[CQ-Contest] Blind Mode for N1MM Bandmap

[David Gilbert]

Hi, Pete,

Well, my original hypothesis didn't only include CW Skimmer ... it 
included cluster spots in order to make the idea applicable to both CW 
and SSB.  That would indeed mean that CQ'ing stations would predominate 
the spots telnetted to N1MM in Blind Mode.

Thus far I've gotten replies to my original post that could be sorted 
into three basic categories:

1.   It would be OK for unassisted information to telnet spots to N1MM 
for conversion to Blind spots because human recognition (decoding in the 
case of CW, hearing the phonetics in the case of SSB) would still be 
necessary to make the contact.

2.  It would NOT be OK for unassisted operation to telnet spots to N1MM 
for conversion to blind spots because knowing that there was a real 
station there (most likely CQ'ing), without the operator having to do 
anything before trying to make the contact, would represent a 
significant advantage beyond my original desire to simply make 2nd VFO 
QSY more efficient.

3.  I'm trying to cheat

At this point, I'm willing to accept that #2 is the conservative 
judgment, although quite honestly I think that I can glean as much 
information from a good waterfall display as I would be able to from a 
bandmap full of blind spots.  I can easily tell whether a trace on a 
waterfall is a station or not, and I can even tell whether he is running 
or not by just looking to see if his trace consistently takes up most of 
the span of the display.  Still, I'm forced to make that assessment on 
my own without any assistance at all from anything else, so that's 
probably enough to make a difference.

As far as the opportunity to undetectably cheat is concerned, I've never 
understood that argument.  If I wanted to cheat, there are plenty of 
ways to do so.  I could easily:

a.  telnet full spots from a cluster to N1MM and simply work them in 
frequency sequence to simulate tuning with VFO B.  In my opinion, the 
folks that get caught operating assisted while claiming unassisted are 
either greedy or stupid.

b.  use high power while claiming low power

c.  cross reference the SCP file with various lists of submitted logs to 
find the callsigns of stations who are typically active in contests but 
never submit a log, and then insert them into my log as claimed 
contacts.  If I had two or three co-conspirators, they wouldn't even 
show up as uniques.

d.  etc.

You get the idea.  There are lots of ways to cheat that are at least as 
difficult to detect as would be operating N1MM in Blind Mode.  Besides, 
if I wanted to cheat for unassisted operation, why would I bother to 
pretend I was using Blind Mode ... why wouldn't I just use normally 
telnetted spots from CW Skimmer or the clusters?

Except for being accused of trying to subvert the rules, this has for me 
at least been an interesting discussion and I'd like to thank those who 
responded.  If anyone is still unclear regarding what my motives were, 
please reread the last nine words of item #2 above.

73,
Dave   AB7E




On 10/23/2010 3:17 AM, Pete Smith wrote:
> How would you implement this?  If you run CW Skimmer in blind mode, 
> nothing gets Telnetted.  If you run it in normal mode, unless you tell 
> it to spot everything, it will pick out which traces on its bandmap 
> are CQing, and will only forward them to N1MM's proposed "blind mode" 
> bandmap.  This would confer a pretty big advantage, making it, in my 
> view, clearly "Assisted", and would be very hard to detect if one 
> chose to cheat this way in the unassisted category.
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
>
> The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at 
> www.conteststations.com
> The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at 
> reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
> spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000
>
>
> On 10/22/2010 1:40 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
>> ...The ONLY differences between what I just described and what I
>> hypothesized as a blind mode for N1MM are:
>>
>> 1.  I'd be able to use the keyboard to change the frequency of VFO B
>> instead of having to move my hand over to the mouse.
>>
>> 2.  CW Skimmer would determine for me (with probably less accuracy)
>> which traces were stations and which were noise/clutter.
>>
>> If point number 2 equates to assisted operation, fine!  I can accept
>> that and I have the answer to my questions.  I'd rather know for sure
>> than sit here trying to guess.
>