[CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge

[Paul J. Piercey]

Hi Kelly,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Sandy Taylor
> Sent: June 20, 2008 13:19
> To: 'Paul J. Piercey'; 'Michael Keane K1MK'; 'Mark Beckwith'
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Your assumption of my (and perhaps others') interests in 
> deeming Skimmer assistance is just a touch off the mark.
> 
> I am not worried about something that makes what we do more efficient.
> Efficiency is a good thing.
> 
> My only point with Skimmer is that the effective result of 
> using Skimmer is identical to using packet: without any input 
> from you, spots appear on your bandmap, just as they do with packet.
> 

Not so. A local Skimmer tells me what MY station can hear but the Cluster
tells me what others can hear. Moreover, it requires action on the part of
another person to feed me that information via the cluster. In my opinion,
this is why the cluster is "assistance". Not so much for 'what' it provides
but 'how' it provides it. On the other hand, a remote CW Skimmer should be
considered "assistance" as well because it takes another person to set it
up.

> THAT'S why I would argue it should be considered assistance, 
> just like it's fraternal twin, packet. That one is local and 
> that one involves others is not relevant, in my view.
> 

I can understand your position but I have to disagree with it to the points
I've made above based upon the location of the source of the information.


73 -- Paul VO1HE





> I have no problem with technology that makes the act of being 
> SO Unassisted (finding your own stations to work, working 
> them yourself).
> 
> 73, Kelly
> Ve4xt
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul J. Piercey [mailto:p.piercey at nl.rogers.com]
> Sent: June-20-08 6:18 AM
> To: ve4xt at mts.net; 'Michael Keane K1MK'; 'Mark Beckwith'
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
> ve4xt at mts.net
> > Sent: June 19, 2008 16:08
> > To: Michael Keane K1MK; Mark Beckwith
> > Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The Skimmer Rule Challenge
> > 
> > Mike, K1MK wrote:> If we do not presume competence on the 
> part of the 
> > writer as to how
> > > the rules were constructed and do not rely upon standard 
> usage when 
> > > reading the rules, then the rules have no objective meaning.
> > > 
> > > All we have to work with are the words of the rules. We
> > cannot treat
> > > the rules as if they were written by Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty 
> > > ("When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean
> > -- neither
> > > more nor less.").
> > 
> > This is EXACTLY why I can't fathom how anyone could argue 
> that the WW 
> > rule "DX Alerting assistance of any kind..." is ambiguous.
> > 
> > 73, kelly
> > ve4xt
> 
> 
> Yet, here we are.
> 
> There are many who want to deem this, and other, new 
> technology "assistance"
> because it helps an operator make contacts more efficiently. 
> This can be said of much of the already accepted technology 
> currently in use. Then there are others (me included) that 
> feel that "assistance" was spawned to deal with human 
> interaction through technology only. I regard the fact that 
> cluster use in certain contests puts you in the Multi-op 
> category as clear proof of that. 
> 
> Until the word "assistance" is defined in no uncertain terms 
> this argument will never end. It doesn't matter how any of us 
> define it. It only matters how the contest sponsors define it 
> and it should be the priority at this time for them to come 
> to some concensus and help end this debate.
> 
> Define it or get rid of it.
> 
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>