[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge - New Category?

Stan Stockton k5go at cox.net
Wed Jun 18 20:27:19 EDT 2008

Following is an idea that would perhaps please more people:

To address the discussions about whether it is fair that this operator can afford two radios versus only one for someone else, whether this one has mastered the ability to use two radios or not, whether this operator has Yagi antennas versus dipoles for another, whether you send with a straight key or computer, use paper and pencil to log, are on the East Coast versus the Midwest,  versus the West Coast, whether you are able to copy code on your own or want to use a code reader, etc  how about creating one more category for those who want to compete with multipliers based on everything that can be imagined.  

For those who want to compete in this category, it will be like playing in a golf tournament where handicaps are allowed.  If you had a 18 handicap and were to shoot 85 you could say on most days that you beat Tiger Woods.  

For illustration purposes only:

One Radio - QSO Points times 100%
SO2R - QSO Points times 80%
Various Levels of ERP by band with different multipliers for different levels of ERP
CW Sent manually - 100%
CW Sent with computer - 90%
Code copied by operator - 100%
Code copied by code reader - 90%
Packet Spots - 85%
Skimmer Spots - 70%
No help by anyone or anything to spot stations - 100%

Etc, etc.  With this format and most everything that can be imagined for which to handicap the effort, everyone who wanted to compete in this category could do so feeling it was somewhat of a level playing field.  Perhaps this would become the most popular category of entry - Certificates to the top 50 in the country.  

Regardless, the current most popular category of entry could be left for the current majority, who want to compete in the traditional way.  

There are those who would never enter a golf tournament where handicaps were factored and others who would only enter if they were.  This would give more options for those who want something different from what we have now and only be one more category.  

I believe it would attract more people.  The multiplier factors could be tweaked in a couple of years to be as fair as possible. 

Stan, K5GO

---- Jim Preston <jpreston1 at cox.net> wrote: 
> Stan Stockton wrote:
> > K0RC Wrote
> snip...
> > 1.  Single operators are to copy all Morse code signals with their own 
> > ears.
> > 
> > Translation must be directly from Morse code audio to written or typed 
> > text by the single operator using the single operator's human brain for 
> > translation.  A code reader or readers or any other method or means that 
> > may be devised to translate Morse Code into text or other visual or 
> > audio translation is not allowed.
> snip...
> > 
> > Stan, K5GO
> To which should be added:
> 1.1 Sending of Morse code shall be done completely by hand using a 
> hand-key, or at most a "bug". The use of a memory keyer or computer 
> generated cw puts the operator in the Assisted class.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it that some are opposed to the use of code readers, but not code 
> senders? Isn't the ability to send code as important as the ability to 
> copy it? For the record, I use computer generated cw, and I also use a 
> code reader when needed (over about 30 wpm).
> 73,
> Jim N6VH
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list