[CQ-Contest] Skimmer musing

[VR2BrettGraham]

NQ3X engaged W5OV:

>  > 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.
>
>First, your whole argument rides on the assumption that Skimmer is
>always defined as "Dx alerting assistance", which is not self-evident;
>that's one of the things this debate is trying to hammer out.

What else could skimming be then?  It tells the operator
about stations found & where they are.  It duplicates a part
of operating a contest that has clearly been defined as
something the operator is to do.

>Second, I for one require some sort of citation or reference supporting
>your claim to know the intent of the rule.  Were you involved in
>developing it?  Are you privy to information relating to the rule's
>development?  If so, thank you for your hard work!  If not, you should
>be more careful, because your interpretation of the rule is not
>necessarily the intent of the rule, no matter how self-evident it is to you.
>
>Third, and related to Second, "does not allow for any kind of assistance"?
>
>I think we have to define 'assistance' in this instance.  Assisted by
>another person?  Or assisted by technology?
>
>If 'assisted' means 'aided by another person' - like DX Cluster, another
>operator in the shack or repairing the station, etc. - we're on solid
>ground, as that's a definite .. er ... definition.
>
>If 'assisted' means 'anything that includes aid, whether it's aided by
>technology not impacted by a person other than the operator, or aided by
>another operator (packet or in-shack)' it's a slippery slope liberally
>shaded with different areas of grey.  Everyone's going to have a
>different definition.

What the assistance comes from does not matter - the
assistance, if it has to do with operating, logging or spotting,
makes a single-op a single-op no more.

>For example, Definition Two could be interpreted to mean that anything
>other than "an operator, a radio and an antenna system" is assisted - no
>second radios, no automated keyers (voice or otherwise), etc.  After
>all, do those tools not make the operator's life easier, and is that not
>the definition of both 'aid' and 'assist'?

Here we go again - with all the solicitors about, one would
think they would get definitions right.  "Single-op" & "Single-op
assisted" are terms, defined in the rules.  You don't get to go
to the label for the term & interpret what the term means from
the words that comprise the label when you don't like or don't
understand the definition.

Everyone dissecting the term like this reminds me of 4O3A
& his defective reasoning as to why he needn't send a report
as part of the WPX exchange, despite it being pretty clear
from the rules that this is what is to be done.

Single-op is single-op - the operator is to do all of some
specifically defined functions.  For those who choose not to
do this, there has been for some time a category for you that
is separate from multi-op, which is what you otherwise would
be.

It's that simple.  If there is a fear, as NQ3X later suggests
is why some say skimming is not for single-ops, it is that
radiosport is now full of folks who don't want to play by the
rules & justify this with some rather ridiculous logic.

73, VR2/KBrett7Graham/p.