[CQ-Contest] Rule Change Debate on Skimmer

[David Gilbert]

Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>> It very effectively performs its 
>> intended function even if the operator is taking a nap.
>>     
>
> Then running skimmer during "off times" is simply another 
> rules violation.  In that regard, it is no different than 
> tuning the bands while eating during "off times."  
>
> It is simple enough to turn off skimmer during off times 
> or dump the "heard list" after a break. 
>
>
>   

I wasn't referring to cheating during a claimed off time.  Even during 
an "on time", Skimmer listens for me and lines up stations for me to 
work even if I'm not at the rig.  If I were running SO2R it essentially 
operates the second rig for me.  It doesn't simply make me more 
efficient ... it makes me unnecessary for that part of the activity.  
I'm not sure how that doesn't constitute assistance equal or greater 
than that provided by other currently prohibited activities (spotting 
clusters, phantom ops, etc) in the unassisted categories.

On the other hand, it does seem odd to me that we get all bent out of 
shape about automating reception when we've been fully automating 
transmission for years.  I type in three letters from someone's 
callsign, get the rest of it and his report and his zone filled in for 
me, hit the enter key, and the other guy's callsign and my report are 
sent without me even having to look at the screen to see what I've 
sent.  Both reception and transmission are required for a valid contact, 
but we seem to feel that the only valid skills for the operator are on 
the reception side.  I find that curious.  I suspect that the 
mechanization of transmission simply occurred more gradually and was 
less disruptive.

As I've said before, I like seeing new technologies show up on the 
scene.  We're mostly discussing/arguing how and where they fit in to the 
hobby (not whether), and once the rule making bodies catch up to the 
real world we'll have our answer.

73,
Dave   AB7E