[CQ-Contest] Discrimination Against single-Op Assisted

[Kelly Taylor]

All,

While I don't have an issue with Skimmer in the contests that allow it, I do
have to wonder: do all contests need to have the same rules?

I actually like the boy-and-his-radio (hello, Hans) flavour this rule brings
to IARU, which is only one contest of many each year.

Having all contests freely adopt the usage of Skimmer technology as a way to
encourage new contesters does have a double-edge sword effect, as well:
while there may be some new contesters who favour the use of as much
technology as possible, there must also be some for whom a radio and antenna
have already stretched the bounds of their budgets.

Are there not enough contests who have adopted Skimmer technology, to the
point that if one single contest does not, the universe will not implode on
itself?

And, while I celebrate Pete's right to advocate as he has, I hope the use of
the word 'discrimination' was merely poorly chosen phraseology:
discrimination is when you have to use a different washroom, water fountain
or seat on the bus than everyone else, or are denied a job/promotion/raise
only because your chromosome count differs or because your God is different
than your boss's God. I'm not sure the rules of an event that NOBODY is
required to participate in qualifies for such a loaded word.

Whatever the contest committee decides is fine by me. But I think every
contest has the right to decide its own rules and its own flavour.

73, kelly
ve4xt


On 7/16/12 6:35 AM, "Pete Smith" <n4zr at contesting.com> wrote:

> I recently sent the following e-mail to K5UZ, current chairman of the
> ARRL Board committee responsible for contesting.  If you agree, please
> let him, and your Board representative, know how you feel.
> 
> "Dear Mr. Norris,
> 
> Recently, my attention was called to the rules of the IARU HF
> Championship, which state,
> 
>     4.1.3. Use of spotting nets, packet, or multi-channel decoders (such
>     as CW Skimmer) is not permitted. Single-operator stations that use
>     spotting nets, packet or multi-channel decoders _will be
>     reclassified to the Multi-operator, Single Transmitter category.
>     (emphasis added)_
> 
> There are similar pejorative provisions in the rules of the ARRL 160
> Meter and ARRL 10 Meter Contests.  The tone, in fact, suggests that use
> of packet is cheating and should be penalized.
> 
> I suspect that these rules are simple anachronisms, dating to the early
> days of packet spotting, but they need to be changed, particularly as we
> want to encourage participation in our contests by newly-licensed,
> computer-literate amateurs.  The writers of the rules for the Rookie
> Roundup appear to have recognized the desirability of this approach, in
> fact allowing packet for all single operators.
> 
> I would not go that far, but it seems to me that it would be simple for
> the rules of these three ARRL/IARU contests to be changed to parallel
> the rules of the ARRL DX Contest.  The Contest Advisory Committee has
> already done extensive analysis in developing that language, so simply
> extending it to 3 more contests should not impose a significant workload
> on that group.
> 
> I hope the PSC will consider either acting on its own at the upcoming
> Board meeting, so that the ARRL Contest staff can prepare the new
> language in time for it to be promulgated before the next running of
> these contests.  Alternatively, and less desirably, you could task the
> CAC to study the idea and prepare recommendations for the January 2013
> Board meeting.  I realize that changing the IARU rules would require
> IARU concurrence, but cannot imagine that this will be a problem.
> 
> Thank you for considering this proposal.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Peter G. Smith N4ZR
> ARRL member since 1954"