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

[Leigh S. Jones, KR6X]

Pandora has done her work, Jim.  There's no changing that.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim George" <n3bb at mindspring.com>
To: "Stan Stockton" <k5go at cox.net>; <rt_clay at bellsouth.net>; 
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Do we want this in the future?


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