[CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject

[Stan Stockton]

Joe,

Everyone has an opinion.  Mine is that I would rather see 
CW Contesting stay like it is for another ten years and then 
DIE than have it change to a fully automated mode in two years
so the only possibility of winning would be for you to 
have an automated QSO machine. 

What would be the purpose of CW remaining as a contest
mode of operation if it became automated.  Why not just 
abolish CW Contesting ASAP since RTTY is farther advanced 
in terms of automation.  It is fine for casual contest operators 
to use a code reader and have some fun.  I am not proposing 
that it be "illegal" to use a code reader, only to make it against 
the rules of the contest for the purpose of eliminating the 
automated QSO machine.

Speaking of automation, my viewpoint comes 
from someone who has spent forty years working CW.
After a few minutes of puzzled research it appears 
your viewpoint comes from someone who sells 
equipment and software to automate the process.

73...Stan, K5GO

---- "Joe Subich wrote: 
> 
> Stan writes: 
> 
> > The only way I can think of to prevent full automation in 
> > CW Contesting is to have a rule against using a computer 
> > or machine to copy code.  I know this is going to upset 
> > some people. Sorry but, in my opinion, the day a station 
> > wins a CW Contest and the operator listed cannot copy 
> > CW is the day CW Contesting will be ruined.  
> 
> Any rule like this will doom CW contesting to an accelerated 
> death.  Perhaps 10% of those making contacts in CW contests 
> are currently using "copying assistance" - Writelog's decoder, 
> CW Get alongside N1MM Logger, MixW, Ham Radio Deluxe and DM780, 
> etc.  I see requests daily in logging software the forums for  
> the inclusion of CW copying by amateurs ranging from groups 
> as diverse as those with medical conditions that make copying 
> a single tone difficult, new amateurs who want the "crutch" to 
> learn code, and new amateurs who don't want to learn Morse 
> but simply want to join in the fun of the "most popular digital 
> mode."  
> 
> RTTY will replace CW in contesting in less than 10 years if 
> participants cannot use "a computer or machine" to copy CW. 
> New CW contesters are coming from the population that is using 
> computers ... some will eventually become proficient at coping 
> by ear but most will not.  Contesting must adapt to changes in 
> then regulatory environment (no CW requirement for licensing), 
> changes in demographics (older operators who can no longer hear 
> - or manipulate paddles as well as they once did) and changing 
> technology.  If CW contesting does not adapt it will die. 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Stan Stockton
> > Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 12:21 AM
> > To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> > Subject: [CQ-Contest] Expansion of Skimmer Subject
> > 
> > 
> > It would be easy for the rules' makers to look at the 
> > technology available today, incorporate Skimmer,
> > for example, into the assisted category and go on.  
> > 
> > I think in every class of operation for CW Contests
> > there must also be consideration of a much 
> > larger scope of technology - total automation.
> > 
> > I know how I feel about the following scenario and what 
> > rule I would put in place.   How do you feel about it?
> > 
> > Scenario:
> > 
> > The single operator station has several rigs.  
> > Mulit-operator has several per band
> > The station can be set up so one of them is 
> > transmitting at all times or one per band for 
> > Multi-Multi.   So far so good.  Many people are 
> > able to do this now.
> > 
> > How do we feel about an automated system with the computers 
> > making and logging the contacts with the operator never 
> > actually never hearing the stations that are logged?
> > How will you like to hear a pileup of stations calling at 150 WPM 
> > or more and automated stations working each other at that 
> > rate. How about multiple transceivers scanning  the bands stopping 
> > on stations found, reading what they are sending with a 
> > code reader, and then making and logging the contact for you? 
> > I'm hoping for a logical ruling regarding Skimmer but also 
> > to address full automation in CW Contesting.
> > 
> > The only way I can think of to prevent full automation in 
> > CW Contesting is to have a rule against using a computer 
> > or machine to copy code.  I know this is going to upset 
> > some people. Sorry but, in my opinion, the day a station 
> > wins a CW Contest and the operator listed cannot copy 
> > CW is the day CW Contesting will be ruined.   .
> > 
> > Yes, technology moves forward.  All of it is 
> > interesting.  The question is where the line is drawn 
> > so that contesting remains a fun thing to do.  
> > 
> > There are many modes and many contests running in 
> > each mode over the course of a year.  The RTTY 
> > mode is one where the only way you can operate is to 
> > have a machine copy what is being sent.  It would 
> > seem that full automation in RTTY would be a more 
> > logical step than full automation in CW.
> > 
> > It is good to see a few additional people who actually work 
> > contests express their views.  
> > 
> > Stan, K5GO
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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