[CQ-Contest] Skimmer musing

[VR2BrettGraham]

W4TV responded to VR2BG's comments to NQ3X engaging
W5OV:

> > >First, your whole argument rides on the assumption that Skimmer
> > >is always defined as "Dx alerting assistance", which is not
> > > self-evident; hat'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.
>
>Skimmer is technologically aided reception just like memory or
>digital voice keyers are technologically aided transmission or
>computer logging is technologically aided logging.

Except that skimming is not just a code reader, the
reception equivalent of a memory (or voice) keyer.  Memory
keyers have to be programmed & triggered in order to
transmit.  Skimming completely automates the process of
finding stations, a form of "DX alerting assistance" & in the
case of CQ WW, it is very clear in that single-ops may not
use DX alerting assistance of any kind - skimming moves
a single-op into the single-op assisted category, whereas
code readers or keyers or logging programs are not DX
alerting assistance nor do they replicate on their own some
defined aspect of operating for single-ops.

> > >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.
>
>"Assisted" is an arbitrary concept intended to differentiate
>between a true multi-operator and a single operator who is
>using packet/telnet.  In reality, the "assisted" category
>should be called multi-operator (packet) and this debate
>over whether running skimmer software locally would not be
>sidetracked by the "assisted"/packet canard.
>
>In fact the rules are rather clear that single operator means
>one person (operator).  Is more than one person - either
>"on site" (at the station) or remotely (via packet/telnet) -
>contributing to the operation of the station?  If the answer
>is yes (multiple operators - either at the station or at off
>site receivers providing information by packet or internet),
>then the entry clearly belongs in a separate category.

No, the category called "single-op assisted" addressed the
obvious difference between true single-op & multi-op by
differentiating "single-op + net" from true multi-op.  We only
have single-op assisted due to decades of martyrs for their
club scores wanting to have a little fun by being able to
actually have some competition in their world somewhere
between the two then-categories.

The rule - CQ WW at least - is very clear - use of DX
alerting assistance of any kind moves the single-op into the
single-op assisted category.  It has nothing to do with
people or no people, where or how - "DX alerting assistance
of any kind" means single-ops are to find stations to work
on their own.  Otherwise they are in the SOA category.  It's
that simple.

> > 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.
>
>That's right ... single op is single op.  In means that ONE
>operator (person) not two, three, 20 or 500 perform all of the
>functions for an entry.  There is no "other person" in the skimmer
>software - it's not even artificial intelligence.
>
>If you want to split hairs or parse the language in such a way
>that you interpret "all functions" to mean every part of the
>operation, then you need to also consider memory/Voice keyers,
>computer logging, history files, SCP, someone who repairs the
>equipment during the contest, someone who provides food/drink
>during the contest and any other function not performed entirely
>by the single human operator to be contrary to the rules.
>
>The rules have been interpreted very consistently for many years
>- "assistance" implies participation by another PERSON. If that
>"policy" is to be changed at this point, any change must be
>made in a consistent manner and EVERYTHING be reexamined.

No, the rule implies nothing - it says what it says.  It says
nothing about assistance by others, it only says DX alerting
assistance of any kind makes SO into SOA & that one
person does the basic functions of operating.

What has changed is that for all these years, DX alerting
assistance could only be accomplished by the actions of
another person or persons.  Now skimming automates that,
to the extent that no person is involved.  Skimming does
nothing but provide DX alerting assistance & as the rules
have been written, that means a skimming single-op
belongs in the single-op assisted category.  The only one
who is doing any interpreting is you, insisting that because
DX alerting assistance in the past required a person, that
DX alerting assistance can only be provided by a person now.

>In one regard all packet/internet spotting should be considered
>in violation of contest rules.  Off site spotting, implies the
>use of remote receivers - receivers outside the permitted boundaries
>of the station.  If you want to parse the rules over skimmer,
>perhaps the rules concerning "station boundaries" should receive
>a similar revisionist review.

Station boundaries have no bearing on the matter -
skimming is not on for single-ops, full stop.  Use of DX
alerting assistance is only allowed for single-op assisted &
multi-op categories.  As long as there has been DX alerting
assistance, it has been from elsewhere, as in beyond even
the current station boundary limits.  To construe DX alerting
assistance as a remote receiver even more of a stretch
than suggesting "DX alerting assistance of any kind"
implies it must only come from a person.

73, VR2/KBrett7Graham/p.