[CQ-Contest] This is Logic? - comment

[aldewey at aol.com]

Tod;

?

I am sort of in agreement with you here.? One thing that concerns me about this debate is that there seem to be 

an awful lot of people commenting and I wonder how many have actually used Skimmer in a competitive contest 

environment yet.? My suggestion is , that for perhaps the next season, the contest sponsors simply ask participants 

to list whether they used Skimmer or not.? Sort of like the question on some forms that ask if you use SO2R or not.

At the end of season, it might be easier to make assessment as to how much of an impact it really has.? 

By the way, I am referring to only to LOCAL use of Skimmer - not connecting to a TELNET Skimmer.? 

Al, K0AD




-----Original Message-----
From: Tod -ID <tod at k0to.us>
To: 'Bill Tippett' <btippett at alum.mit.edu>; cq-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 3:57 pm
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] This is Logic? - comment



Bill:

I am puzzled by why my suggestion about leaving the categories as is and
simply identifying everyone who used some form of Skimmer seems so
underwhelming to folks. If someone believes that Skimmer is 'unassisted'
then let them merely declare they used it and enter the category they feel
is the correct one for them. No rule change, other than to specify that you
used a Skimmer -if you did, would be needed. There will be folks who cheat,
but there already folks who cheat. Who cares. At least the debate could go
away for the time being. Everyone could compare themselves with the folks in
their 'personal' category. The cheaters will be in the wrong category no
matter what the rules, so we are already using some way to mentally remove
them.

Help me out Bill. Am I really missing the intellectual boat here?

Tod, K0TO



> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Tippett
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 8:57 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] This is Logic? - comment
> 
> 
> 
> K0TO:
> 
>  >I think that there is little chance that anyone can remove 
> our personal opportunity to do the things you write of in 
> your second paragraph below.
> The only thing that they can do is hamper your ability to 
> compare your results with others who choose to operate in the 
> same fashion as you have operated.
> 
>          Of course your first sentence is correct, but 
> another key part of my enjoyment is in your second sentence.
> I also enjoy comparing my single band QSO totals to multi- 
> multis but realize they usually have ~10% more mults due to 
> Packet, 2 operators, passing mults between bands, etc.
> 
> http://users.vnet.net/btippett/new_page_6.htm
> 
> But I also do enjoy *winning* against others in my category.
> If Skimmer is allowed in unassisted, I will be forced to:
> 
> 1.  Use Skimmer in self-defense (which I really don't want to do).
> OR...
> 2.  Spot my competition ~10% in score due to Skimmer's higher mults.
> OR...
> 3.  Opt out and go find another hobby.
> 
>          I don't really like any of these alternatives.  
> Maybe I'll just cheat and use Packet but claim Unassisted 
> since it will be virtually impossible to detect the 
> difference with Skimmer, if it's allowed for Unassisted.  It 
> might be poetic justice to scam the Skimmers!  :-)
> 
>                                          73,  Bill  W4ZV
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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