[CQ-Contest] Skimmer rules Again was: Re: AW: Improving voice recordings for phone contests

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

Chris, I appreciate the arguments against the sailboat-racing analogy. 
As I see it they fall in two categories - the absence of a "bright line" 
separating allowable technologies from those disallowed, and the absence 
of any capability for catching cheaters, analagous to pre- and post-race 
technical inspection.

Responding to the first objection, I think we can make a clear 
distinction - "unassisted" means that no means other than the mind of a 
single operator may be used to spot and work stations.  I favor an 
out-and-out band on decoders of any sort in unassisted classes.  If 
someone wants or needs to use a decoder, let him enter as Assisted

The second counter-argument is a lot harder to refute.  While I cannot 
fathom the motivation of those who seek to reach the top levels of our 
sport through cheating, they do exist, and attempts at on-site 
inspection have failed.  I think the solution is two-pronged -- a 
reasonable level of active rule enforcement, based on the best current 
technology, and a public "flogging" of those who are caught.

Perhaps the best way of dealing with those who do not respect the rules 
is to withdraw our respect for them as contesters. Someone who wins, 
knows that he cheated and didn't get caught, and takes pleasure from 
that, belongs in a lower circle of Dante's inferno.

73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.

On 3/9/2013 8:48 AM, Christian Schneider wrote:
> de N4ZR:
> So long as we decide where to draw the lines, and the vast majority of
> participants respect the rules (particularly those who wish to have any
> respect themselves), none of this needs to happen.
> Saiboat racing is alive and well, and nobody feels the need for gas turbine
> engines on them.
>
> Pete,
> with all respect - many discussions here have shown the difference between
> sailboat racing or marathon running and ham contesting. "We have to embrace
> new technology as we are a tech hobby and it helps to gain new blood - or do
> we still operate with spark transmitters and straight keys?" Argument
> solved, end of discussion, development accepted.
> Of course most of the developments were evolutionary steps: from straight
> key to electronic keyer to memory keyer to computer generated CW. As they
> still require human action (even if fewer and fewer) few of them were as
> fundamental as i.e. skimmer, which threw the human more or less completely
> out of finding stations via S&P (we only HOPE that people verify calls by
> ear - they could also safely assume that the few busts are not worth the
> time listening even if they were able to).
>
> So for me it seems really difficult to see a generally accepted core of our
> activity like in running. Reading discussions about Echolink etc. you find
> even very vocal people saying: As long as at least a minimal part is
> wireless it is real amateur radio. So where would you draw a line between
> widely automatted RTTY-/CW-contesting and robot-contesting to come? Or could
> it not be sold as "Only an extension of existing ESM- and
> RTTY-grabbing-logic"? The decoded combination "...Callsign test" triggers
> grab and call without human command, with following detected exchange
> triggering own exchange.
> Will the associated dealing with software-tweaking not help to gain new
> blood not yet gained for ham radio? Why suddenly stop on the path of
> engineering more convenience?
>
> Besides all pro and con - do we really know about a line and do enough
> contesters want to draw a line?
>
> Best 73, Chris (DL8MBS)
>
>