[CQ-Contest] How many more creative subjects using "skimmer" are there?

[Tree]

Lots of interesting reading on cq-contest about the skimmer concept.  

I think it is fair to say "one size does not fit all".  What is one person's 
idea of a natural extension of technology will be another person's nightmare 
that contesting as a sport is being demolished.  

I believe that eventually, we will find that the skimmer will require some
updating on the definition of what a single-operator is (either assisted
or unassisted) and that the "classic" category of a skimmerless unassisted
operator will be perserved - at least in most of the major contests.  

However, with this development - there are some good questions being asked
about enforcement.  Here is an area where technology is also making 
improvements - and they don't have to be constrained by classifications.
In other words, log checking can always enter the "multi-operator, multi-
computer, full internet access, unlimited, skimmer" category.  :-)

When I saw the skimmer demonstrated to me (thanks N6TV), I could see that
he had a file on his laptop that contained a whole band of a contest (works
for both SSB and CW for this).

You could pick and time and a frequency and go listen to someone.  Wow!

I can now go back and check to make sure someone actually QSY'd 5 khz 
before CQing again in a sprint.  I can verify that so-and-so actually
didn't send their callsign as part of the exchange...  or prove that 
someone else didn't send a signal report as part of their exchange.  

This is almost enough to give me a log checking orgasm.  

I am just imagining getting these types of files from various locations
around the world - and it will enable me to go back and listen to most
any QSO that occurred in the contest.

I will now break my own rule about only trying to write about one topic 
per message.

This probably isn't enough to really be able to tell if someone is using a 
skimmer.  However, most stations now have the technology available to them 
to actually record a contest.  This can be done with a gigabyte or so of 
memory using your computer - and a program that can be running along with 
your logging software.  

FOR COMPETITIVE ENTRIES (which needs to be defined) - perhaps asking them 
to submit an audio recording of the contest could become "the standard"
and that information will go a long way towards enforcing many of the 
current (and future) rules against assistance.  

Maybe this distinction between a competitive entries and "standard" entries
will lead to a different log checking process for the competitive entries?
This idea has been thrown around by those who felt checking ALL of the 
contest logs would lead to casual participants getting upset about their
score being decreased.  I don't know that this has actually happened however.

Perhaps I have strayed enough from the original thread to stop now - but there
are interesting ways that we can decide to score compeitive entries differently
than participants that would be interesting to discuss.  

I guess my point in writing this was to point out that some of this new 
technology will advance the state of the art in log checking.  As a second 
point - I am starting to agree with those who think the time has come to 
send in an audio file (or CD) along with your log.

Tree N6TR
tree at kkn.net