[CQ-Contest] Use of CW decoders in contests

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

> Anyone who can't decode CW in real time may call it
> what they like, but they can't call it a CW QSO.

Well here's another thing I'm going to have to worry about.
When P5 is activated sometime in the future, I pray the guy
on the other end is not using a CW decoder. I need P5 on CW.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul O'Kane" <pokane at ei5di.com>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:54 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Use of CW decoders in contests


> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom Macon" <tmacon at wi.rr.com>
>
>> - Should the use of CW decoders be disallowed by sponsors,
>> or should there be a separate entry category for entrants
>> that use them?
>
> I don't know Russian, so I can't have a conversation in
> Russian.  The only way I can communicate with a Russian
> speaker is to use a decoder - human or otherwise.
> Although I may have had two-way communications with a
> Russian speaker, it has not been in Russian.
>
> In the same way, any contester with a decoder can have
> two-way communications with a CW operator, but that does
> not mean they have had a CW QSO.
>
> Using a decoder reduces CW to the status of "just another
> data mode".
>
>
>> - Can CW entries that use  a decoder be considered
>> digital entries?
>
> Yes.  I suggested previously it be described as DM01,
> data/digital mode 01, to distinguish if from other data
> modes - for example RTTY (DM02), Amtor (DM03) etc.
>
>
>> - Have any contests disallowed CW decoders or put them
>> in a separate entry category?
>
> Well, Skimmer is a CW decoder, and is not permitted in
> contests with a SO-unassisted category.
>
>
>> - If a contest introduced such rules (to prohibit
> decoders), how might it affect the perception of that
> contest in the contest community?
>
> It's likely that the only objectors would be those
> who don't know CW.
>
> ____________________________________________________
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ryan Jairam" <rjairam at gmail.com>
>
>> I see no harm in allowing CWGet or similar and quite
>> honestly I don't see the point of banning it other
>> than to force people to learn to copy CW to take part
>> in your contest.
>
> I don't see the point in banning Russian translators,
> other than to force people to learn Russian to talk to
> Russian speakers.  :-)
>
> If you want to speak to Russians, it's a good idea to
> learn Russian.  Otherwise, while it's still possible
> to communicate with them, you can't do it in Russian.
>
> If you want to have a CW QSO, it's a good idea to
> learn CW.  Otherwise, while it's still possible to
> have a "QSO" with a CW operator, you can't do it
> in CW.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Rick Lindquist, WW3DE" <ww3de at comcast.net>
>
>> We don't impose restrictions or recategorize ops who
>> use software to SEND CW exchanges; why should using
>> software to decode it be any different?
>
> Understanding (what was said or what was sent) is the
> key to communicating with another person.  When I hear
> CW, I may not know whether the other person is sending
> it by hand or by software.  All that matters is that
> I can decode what is sent.  If I can can do it myself,
> in real time, then, for me, it's a CW QSO.  The fact
> that I "know" CW (can decode it), implies that it's
> probable that I can also encode/send it.  Even if
> I can't, it doesn't matter to other operators.  It's
> a CW QSO when they decode it themselves.  Otherwise,
> for them, it's a data QSO.
>
> Anyone who can't decode CW in real time may call it
> what they like, but they can't call it a CW QSO.
>
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest