[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

Stan Stockton k5go at cox.net
Wed Jun 11 01:21:53 EDT 2008

---- David Kopacz <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com> wrote: 

> If this is fact, than it seems quite logical, now that we have a device
> that can effectively provide the same or even better (more concise, more
> relevant) spots than packet, AND the fact that we consistently see SOAB
> Unassisted scores beating SOAB Assisted scores, we should simply >combine the two categories of SOAB A $ U and be done with this issue.
> Let the operators choose whether they wish to find stations by tuning,
> packet, skimmer or a combination of all three.

> Quite frankly, upon review of prior scores for the past several years,
> the SOAB U winners are clearly kicking the butts of the SOAB A guys, so
> what's all the fuss?

You are correct in saying that SOA is not competitive as a whole with Single Operator but cannot draw any conclusions as to the benefit or lack of benefit the spotting the assisted stations receive based on those results.      

In 2006 CQ WW there were only three of the top ten in SOA in USA who would have made the top ten in Single Operator (zero for the world), even with packet spots.  There are great operators who enter in that category but not NEARLY the volume of great operators who enter the most popular category.    

Regarding the fuss:

Given that most choose not to use packet and most do not want to use Skimmer but instead want to continue to compete in a category that does not allow a list of stations to be provided for them to work, why would anyone want to eliminate the most popular category and combine it with the assisted category at the displeasure of most contesters?

I will never win a major contest in the all band category.  However, if I did win and use Skimmer, I would think there should be an asterisk next to my callsign with a footnote at the bottom of the page that  I was using an automated spotting system.  It is guaranteed if by some miracle I ever did win, most would think there should be an asterisk and footnote of some sort. :-))

I cannot efficiently listen to two radios at once and have not taken the time to develop the skills to compete with someone who has.  I do not feel that I should benefit from a list of callsigns to work that will make me more nearly equal to someone who has developed those skills.  .

Regarding another post on packet spots.  I do not think I should be spotted as often as K3LR, KC1XX, W3LPL or K1TTT, for example.  We should not be trying to make everyone equal like it is with a 2M repeater where everyone has the same signal coming out. 

Stan, K5GO


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list