[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
ve4xt at mts.net
ve4xt at mts.net
Fri Jun 6 13:36:13 EDT 2008
I'm with OV. The word 'any' is pretty all-inclusive. After 30 years in professional writing, I have a pretty
good idea what the word 'any' means.
Those that speculate that it only refers to other people are doing so purely as speculation.
I've asked those making that assertion to produce a relevant document, quote from a respected
authority or otherwise to back up their speculation. None has.
> From: k3bu at optimum.net
> Date: 2008/06/06 Fri AM 11:02:03 CDT
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> Bob. W5OV wrote:
> > Yuri,
> > You said: "Assisted - was meant to mean another OPERATOR -
> > person, not
> > assistance by computer, keyer, software, foot switch. (B
> > fortifies that) "
> > B is defining Single Op Assisted. It is not defining single op
> > or what type
> > of assistance is forbidden for single ops.
> No, but by describing "the other side" of "DX alerting assistance" by logic, it indicates that it refers to
a PERSON and not a GADGET.
> > A, defining single op (unassisted), says:
> > "The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the
> > station in the
> > Single Operator Assisted category."
> > It says "of any kind". It does not say "such as defined in B" or
> > "such as
> > defined elsewhere".
> As far as I know, the "any kind" was to cover telephones, internet or any means that other OPERATOR
- person would suply information about station/freq alerting.
> > "Of any kind" encompasses *any kind* of spotting. There is no
> > limit to what
> > is excluded.
> > A single op cannot use any kind of spotting and remain as a
> > single op. Isn't
> > this obvious that the purpose is for the single operator to do
> > everything on
> > his own for himself?
> To me it is obvious that single person and their own gadgets are fine, using anything in their shack,
subject to distance limitations for antennas/equipment. So rigs, antennas, computers and software in
my shack, operated by me and not assisted by K1TO over whatever connections are still SO un-
> > The rule says: "Those stations at which one person performs all
> > of the
> > operating, logging, and spotting functions".
> > If a skimmer device is now performing spotting functions for the
> > operator,then he is not performing all spotting functions - is
> > he?
> Well, youze guyze are turning SKIMMER (software and circuits) into live, person - OPERATOR.
> > The rule specifically and clearly eliminates the possibility of
> > the use of
> > *any kind* of spotting regardless of where it is, what delivers
> > it, how it
> > is produced - organic or silicon-based.
> You can stick to "any kind" or consider "other person" based on your "religion".
> > Also, regarding "DX" being used in the definition, the contest
> > in question
> > is a DX contest so this is appropriate, and spotting of non-DX is
> > meaningless.
> So DX should be excluded, but all the other stations or insurance mult that I didn't work are OK then?
> > Skimmer and its ilk are appropriate and marvelous tools for assisted
> > stations and multi-ops to use. It has no place in an unassisted
> > single op
> > station.
> > 73,
> > Bob W5OV
> By your and other "believers" judgement.
> It really boils down to what each camp wants to see in SKIMMER and will nit pick and cling to their
"definition" of skimmer -
> 1. "person" hidden in the computer providing "assistance" or
> 2. realizing that it is just another piece of junk in our technical arsenal to make operating easier, or
more fun to increase our scores and bring more turkeys to shoot.
> As it was mentioned before, where do you draw the lines and what are you afraid of? That the contest
is not long enough to work the gazillions of spots that skimmer will produce?
> Skimmer fed into a packet networks is a nonsense and I hope it will choke itself and the packet
> The whole debate is turning into a holy war ignoring true intent and spirit of Amateur Radio
Contesting - Sport involving Technology and Operator and how they master all aspects of it.
> I think that skimmer is a welcome addition to our arsenal and will help to minimize the packet
avalanches and bring more fun to serious and casual contesters.
> Will "robots" take over contesting? I would welcome them, econd days are boring with not enough to
work, if robots will bring more points, I will enjoy working them and proably will not need skimmer,
just let the skimmerers "find" and work my double call personal F1 CQs.
> So for WPX and other contest rules my recomendation would be just to add words "by another person
via any means" to all the references of "alerting" in the rules. Leave the rest of the toys alone and use
them as one sees them fit, as long as they are within the distance and rules limitations.
> Just another injection of fun into our beloved contesting. Let the "market" sort it out.
> I think we should give it a rest, accept it for a gadget it is and see how "destructive" it will be to
> 73 Yuri, K3BU.us
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest