[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

[Julius Fazekas]

I agree with Ed, keep on developing the technology. He
also has a good point on the "robo wars", which won't
be too far down the pike.

There is another possible benefit that I haven't seen
discussed and that would be making CW contesting more
accessible to folks who have hearing issues.

73,
Julius

--- sawyered at earthlink.net wrote:

> The argument that "if you can't detect people
> cheating, then make it legal for that category" has
> no basis in contesting as we know it.  Various power
> levels exist now, how do you know?  Because
> honorable people do it the right way, that's how you
> know.
> 
> Could M/S rubber clock the log and sometimes operate
> as M2 and be undetected?  Sure, if its not abused.
> Could M2 actually operate M3 occasionally?  Sure.
> 
> Personally, I am happy to see skimmer be devloped
> like many other facets of contesting.  It just needs
> to stay in "assisted" with packet.  Then start
> worrying in that class how to prevent "skimmer
> assisted" from turning into "robo wars".  All I can
> say is...I am glad I am not in the assisted class!
> 
> I hope that the enthusiasm for the technology
> continues even if it is unsuccessful in infiltrating
> the "unassisted" class.  Otherwise, the motivation
> for the enthusiasm becomes questionable.
> 
> Ed  N1UR
> _______________________________________________
> 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