[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
xdavid at cis-broadband.com
Wed Jun 11 01:38:46 EDT 2008
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.
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
>>> 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
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest