[CQ-Contest] Single-op Unassisted
Ron Notarius W3WN
wn3vaw at verizon.net
Sat Dec 25 07:18:48 PST 2010
Maybe the solution is to stop writing strict, highly technical rules that
only a lawyer can interpret (and which many armchair lawyers misinterpret)
and start writing rules that indicate the intent, as well as the letter, of
the contest organizers.
That also implies that we as a whole may need to accept the intent, as is,
without combing through the fine print and technical details of the rules to
find the loopholes -- and exploit them, just because we can.
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Saturday, December 25, 2010 2:47 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Single-op Unassisted
Not really. I could easily envision combination CW decoder/rig control
software that not only decoded the callsign of the station you were
working (i.e., in your normal receive passband) but also simply
displayed the frequency you were tuned to. That would be perfectly
legal but still fail your test. I don't use CW decoder software so I'm
not aware of what might be out there, but I would not be surprised to
learn that one or more of the commonly used applications already do that.
In my opinion, that definition is just as careless as the ones that have
been causing all the trouble.
On 12/24/2010 9:20 PM, Tom Haavisto wrote:
> Seems we are still struggling with wording to eliminate packet/skimmer
> for single ops.
> When I was speaking with John - VE3EJ last summer, he suggested the
> "Any technology that gives you the frequency and callsign of other
> stations shall not be allowed".
> In one fell swoop, this eliminates both packet and skimmer. Down the
> road, if/when voice skimmer ever happens, that is covered too.
> Short and sweet, and should be easily understood by all.
> Merry Christmas!
> Tom - VE3CX
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest