[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

[David Gilbert]

I think maybe you misconstrued my comment.  I never proposed nor meant 
to constrain suggestions or comments on this topic.   I've found each 
and every part of th discussion to be interesting, and I assume they are 
all valuable to the contest sponsors in one way or another.  I simply 
didn't agree that any special merit should be attached to those comments 
that were "consistent", either with each other or with the past 
evolution of rules.  I would have hoped that the contest sponsors would 
choose to take all the various inputs and come up with category 
definitions and rules that incorporate these new technologies in a way 
that isn't merely a reaction to one of them.

I agree there have been few actual rule proposals submitted here ... 
certainly no more than a handful and some seem of those to be only a 
narrow response to the particular situation with CW Skimmer.   I 
personally happen to like the one from N3BB, but the bottom line is that 
I could live with almost anything that isn't ambiguous enough to be 
stretched or twisted.

Dave   AB7E


Randy Thompson 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
>
>