[CQ-Contest] Cheating with Technology

[Michael Coslo]

On Mar 13, 2008, at 12:00 AM, Colleen Brakob wrote:
>
> Put into my thoughts into another frame of reference, I tend to  
> consider
> the essence of a single-operator contest effort to consist of two  
> "buckets"
> of "stuff".
>
> Bucket #1 is station/radio/antenna farm/log-keeping "stuff".  Anything
> thing in this bucket within the law (power output, band limits,  
> etc) ought
> otherwise be free of regulation.  If you use 1 radio or a dozen radios
> should be simply a matter of personal choice and the skills I can  
> develop
> in that regard.  Any techonology/software/hardware WITHIN THE  
> BOUNDARIES OF
> YOUR STATION which puts signals on the air, or brings a signal to  
> your ears
> for interpretation and transcription into a log (wooden or mechanical
> pencil, computer, or chiseled into stone tablets) is fair game.
>
> Bucket #2 contains "information" which ultimately translates into Q's
> completed.  In my view (emphasis on "my") the only information in this
> bucket should be that which is gleaned "off the air" by the single  
> person
> operating the station.  As long as the information in that bucket  
> remains
> un-polluted by outside assistance (such as packet, K5ZD
> "super-check-partial" cheat sheets, auto-populated exchange elements,
> etc.), then the log qualifies as a "single-operator, un-assisted  
> entry",
> regardless of the technology contained in Bucket #1.
>

Tools such as Skimmer do introduce a real conundrum into the CW  
world.  In fact, we will get to the point where a person can hope to  
compete in a CW class without knowing CW. I have a friend who is  
doing DXCC using a CW program. I've tried his program, and the only  
place it has trouble is with some of the straight key folks with a  
really bad fist. The basic engine looks very similar to Skimmer.

Point is, the waters are being muddied regarding CW, and there isn't  
a whole lot that can be done about it. Technology is going to allow  
the unlearned to compete, and will probably put a big dent in packet  
at the same time. I'm trying to imagine an enforcement scheme that  
doesn't involve actually sending a "contest marshall" to every  
participants station to ensure compliance if we try to outlaw some of  
this technology.

Your definition is pretty good, although I would have to say that  
your tagline might need updated......


A boy and his radio and his computer....

-73 de Mike N3LI -