[CQ-Contest] Skimmer musing

[Paul J. Piercey]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of VR2BrettGraham
> Sent: April 27, 2008 23:40
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Skimmer musing
> 
> 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.
> 


To me, this is the crux of the matter. Nowhere in any rule that I have ever
read does it state that CW MUST be copied by ear. As far as I'm concerned,
"DX Alerting Assistance" has always been equated to "help from someone else
who is providing information to you". The line blurs when technology is
drawn into the "assistance" mix. I agree with Joe W4TV completely when he
asserts that if you focus on one piece of technology that improves the
facilitation of radio communications, you should focus on them all.

I feel that the main problem arose when the cluster networks were first
integrated into contest rules. The use of extraneous DX information of any
kind, being received from sources outside your local control, should have
been considered as a "Multi-op" operation in all cases and the "Assisted"
category should never have been born. It makes perfect sense that way. If
you get help or information from another operator, you are "multi-op".
Simple. Why it happened the way it did I can only surmise but it was wrong
as far as I'm concerned. The fact that certain contests call cluster use
"assistance" while others call it "multi-op" tends to back up my point.
Single-op is when one person does all the operating using whatever localized
technology (filters, keyers, loggers, skimmers, antennae, radios, etc) that
is at his disposal. Multi-op is when more than one person contributes
(either directly or by providing useful information) to the operation (this
doesn't mean making lunch either) of the station. Calling any new piece of
technology "assistance" opens the door to review the roles of all
technology.


> >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.
> 


Sure it does. Try copying CW (or SSB for that matter) without a speaker in
your radio. Does that device make you "assisted"? Try copying RTTY or PSK31
by ear. Without a computer, it is just noise so does that device constitute
assistance simply because it aids "the operator" in the decoding of a radio
signal? Once again, the term "assistance" should never have entered the
picture at all.


> >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.
> 


How does Skimmer change this? If the Skimmer is not networked and only
decodes signals heard at the operator's location using equipment that the
operator installs and maintains and the operator is provided no external (to
his location) information, why is a visual representation of the signal
being received any different from an audio representation? The operator
still has to read the screen, tune to the signal, verify the callsign and
make the contact. Who helped him do that? Again, there should never have
been an "assisted" category.


> 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.
> 


I don't think that's the case at all. This has nothing to do with cheating
but rather how to integrate a new technology into radiosport so that it
benefits everyone rather than a select few or no one. If the rules stated
definitively how to deal with such new technology and what it brought to the
table, then most people would abide by that. You will never eliminate
cheating so that's a fool's errand but I think you'd find that there are but
a very few who set out to break any rules that have been well documented and
clarified.

One way to defend against those who claim SO when they use the cluster,
however, is to eliminate the "Assisted" category altogether and allow
cluster/skimmer use for all categories. Leave it up to the operator as to
whether or not they want to avail of it. There is no way to completely
determine if the cluster is being used by those claiming "single-op" status
but, by allowing the cluster for all categories, no one would be able to
falsely claim they never used it.

This debate stems from the rules not keeping up with technological changes.
Moreover, I think there are several facets at play here. One is from the
purists who believe that CW should only be copied by ear and, as has been
reported, this was not the case as code readers have been used since morse
code was invented. Another results from, as I repeatedly stated above, my
belief that they got it wrong when they called cluster use "assistance" and
created a new category instead of calling it "multi-op" to define that the
help was received from other persons, which was the actual case.

Perhaps it's a good thing that they aren't jumping to make knee-jerk rules
these days but, eventually, they will have to address these new technologies
in order to clarify their roles in radiosport otherwise this debate will
rage on forever.

73 -- Paul VO1HE