[CQ-Contest] Do we want this in the future?

[Jim George]

Personally I believe adding additional non-human single-operator methods of 
receiving signals (and populating band maps) within the S/O category is 
unwise. However the future trend line of this, whether packet or one's own 
radio with an I/F Skimmer signal decoder and text display, will include the 
advent of smart robotic software which will enable the operator to respond 
to the desired station automatically. That is, the decoder will display the 
signal and the software will be smart enough to call automatically and to 
log the exchange and respond to complete the QSO. This will be fully 
automatic. Do we really want to open single-operator contesting to full 
robotic automation? Let's think two or three steps ahead of the Skimming 
technology itself. It's bad for S/O for a number of reasons. It's a very 
interesting technology and promises to change the face of assisted and 
multi-op contesting. But let's keep it out of Single-Op.

Jim George N3BB



  At 02:29 PM 4/24/2008 -0500, Stan Stockton wrote:

> > There are no technology differences
> > between the single op unassisted and
> > single
> > op assisted categories with one
> > exception: the delivery of callsigns
> > and
> > frequencies from an outside source as
> > used in the assisted category.
> > Whether
>^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hold on there, it is relevant...a local
>skimmer isn't an outside source.
>
>Tor
>N4OGW
>
>Tor:
>
>The difference is only relevant if you
>judge it based on something someone
>wrote in an e-mail instead of what the
>rules actually say.  CQ Rules say:
>
>"The use of DX alerting assistance of
>any kind places the station in the
>Single Operator Assisted category."
>
>
>Does it say...Inside source or outside
>source or OF ANY KIND?  Does it say that
>assistance has to be human?  If we say
>that their must be a human assistant in
>order for it to count as assistance, I
>don't think we are evaluating the rule
>based on its intent.
>
>The ARRL rules which are less clear say:
>
>Multioperator and Single Operator
>Assisted stations may use spotting nets.
>
>
>
>I don't see anything that says what a
>single operator can or cannot do.  It is
>generally accepted that a single
>operator cannot do what a multi-operator
>or Single Operator Assisted CAN do but
>it is not clear.
>
>
>In my opinion, the rules were intended
>to differentiate between an operator who
>would tune his radio, find stations to
>work and work them versus those who
>would have someone else or something
>else do the work of finding the
>stations, and provide both callsigns and
>frequencies.  It won't go to the Supreme
>Court like a constitutional issue, but
>if it did I would put a lot of money on
>the outcome.
>
>Some argue that Skimmer is not perfected
>and is in its primitive stage.
>Arguments that it is not really not that
>great because it frequently shows bogus
>callsigns, etc. are no justification for
>allowing it in the Single Operator
>(unassisted) category.  A time will come
>when it will bump callsigns against a
>master database and provide a list of
>callsigns that are close to 100%
>accurate and good.
>
>Stan, K5GO
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest