[CQ-Contest] Where to Draw the Line was: Re: Does Using ViewProp Make You Assisted

[Radio K0HB]

In this case, my opinion aligns completely with EI5DI.  There is a non-trivial fraction of contesters who wish to retain a class of operation where they detect and identify target contacts with their own ears and wetware.




73, de Hans, K0HB




PS: The RBN advertisements don't bother me.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Paul O'Kane <pokane at ei5di.com> wrote:

> On 27/11/2013 20:21, Pete Smith N4ZR wrote:
>  > After 5 years of advocating that any use of CW Skimmer should
>  > constitute "assistance", I have changed my mind about where the
>  > line should be drawn between Assisted/Unlimited and Unassisted,
>  > when it comes to technology.
>  > There are at least two reasons for this:
> <snip>
>  > 2. Developments over the last 5 years have made CW Skimmer much
>  > less a game-changer than other developments, such as the worldwide
>  > availability of the Reverse Beacon Network.
> N4ZR may have changed his mind, but CW Skimmer is
> still a multi-channel CW decoder - and he clearly
> expects all CW operators to use it to stay
> competitive.
> <snip>
>  > Why is this important?  Because no single Skimmer can match
>  > the RBN for its contribution to a station's score.
> That may be true, but CW Skimmer is still a multi-channel
> CW decoder.  That's the important bit.
>  > 3. The cost of local CW Skimmer capability is minimal.
> The cost is irrelevant, the principle is not.
> Inexpensive multi-channel CW decoders are still
> multi-channel CW decoders. Just because calculators
> are cheap, it doesn't mean they're appropriate in
> mental-arithmetic contests.
> <snip>
>  > For these reasons, I agree with Rick that the time has come
>  > for a definition based on the station's boundary.  However,
>  > I think the general rule should be "No information from beyond
>  > the station boundary, regardless ofmode of reception."
>  > Specific exceptions could be added, such as one for "generalized
>  > propagation information, such as WWV solar indices".
> Agreed, so long as there is a specific exception for
> multi-channel CW decoders, and for any other technology
> contest sponsors may prohibit in individual events - for
> example, SCP in WRTC 2014.
>  > Is it time?
> No, it's not time, and I respectfully suggest that
> it will never be appropriate for single-ops to use
> multi-channel CW decoders in CW contests.
> And now a gripe - I expect I'm not the only cq-contest
> subscriber getting weary of N4ZR plugging the RBN, 16
> times already this month, by adding the following to
> his every post -
>     Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
> http://reversebeacon.net, <http://reversebeacon.net,/>
>     blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
>     For spots, please go to your favorite
>     ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node
> 73,
> Paul EI5DI
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest