[CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules

Thu Dec 30 05:03:45 PST 2010

Jim,

I think what you did was admirable, and appropriate.

I would rather have someone think they can't use skimmer at all than to
think they might be able to use any function is might be capable of.

As I've said before, we all know what functions of skimmer we're talking
about when we talk about them being unacceptable for unassisted single ops.

Too often we try to focus on what triggers something to be considered
assistance. This is the wrong way to look at the issue. 

The focus instead should be "what are the characteristics of an unassisted
single op"? 

Simply, an unassisted single op locates all potential qsos and copies all
callsigns himself with nothing else doing those things for him.

Again, if this unassisted single op cannot copy CW on his own, I think an
exception can/should be made to allow him to use some sort of "code-reader"
to get involved in the fun too.

73,

Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Smith
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:10 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Revised 2011 NAQP Rules

Hmm...  seems that I'm being chastised for having publicly stated that 
the rule change may not be noticed by lots of folks (particularly those 
who go by the rules as published in the NCJ) and then attempting to do 
something to bring it to their attention.

I'm sorry that I'm not aware of all the intricacies of the Skimmer 
arguments (or even that the use of the word "Skimmer" is too specific) 
but I had ten minutes to do this - not much time for research, 
particularly for one who has never used Skimmer.

It should be noted that I included a URL for the actual rules.  It was 
included in the expectation that folks reading my warning in their club 
news letter or whatever would be sufficiently prudent to check it out 
rather than simply accept what someone they've never heard of is 
reported to have said on some reflector.

There is nothing to prevent someone more expert in this topic than I 
from posting something like, "Well, Jim's heart is in the right place 
but he apparently isn't aware that certain uses of Skimmer is OK in NAQP 
SO and here's a suggested replacement for his message to send to your 
clubs."

73 es Happy New Year

Jim Smith  VE7FO

On 12/25/2010 1:41 AM, Jim Smith wrote:
> Wow, thanks to Al and Bruce for reversing this rule.
>
> I think it is incumbent on the rest of us to get the word out as well as
> we can to minimize the number of folks who use Skimmer because they
> didn't hear about the rule change.
>
> I've sent the following to both the BC DX Club and the Orca DX&
> Contesting Club for posting on their web sites.
>
> """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
> URGENT *** NAQP CW CONTEST RULE CHANGE *** URGENT
>
> If you're planning on entering the CW North American QSO Party you may
> have noticed that, until today, Dec 24, the rules stated that the use of
> Skimmer will be allowed in the Single Op category.
>
> The use of Skimmer by single ops in the upcoming NAQP CW has now been
> disallowed.
>
> See
> http://www.ncjweb.com/naqprules.php
>
> Entry Classification
> Section 5.a.ii.
>
> Please note that, if you're an NCJ subscriber, the Jan/Feb issue has
> already gone to print so will still show the old rules.
>
> 73, Jim VE7FO
> """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
>
> Best way I can think of to get the word out is to send something like
> this to every contest club that you know of.
>
> I'm sure that some folks won't get the word and will use Skimmer.  For
> the sake of the adjudicator, let's hope it's just a few.
>
> Merry Xmas
> Jim Smith VE7FO
>
>
> On 12/24/2010 3:01 PM, Aldewey at aol.com wrote:
>>
>> All;
>>
>> I want to thank everyone for the feedback provided on this NAQP CW  issue
-
>> especially some very thoughtful responses that  were sent directly to
Bruce
>> and I off the list.  Although a  number of responses were received in
>> support of the change, the vast majority  did not feel this was the time
to
>> introduce this change to NAQP.
>>
>> As Bruce points out, the amended rules for 2011 (that prohibit the use of
>> automated tools in the Single Operator category) are now available on the
>> NCJ Web Site and will apply to all 2011 NAQPs.   Because the  Jan/Feb,
2011
>> issue of NCJ has already gone to print, be aware that the printed  rules
>> shown in your copy of NCJ that you receive in the mail in the  next
couple weeks
>> will not show this change.
>>
>> Have a happy holiday, everyone.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Al, K0AD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 12/24/2010 12:32:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>> bhorn at hornucopia.com writes:
>>
>> Although  the nature of contesting has been one of technological advances
>> over the years  that have increased scoring opportunities, it's evident
from
>> the postings on  this list that the contesting community is not ready to
>> adopt CW Skimmer-like  technologies in the single-op category at this
time. For
>> this reason and the  fact that the CW NAQP contest will be used as part
of
>> the team selection  criteria for WRTC 2014 starting in 2011, we've
returned
>> the single-op criteria  to the pre-2009 definition that prohibits the use
of
>> automated tools. The  rules on the NCJ web site have been updated to
>> reflect this change.
>>
>> 73  de Bruce, WA7BNM    (bhorn at hornucopia.com)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest