[CQ-Contest] This is Logic? - comment

[Tod -ID]

Hi Al;

I think you have a good idea about suggesting a one-year moratorium on the
decision of whether or not to class 'local' Skimmer use as 'unassisted'.
Although it will leave the issue open for a bit, it has the virtue of being
fail-safe. I agree with you that non-local Skimmer should simply be classed
the same as Packet spotting.

If it turns out that there is good evidence that local Skimmer use should be
classed as 'assisted' then people running the contests will not be faced
with the accusation that "someone is taking something away from the
contestants" when that decision is made. If it turns out that there is good
evidence to classify local Skimmer use as 'unassisted' it will be much
easier to defend to those who think it should not be so classed. In either
case there will be folks who disagree with whatever the decision is, but by
having delayed for a year [more if that makes sense] and gathering evidence
that will back up a decision, you will be well prepared to respond to the
unhappy folks.

In answer to the question about how many people commenting have actually
used the currently available Skimmer technology I would guess no more than
20%. I make that judgment based upon how people are drafting their comments.


The CRUCIAL thing is that it will be very, very difficult to change the
local Skimmer classification from 'unassisted' back to 'assisted' after it
has been once classed as 'unassisted'.

The medical folks, as a part of their Oath, pledge to "...do no harm.." . I
would think that you CAC folks working on this would feel the same way and
work hard to make a good, defensible decision.


73, Tod, K0TO




> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
> aldewey at aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 7:52 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] This is Logic? - comment
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest