[CQ-Contest] The Future

Thu Mar 13 18:16:53 EDT 2008

I have wrestled with this, because in general I agree that we must embrace
technology as a productivity driver. In fact I have invested in both money and time in making my station a competitive SO2R station for both CW and SSB. 

The Skimmer, however, now takes "technology" to the point where, I  believe, we must step in. This has been done in many sports, baseball, tennis, golf, auto racing, etc. The reason is that Skimmer makes it possible to have a full list of calls of stations on the band displayed for you automatically. You do not have to hear any of them yourself. This is similar to packet but better, since the calls will not be busted. For this reason, the operator does not have to hear or decode the calls himself. This makes this technological development fundamentally different from all the other developments.

As has been pointed out, advances made it easier to send CW from a keyboard or an
electronic paddle, to use filters to isolate signals, to put log checking on a  
computer so dupe checking no longer takes checking a huge list of penciled calls
on a sheet of paper, etc. etc.

There is a huge difference. If we allow the Skimmer, we move to robotic contesting: within a decade, a machine will decode all the signals within a significant swath of spectrum, show them in real time in text format, and allow them to be accessed with a link. It will follow that the machine can decide which one to call depending on the timing and relative strength levels, and call and log the contact automatically. This fully robotocally contesting, technically feasible for some time, will be the de rigeur for world class contesting. Is this what we want? Think about it.

There is a simple way to prevent this. Simply add the requirement that all CW and/or voice signals must be copied and detected with natural (ie. human) capabilities for S/O competition. For Assisted competition, it would be possible to limit the assistance to packet spots copied/detected in a similar manner. There could be a "automatically assisted" category without limits for those who want to push the machine capabilities without limits. That could be interesting. Multiple operator categories could be specified in a similar manner to S/O categories. ie. with and w/out machine decoding/robitics. 

Jim George N3BB

-----Original Message-----
>From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <w4tv at subich.com>
>Sent: Mar 13, 2008 9:29 AM
>To: 'Scott Robbins' <w4pa at yahoo.com>, cq-contest at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dead horse: CQ WW rules apparently prohibit CW	Skimmeruse
>
>
>> "The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the 
>> station in the Single Operator Assisted category."
>> 
>> It doesn't say "The use of DX packet cluster, the use of 
>> Telnet on the Internet, the use of 2M FM repeaters..." or 
>> anything else.  
>
>I don't know how one can consider CW Skimmer, as long as it 
>is running on hardware in the operator's own shack, to be "DX 
>alerting assistance" instead of simply a technological way to 
>operate an infinite number of simultaneous receivers.  The 
>ability to copy CW by machine (WriteLog, CW Get, MixW, etc.) 
>has been around for many years ... unfortunately, CW Skimmer 
>only further extends, enhances and democratizes that ability. 
>
>There are those of us who may not LIKE the technology and 
>believes that is devalues operator skill but there is nothing 
>that can be done to outlaw CW Skimmer any more than one can 
>outlaw CW decoders, memory keyers, mechanical pencils or 
>digital signal processing.  
>
>> A piece of computer software decoding CW signals is not a 
>> person performing a spotting function.  If the callsign is 
>> decoded by a method other than the human ear, that is not a 
>> person spotting a callsign, it's a machine.  A computer.  A 
>> computer is not a person.  The rule says PERSON.  Not person 
>> operating a computer that spots the callsigns for you. 
>
>This logic would put any operator who uses CW decoding software 
>into the assisted (or multi operator) category.  The logic is 
>simply flawed ... every operator "Spots" a station calling CQ 
>before they work them.  Simply put, your logic would require 
>that we drive cars using reins and verbal commands instead of 
>a steering wheel and foot pedals. 
>
>Technology drives change which drives innovation which drives 
>technology.  The cycle is called progress and there is no 
>much that anyone can do to stop progress. 
>
>  
> 
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Scott Robbins
>> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:41 AM
>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Dead horse: CQ WW rules apparently 
>> prohibit CW Skimmeruse
>> 
>> 
>> >The "assisted" category always referred to operators receiving 
>> >information indirectly from other operators via the packet 
>> cluster or 
>> >similar networks.
>> 
>> It does not refer to that at all in the CQ WW rules.  
>> 
>> The rules say (verbatim):
>> 
>> "The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the 
>> station in the Single Operator Assisted category."
>> 
>> It doesn't say "The use of DX packet cluster, the use of 
>> Telnet on the Internet, the use of 2M FM repeaters..." or 
>> anything else.  
>> 
>> It says:  DX alerting assistance of any kind.  
>> 
>> If I have a piece of software that is alerting me and 
>> pointing my attention to stations on the bands that I have 
>> not worked, that I have not found, that I have not copied the 
>> callsign of by ear - that is definitely DX alerting 
>> assistance.  It doesn't specify WHO or HOW that assistance is 
>> obtained.  
>> 
>> Is a piece of software that copies callsigns and tells you 
>> where they are assistance?  You bet it is.  
>> 
>> We can take the rules even further.
>> 
>> Verbatim from CQ WW rules:  
>> 
>> "Single Operator High:  Those stations at which one person 
>> performs all of the operating, logging, and spotting functions."
>> 
>> Those stations at which one PERSON performs ... SPOTTING functions.  
>> 
>> A piece of computer software decoding CW signals is not a 
>> person performing a spotting function.  If the callsign is 
>> decoded by a method other than the human ear, that is not a 
>> person spotting a callsign, it's a machine.  A computer.  A 
>> computer is not a person.  The rule says PERSON.  Not person 
>> operating a computer that spots the callsigns for you.  
>> 
>> There are actually two parts to this discussion we are having 
>> on this forum at the moment.  One is:  What should CW 
>> contesting be?  The other is:  What is
>> allowed within the rules of a given CW contest?   
>> 
>> Scott W4PA
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>       
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> ______________________
>> Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
>> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
>> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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