[CQ-Contest] rules

w1md at cfl.rr.com w1md at cfl.rr.com
Wed Jun 4 17:36:29 EDT 2008

Hi Bill,

Understand and agree. My premise was that skimmer would be lumped in as assisted. 

Frankly I think skimmer would be a big advantage over packet in that it is id'ing only those stations HEARD at your location...assuming 1) that the skimmer is on a local RX, and 2) that skimmer is improved such that decoding cw gets better than the ~1uV sensitivity it shows now.

Packet introduces many bogus calls (either by accident or design, depending on the spotter) and with worldwide networks you can be seeing 'spots' for stations that are not audible at your location.

If I were KL7... I think I'd much rather run skimmer assisted than packet assisted... :))


---- Bill Tippett <btippett at alum.mit.edu> wrote: 
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:06 PM, <w1md at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> But if "Skimmer" was part of the "Assisted" category then your "unassisted"
> > record wouldn't be affected...or did I miss something in the translation?
> > I'm assuming your 10m SBSO effort was of the unassisted kind...
>          Correct, but the issue on the table is whether Skimmer
> constitutes assistance.  Yes my records were all unassisted.  I
> also had a competitor who claimed his multiplier totals (comparable
> to multi-multis) were because he was using the Sub receiver in
> his FT-1000MP <ggg>.  I bet he also had a good Internet connection!
> ;-)  BTW CQ reclassified him to Assisted at least a couple of times.
>         Since it will be virtually impossible to distinguish Skimmer
> spots from Packet spots, I predict the next step in cheating will
> be to claim you're using Skimmer (if allowed for unassisted) even
> if you are actually using Packet (i.e. assisted).  :-(
>                                                 73,  Bill  W4ZV

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list