[CQ-Contest] Proposal For Single Op and Single Op Assisted
w5ov at w5ov.com
Wed Jun 4 09:30:21 EDT 2008
I want to address "the most important thing of all" as you describe it.
You said: " we need to stop pretending that rules can be written that
anticipate technology that will arrive 5 or 10 or 20 years from now. Rules
written 10 or more years ago can't be so prescient that their meaning can be
exquisitely parsed to apply to a new development like Skimmer".
As you might guess, I am focused on the CQWW single op rule that precludes
"the use of DX alerting assistance of any kind". How do you conclude that
this rule that precludes the use of any kind of DX alerting assistance has a
loophole that would allow for the use of a *new kind* of DX Alerting
Assistance by single ops?
No exquisite parsing of this rule is required to recognize that it precludes
*any kind of DX Alerting Assistance* to a single operator. That is precisely
what it says. Single op (not assisted) has been closely guarded to maintain
the principal that the single op does all of the operating, logging and
spotting functions for himself as described earlier in the same rule. The
wording of the rule has nothing to do with new developments that might come
along; it has only to do with excluding any kind of assistance to the single
operator. The rule is focused on making clear that the operator can not
receive any kind of assistance - not what might provide it to him.
Should Skimmer be outlawed? Of course not. Should assisted or multi-op
stations be able to use it? Sure.
Should we consider it a robot as K5NA suggests? I think that even one with
much less imagination than KR6X can see that it will not be long until
Skimmer or some other application will begin to offer to initiate QSOs based
on comparison of who it hears calling CQ and what is in the station's log.
What then? Count Skimmer as an operator? Should the use of Skimmer (or
similar) put one into a multi-op category automatically? I think this needs
some serious thought.
When should a robot category be established to address this? I think this
question is instead the most important thing of all at this time.
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Pete Smith
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:46 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Proposal For Single Op and Single Op Assisted
Just a couple of comments:
1. The RTTY exception needs to be revised to exclude SDRs with very wide
bandwidths, because the additions to Skimmer required to make it work with
RTTY are minimal, only awaiting a programmer with the interest. I would
suggest substituting a specific quantitative standard that all current
tunable radios meet, such as "... within a 3-KHz bandwidth..."
2. Why not respect the technological interest of the potential Skimmer
user and call the second single-op class "Single Op Unlimited"? That gets
away from the pejorative connotations of "Assisted".
Perhaps the most important thing of all - we need to stop pretending that
rules can be written that anticipate technology that will arrive 5 or 10 or
20 years from now. Rules written 10 or more years ago can't be so
prescient that their meaning can be exquisitely parsed to apply to a new
development like Skimmer. That's as absurd as the ARRL SS rules, which
still use the term "transmitter."
Let's acknowledge that the rate of technological change is accelerating,
and that our rules need to be written with the understanding that they will
73, Pete N4ZR
At 04:09 PM 6/3/2008, Jim George wrote:
> From Randy Thompson:
>"Here is your assignment. Propose new rule wordings for single op and
>op assisted that are simple, easily understood/translated to multiple
>languages, will be widely accepted by the contest community, and makes it
>clear what the difference is between assistance and not assistance. Oh, and
>it needs to apply equally for SSB, CW, and RTTY."
>Operates the amateur radio equipment alone. All reception and transmitting
>is done in accordance with the contest rules and the rules of his/her
>licensing authority. No use of receiving or alerting assistance of any kind
>is allowed including external spotting, arranged schedules, or any decoding
>devices other than natural human capability may be used, except for RTTY,
>where "non-human ear" decoding of incoming signals is allowed if the
>decoding is done within the usual bandpass of the receiver.
>Single Operator Assisted
>Same as Single Op except the use of receiving or alerting assistance may be
>used including external spotting, as well as decoding devices other than
>natural human capability.
>Jim George N3BB
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest