[CQ-Contest] NAQP Skimmer

[Owner1]

As much as I celebrate the achievement of VE3NEA and his Skimmer for the
assisted classes, I too am at a loss to understand why this is considered an
acceptable rule for unassisted.

How is skimmer different from a pair of goggles for Roger Federer that
calculate the trajectory of an incoming tennis ball and show him exactly
where to swing? Or a doppler radar system for Americas Cup sailors that
shows them exactly how to trim their jib?

As much as amateur radio was founded on the principle of advancing
technology, there should always remain a category where operating skill is
the chief determinant.

You can argue that advanced technology will help attract people to
contesting, and that may be true, but if these are new people, are they
going to care about the distinction between unassisted and assisted? Are
they not just going to enter the category that attracts them?

And any business knows that in the chase for those elusive two birds in the
bush, you don't drop the one in your hand.

The argument that advocating the assisted class for Skimmer means you are
advocating that anyone using more than a galena crystal and spark gap should
also be assisted in specious: Skimmer is a paradigm shift. Computers merely
help with the administrative details. They don't find the Qs and decode them
for you.

73, kelly
ve4xt

On 12/24/10 9:55 AM, "Dale Putnam" <daleputnam at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 
> I believe that I have pretty much wrapped around the changes... up to the
> point of somewhat understanding just exactly what it is that folks will be
> doing... and how it will change the playing field.
> 1. It will make it much more difficult to evalulate exactly how my station
> compares to others.
> 2. The fun level, which for me is a direct measurement of skill level of the
> op, is diluted.
> 3. Operator to operator touch is lost almost entirely.
>  
> Pretty much, the list goes on.. and at this point in time, it isn't a pretty
> thing. 
> I'm confused as to the implementation, in that we all.. embrace new
> technology, that's a given.
> We all enjoy competition, that's a given.
> We have a very different valuation on the anticipated effect of new
> technology, especially when the implementaion
> is done is such a way as to not allow it to "edge" in. When new technology is
> implemented, or allowed to be utilized,
> the side by side comparisons need to be kept clean. Stations choosing to
> utilize new technology cannot compete on the
> same field as those that choose not to use it. If the two compete without
> seperation the color of the competition changes, not an inviting situation.
> However, if the two different stations can compete and be allowed to be kept
> seperate, it becomes a brand new
> competitive and actually more productive. It actually allows a critical
> evaluation of the technology, in an environment that
> is repeatable and logical.
>  
>  So... what am I suggesting?
>  
> Allow skimmer... allow all the different technologies, allow the operator to
> choose ... so far no diff from what we do now.
> One change... when reporting... make it known, in this case, that skimmer was
> used... 
> mix up the scores? maybe... maybe not, keep them seperate? maybe, make a new
> class... that is possible, and somewhat alluring
> New technology is exciting.. challanging... and fun... but the evaluation of
> it needs to be done in an environment
> that can reveal the results in a manner that lets us then choose, accurately,
> the direction in which to improve that
>  technology or not.
>  
> Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year,
> 
> 
> --... ...-- Dale - WC7S in Wy
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>