[CQ-Contest] Skimmer - a sterile debate?

[k3bu at optimum.net]

> The one I totally disagree with is the following:
> 
> > - Then there are those who keep entertaining us with extracts 
> from the
> current contest rules. Irrelevant! They were written in the past 
> withoutany prophetic ability to see into the future.
> 
> Really? I think those who wrote the rule the way that they did 
> were quite
> prescient by carefully choosing their words.
> 
> Here is the rule:
> 
> "Those stations at which one person performs all of the operating,
> logging, and spotting functions. The use of DX alerting 
> assistance of any
> kind places the station in the Single Operator Assisted category."
> 
> Where in the rule is there an implied exception for a new kind 
> of alerting
> assistance? The intent of the rule was to be comprehensive does 
> not allow
> for any kind of assistance. It is quite clear.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Bob W5OV

 
Really, Really???
>From CQ WW rules for ASSISTED category:

>>B. Single Operator with DX Spotting Net: 
Same as III A 1 except the passive
(self- spotting not allowed) use of 
DX spotting nets is allowed.<<

If we read further in the rules and see the the definition of ASSISTED B. category, it clarifies that use of DX spotting nets is allowed. Not relegating your own skimmer to be classified as DX SPOTTING NET!!!
 
As it was said before, rulers did not foresee or had intention to prohibit any gadget (keyer, computer, logging program, etc.) from being used by SINGLE operator if not assisted by ANOTHER or OTHER operators via whatever means.
If some of you have a problem distinguishing the spirit of rules trying to separate SINGLE operator and his toys (technology) from ASSISTANCE by another operator(s) then I can see why you are "happy" with obsolete discriminating scoring system in CQ WW (0/3 points etc.)
 
If there is a problem distinguishing between number of operators participating in operation and their assistance via remote means vs. gadgets assembled as a station, then I hope that contest rulers will clarify that and make the gadgets exempt from being another operator. 
 
Yeaah, I'd like to see the auto-skimmer submitting his log and seeing his UBN report and his negative score. 
 
If it brings more fun, makes us faster, better scoring and increases participation, then bring it on and leave it alone where it belongs - in SINGLE OP shack. It will diminish packet-racket and extend our ears, eyes, mouths and fingers. So what's the problem??? Are we going to step back through all the gadget advancements and start creating categories for them?  Like: barefoot, bold, deaf, 15.6W, half dipole, generator, hand key, 2000 ohm headphones, Xtal controlled, wife cooking assited category with no skimmers. (Give everyone chance to win :-)
 
I always considered ASSISTANCE by someone else, like person(s). What's on your shack table is the technology that you assemble and master to use for your advantage at piling up the points in the contest. Contesting is supposed to promote technical ingenuity in assisting us to operate more proficiently. Skimmer is just another step in our long history of progressing on the technological path to making more QSO on the second day of the contest and hopefully make the packet cheating obsolete.

As far as
using computer or gadgets to get info supplied by someone else - SO ASSISTED
using computer or gadgets to assist you in operating the station - SO (UN-ASSISTED) 
That should be the criteria to distinguish between those two categories. 

 Yuri, K3BU.us