[CQ-Contest] Skimmer vs. assisted

[Stan Stockton]

Kelly,

Thank you for sending!.  
I had an e-mail I was in the process 
of completing when something went astray 
with my computer browser and I lost it.

I had the rule copied and pasted and was making the 
same point relating to CQ Contests.

Mine is just the opinion of one who has 
enjoyed working contests for about 40 years.  
I have no interest in this other than what I 
think it will do to CW Contesting.

I think life Is too short to have a game 
that has been a source of pleasure to so many 
people for so many years ruined because of 
allowing anything and everything in the way 
of technology. 

If we want to compare it to a sport,
I challenge anyone to name other sports that
allow any and all technology that comes along
 to be used to the competitor's benefit. 

It would seem reasonable to me that, 
in a CW Contest, it should be allowed
to use this technology, if one wants to 
use it, in the category that already includes 
spotting and leave the single operator 
category alone such that the operator 
will always have to have the ability to 
copy CW to make contacts? 

BTW, the ultimate setup will be when the CQ 
goes out, everyone who uses the new equipment 
and software (that is no doubt in the design stages
at least in someone's mind right now) can pileup 
on you at about 150 WPM, the computer will make 
a list for it to work one after the other at the same 
high speed.  You can choose to work one of the 
slow boys if there are any left or if you know the code 
so you can fool yourself into believing you had 
something to do with the operation.

If CW Contesting still exists, I can see 10 years 
from now someone reporting that they made 
5,000 contacts and bragging that 1,000 of them 
were "manual".  

Stan, K5GO


---- Kelly Taylor <ve4xt at mts.net> wrote: 
> Hi all,
> 
> I agree that with some contests, there is a grey area regarding whether 
> Skimmer constitutes assistance.
> 
> However, there is no grey area, no splitting of hairs when it comes to CQ WW 
> and WPX.
> 
> Both contests classify as assisted an operator who is using "DX alerting 
> assistance OF ANY KIND." (Emphasis added.) The rule goes on to say that it 
> includes packet, cluster, nets involving other individuals, but it does not 
> limit the description to those forms of assistance. At the end of the day, 
> nothing in that rule overrides the OF ANY KIND bit. Nor does the fact that 
> historic precedent has been that assistance is a form of packet or spots 
> from other stations.
> 
> It does not say DX alerting assistance only when it involves other people. 
> It does not say DX alerting assistance unless it's a piece of hardware in 
> your own shack. It says of any kind.
> 
> I would suggest the ARRL CAC has some work to do, as it could be argued that 
> the rules of ARRL contests do not restrict Skimmer use. I simply cannot see 
> how something that finds the stations for you AND decodes their callsigns 
> isn't assistance.
> 
> (The argument that the description of assistance could then be transferred 
> to receivers and rotator control boxes and amplifiers is spurious, at best.)
> 
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest