[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

Tom Haavisto kamham69 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 10 23:29:06 EDT 2008

Hi Randy

I guess the one thing I would add to my renaming of SO(U) to SO
(Classic) and SO(A) to SO(Unlimited) posting:

Clearly, time is a factor in these discussions, and we probably only
have a few days before the rules for CQWW need to head off to the
printer.  By setting a date of 2007, and renaming the categories, this
gives us, as a group, the time we need to truly asses the impact
skimmer will have on contest scores.  This also allows us to err on
the side of caution, and preserve what we currently have.  Should we
guess wrong (it turns out skimmer is not the monster some currently
make it out to be), there is no harm done.  This would allow us the
time we need - even years if need be - to reach some better
conclusions once we have contest scores in hand.  I guess the one
thing I would also add is that skimmer, as a technology, is evolving.
As noted, skimmer was beat out at Dayton by a good margin.  What about
next year, or the year after that?  Once skimmer becomes part of
SO(U), it become difficult or impossible to reverse that decision.

Good luck with the difficult decisions that lie ahead!

Tom - VE3CX

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Randy Thompson <k5zd at charter.net> wrote:
> You can't expect the sponsors and rule makers to be clairvoyant.  Or to work
> in a vacuum!
> I have seen very few actual rules proposals floated here compared to the
> volume of dialog on the subject of skimmer.  You never know what twist of
> phrase that someone suggests will generate an "ah ha" moment for a contest
> sponsor tasked with writing rules.
> To those who have contributed proposals, they have been very thoughtful.
> They have also demonstrated just how hard it is to make simple rules that
> are easily understood while not being open to too much interpretation.  Keep
> them coming.
> Randy, K5ZD
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:28 PM
>> To: Sherman Banks
>> Cc: CQ-Contest at contesting. com
>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
>> I would hope that the major contest sponsors and rule makers,
>> in response to technology changes such as CW Skimmer, would
>> try to refine their category definitions and regulations
>> based upon a rational and forward-looking thought process
>> focused upon what best serves and promotes the sport of
>> contesting rather than on how consistent the arguments might
>> be on any particular side of the issues, or on whether or not
>> there is already inconsistency in the rules.  Possibly I am
>> expecting too much ...
>> Dave   AB7E
>> Sherman Banks wrote:
>> > I think what we (the not so smart people according to VE4XT), are
>> > looking for is consistency in the arguments.
>> >
>> > Packet spotting was banned for SO because other operators
>> are feeding
>> > the SO with information on the location of stations. This
>> is a correct
>> > interpretation since a SO should not be getting assistance
>> from others
>> > operators.
>> >
>> > With Skimmer we now hear that it is automated spotting of calls and
>> > decoding CW that provides an unfair level of assistance.
>> Since there
>> > are no additional operators providing these call signs and
>> all of the
>> > equipment used for Skimmer is within the station circle,
>> then it must
>> > be the technology that people are opposed to.
>> >
>> > But automated encoding of CW by a computer is OK. So is the Super
>> > Check Partial that is made from thousands of other operators. The
>> > anti-Skimmer crowd needs to draw the line on where
>> technology should
>> > not be allowed. It appears that the line being drawn is in the
>> > decoding of CW since most everyone feels that automated CW
>> encoding is
>> > OK. But there were no gripes about the Writelog CW decoder
>> - another inconsistency example.
>> >
>> > To me, the pro-Skimmer crowd has been more consistent with
>> the intent
>> > of SO and the original packet ban. The anti-skimmer crowd
>> seems to be
>> > more vocal making the numbers appear larger but I need to see some
>> > consistency in the argument against using computer assistance and
>> > where the line is drawn in that assistance.
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list