[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

[k3bu at optimum.net]

Joe is 100% right, logical in the true spirit of ham-spirit.
Contesting is a technological sport, including mastering of technology, operating skills and knowledge of propagation. 

Yuri, K3BU.us

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" 
Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:28 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
To: 'Steve London' , cq-contest at contesting.com

> 
> > I'm sure that the log adjudicators will be setting up a 
> > private network of skimmers that they will log into to grab 
> > skimmer spots through the skimmer telnet interface. That will 
> > provide a database of skimmer spots that will be used for 
> > later detection of skimmer cheaters.
> 
> No skimmer network can duplicate the skimmer spots I receive 
> from my own copy of Skimmer running on the S&P radio. That 
> is totally contained in my station and not the product of any 
> other operator. The use of a locally run, non-networked 
> Skimmer is no different than a memory keyer or computer 
> logging with history file and super check partial. Perhaps 
> less "assistance" than history and SCP files complied by 
> OTHERS! 
> 
> Skimmer technology will change contesting just as the 
> memory keyer, DVK and computer logging have changed 
> contesting. However, the technology horse is out of 
> the barn and half way to town - unless you are willing 
> to "ban" all technology to the assisted category, a 
> precedent has already been set that says technology 
> is fine as long as it does not involve another operator 
> during the contest. 
> 
> 73, 
> 
> ... Joe, W4TV 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Steve London
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 2:33 PM
> > To: Pete Smith; cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Pete Smith 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bzzzt.
> > > >
> > > > With several network skimmers located at various places, 
> > all feeding 
> > > > their telnet outputs to a single database, the same 
> statistical 
> > > > methods used to detect packet cheaters can be used to 
> > detect skimmer 
> > > > cheaters.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm not talking about the reverse beacon network, Steve - 
> > I'm talking 
> > > about using a Skimmer to feed your logging program locally. 
> There 
> > > will be no network benchmark for those.
> > 
> > 
> > You have missed my point.
> > 
> > I'm sure that the log adjudicators will be setting up a 
> > private network of skimmers that they will log into to grab 
> > skimmer spots through the skimmer telnet interface. That will 
> > provide a database of skimmer spots that will be used for 
> > later detection of skimmer cheaters.
> > 
> > This will work every bit as well as using packet spot history 
> > to detect packet cheaters.
> > 
> > 73,
> > Steve, N2IC
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>