 00:47:44 EDT 2008
How about if you receive callsign and frequency information that is outside
of your receiver passband (2.4 KHz or 2.7 KHz), then it is assistance? In
other words, if you can hear it and your "decoder" can decode it in the same
passband that you're actually listening to, then you're fine. Using a
decoding system to decode calls 15 KHz away (e.g., skimmer) would run into
73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Thompson" <k5zd at charter.net>
To: "'doug smith'" <dougw9wi at gmail.com>
Cc: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>I don't think it matters if the skimmer is 2 feet or 2 miles away. Or if
> you own it or someone else does.
> My simple test. If you get CALLS and FREQUENCIES from something other
> your own ears and your own turning of the knob on the radio, then it is
> Note, this opinion still allows things like waterfall displays or band
> scopes that let you "see" signals on the band, but does not identify them.
> Yes, I realize that guys using code readers do not pass the "your own
> requirement. Same for RTTY. Open to suggestion on how to word this
> Skimmers and software defined radios (see
> http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/) are way cool and lots of fun. But, we
> need to be careful how we decide to apply them in the context of contest
> Randy, K5ZD
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of doug smith
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:18 PM
>> To: Fabian Kurz
>> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
>> >I believe use of skimmer should put you in assisted. Anything that
>> 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.
>> Should it make a difference whether it's Skimmer running on
>> your own equipment (i.e., subject to the 500m-circle rule) or
>> Skimmer data obtained over the Internet?
>> (this is a question, not a statement!)
>> >There will always be some scum in the contesting community that
>> cheats. No matter what we do, there won't be a way to
>> completely eliminate it. Making the rules less restrictive to
>> reduce cheating is a step in the wrong direction.
>> Agreed. Are there *really* enough people cheating to make it
>> worth messing with the rules? Unless cheating is a LOT more
>> widespread on the coasts and/or in Europe, there just isn't
>> enough of it going on to be worth worrying about.
>> On 4/22/08, Fabian Kurz <mail at fkurz.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 07:01:16AM -0400, Pete Smith wrote:
>> > > If CW Skimmer is banned in this category, the temptation to cheat
>> > > will be almost overwhelming.
>> > It's the same temptation to cheat with DX-Cluster, excessive power,
>> > etc. I don't see the difference.
>> > There will always be some scum in the contesting community that
>> > cheats. No matter what we do, there won't be a way to completely
>> > eliminate it. Making the rules less restrictive to reduce
>> cheating is
>> > a step in the wrong direction.
>> > Let them cheat and be happy with it; just don't force honest and
>> > skillful (unassisted) operators into using Skimmer, Cluster
>> or other
>> > means of assistance, which may increase the score by a few
>> percent but
>> > decrease the fun of contesting by 30dB.
>> > 73,
>> > --
>> > Fabian Kurz, DJ1YFK * Dresden, Germany * http://fkurz.net/
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > CQ-Contest mailing list
>> > CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> Doug Smith W9WI
>> Pleasant View, TN EM66
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest