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

Thu Nov 28 21:31:20 EST 2013

I agree 100% with what Mark wrote.

There is no legitimate reason to force everyone to compete in a category that many or most currently choose not to enter when given a choice.

This past weekend I have no specific, lasting memory of a single RBN spot I clicked on to work a new multiplier and I clicked on hundreds of them.  We obviously used the RBN since we were in Multi Single category. However, I do remember (and will for a long time) getting lucky while turning the big knob and actually hearing a CE station call CQ on 160, work him for a double multiplier and oddly not see any skimmer receivers ever pick up his CQ.  I know we have to move forward and can't go backward but imagine how much more enjoyable the contest may be for those single operators who have 50 or 100 such memories by entering in a category where the DX isn't served up on a platter by a code copying machine whether it is local or a network of such devices.

I have yet to hear a good argument for taking away a lot of the fun that many get out of contesting by FORCING them use a technology that provides a list of stations to work in order to be competitive.  It makes about as much sense to me as requiring those who chase DX to check into some DX net and take their turn working the DX that some MC has lined up for them to work.

73...Stan, K5GO

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 28, 2013, at 10:41 AM, kd4d at comcast.net wrote:

> Hi Pete:
> 
> Not surprisingly, I disagree with you about the difference between the CW Skimmer and the RBN.  IMHO, the CW Skimmer technology is the "game changer".  The RBN only adds remote receivers to that basic technology.  Viewprop uses the basic CW skimmer technology as its basis as well - the ability to rapidly identify a large number of CW stations automatically.
> 
> There are two reasons why I believe we should NOT make the distinction based on information from outside an arbitrary "boundary".  
> 
> 1)  Some (OK, at least one) of us enjoy tuning around and finding stations and multipliers to work ourselves and would still like to be able to compete.  A "local" CW skimmer would become an absolute necessity to compete in your proposed "new" category.  I want to be able to compete and tune around - why take away the existing categories that allow me to do so?
> 
> 2)  This would DRAMATICALLY increase the "barriers to entry" for a single operator.  Now, the operator has to set up and operate a local CW-Skimmer-like capability to be competitive.  But, that's the easy part.  Now, he needs dedicated  receiving antennas which have gain and can effectively operate within the boundary of the local "station" - being able to receive weak signals and effectively receive while transmitting will become a major differentiator.
> 
> I believe it is completely appropriate for us to continue do define "assistance" (or whatever we decide to call it) as technology evolves.  Other sports do this - heck, they prohibit use of rangefinders in golf, motors in sailboat racing, computers in scrabble, bridge, and chess, ....
> 
> This technology is in its infancy:  we will have to decide what to do about totally automated contest stations as soon as a skilled programmer decides to implement them...
> 
> Yes, it's difficult, and there are edge cases (CW decoders that do "four" channels, etc..), but this is not new.
> 
> Like the people who race sailboats and play golf (and enjoy these activities), we CAN decide which technologies we want to include in different categories and which we do not.  We can even prohibit them (as we already do for the technology of very high power amplifiers).
> 
> 73,
> 
> Mark, KD4D
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pete Smith N4ZR" <n4zr at contesting.com>
> To: "reflector cq-contest" <CQ-Contest at Contesting.COM>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2013 3:21:51 PM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Where to Draw the Line was: Re: Does Using ViewProp Make You Assisted
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> 1. Elaborate attempts to define "assistance" in terms of software 
> capabilities are doomed to be almost instantly obsolete. Take ZL2HAM's 
> ViewProp as an example.  He could easily add a "contest mode" that would 
> prevent the collection of callsigns, frequencies and multipliers, while 
> still providing charts of when and which bands are open to which zones 
> or continents. That would arguably make it legally consistent with the 
> 2013 CQWW definition of "unassisted." But then, what about next year?
> 
> 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. On November 23, the most prolific 
> individual CW Skimmer on the RBN in Europe (ES5PC) made 67,121 spots.  
> The most prolific in North America was WZ7I, with 64,106.  Meanwhile, 
> the RBN forwarded 2,815,948 spots!
> 
> Why is this important?  Because no single Skimmer can match the RBN for 
> its contribution to a station's score.  Quality filters such as the 
> CT1BOH/AB5K algorithm depend on multiple spots of the same station for 
> their accuracy. Moreover, if you are in the contest, your Skimmer cannot 
> be as capable as a station like WZ7I- both W3LPL and K3LR's Skimmers, 
> for example, only delivered 50-70percent as many spots as the best 
> dedicated Skimmer.
> 
> 3. The cost of local CW Skimmer capability is minimal. While some early 
> efforts were over the top, you can now put a bandswitching Skimmer on 
> the air for under $200 - trivial compared to other expenditures that 
> people make for unassisted technology every day
> 
> 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".
> 
> Is it time?
> 
> 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 11/24/2013 3:56 PM, Jack Haverty. wrote:
>> I agree with Rick - the definitions of "assisted" or "unassisted" should be
>> in terms of communications methods used across your station's boundary
>> circle.
>> 
>> "Assisted" used to mean being helped by another living human.   With
>> computers, that doesn't happen nearly as much anymore.  Trying to draw
>> clear lines around various pieces of ill-defined and evolving technology is
>> probably impossible.
>> 
>> However, it is fairly easy to draw a line around a station, and determine
>> what kinds of communications signals are crossing it.  So, "unassisted"
>> could mean "nothing but amateur radio crosses that line".   Use of any
>> other communications means, for any purpose, to interact with anything
>> across that line makes you "assisted".  Internet or carrier pigeon or
>> signal flags - it's all assistance, using some communications mechanism
>> other than amateur radio to assist our amateur radio communications.
>> 
>> If you want to include "remote operation", simply define the way you draw
>> the line around a station to permit that -- the boundary includes the radio
>> location as well as the operator location, and a very narrow pipe
>> connecting the two, and only the two, by whatever means you like.
>> 
>> Note that this would permit Unassisted stations to use technology such as
>> spotting networks - but only if they were implemented using only amateur
>> radio.
>> 
>> Similarly, perhaps teams of geographically separated operators could
>> interact as a multi-multi entry, using only amateur radio communications to
>> coordinate their activities.
>> 
>> Just some thoughts for the annual debate...
>> 
>> 73,
>> /Jack de K3FIV
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Rick Kiessig<kiessig at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> While I agree that using ViewProp in its current form would make someone
>>> assisted, I also think it would help everyone if the contest rules were
>>> less
>>> ambiguous.
>>> 
>>> Exactly what is meant by "providing call signs" and "multiplier
>>> identification" and "along with frequency information"? Concrete examples
>>> of
>>> what's allowed and what's not would be very helpful.
>>> 
>>> Especially with increasing use of new and innovative forms of cheating (not
>>> always purposeful), I would like to suggest a new approach for next season.
>>> Rather than focusing on specific technologies, such as Skimmer or ViewProp,
>>> which will always be a moving target, why not draw the line between
>>> assisted
>>> and unassisted in a very clear, unambiguous place:
>>> 
>>> Unassisted means no connections to the outside world, and no radio or
>>> contest related help from someone there in person. No Internet, phone, HT,
>>> satellite, or anything similar. Any such devices must be unplugged, turned
>>> off, or definitively not accessible to participants for the entire duration
>>> of the contest.
>>> 
>>> Assisted allows Internet access.
>>> 
>>> This would allow unassisted contesters to use any technology they wish,
>>> provided it runs entirely at their location. That might be a local Skimmer
>>> or other decoding software, or something new like ViewProp, provided it
>>> didn't connect to the Internet.
>>> 
>>> This would also put the focus back on what you can build and integrate at
>>> your site. Tinkering is a big part of the hobby for many of us, and that
>>> should include software.
>>> 
>>> If adopted exactly as above, this would also put remote operations
>>> automatically into the assisted category.
>>> 
>>> I realize there is still a strong sentiment for "a boy and his radio" type
>>> contesting on the unassisted side. Unfortunately, with technology the way
>>> it
>>> is now, that line is hard to draw, and pretty much impossible to enforce.
>>> 
>>> BTW, one reason this is an issue for me (other than as the author of
>>> ViewProp), is that the number of people who compete as assisted in this
>>> part
>>> of the world is relatively small compared to unassisted -- and competing
>>> against very small group turns a contest into something else entirely.
>>> 
>>> 73, Rick ZL2HAM / ZM1G
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>>> Chris Hurlbut
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:29 PM
>>> To: Ken Widelitz
>>> Cc:cq-contest at contesting.com
>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Does Using ViewProp Make You Assisted
>>> 
>>> Of course it makes you assisted.
>>> It provides "multiplier identification" as far as I'm concerned.  What a
>>> great way to keep an eye on 10m during marginal conditions!  When are the
>>> single ops in the Caribbean firing up on 160?  Easy, just look at the map!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No frequency information required.  You know it's open, you will find them.
>>> 1000 examples would be easy to come up with, but a debate is not required
>>> in
>>> this case.
>>> -Chris KL9A
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Ken Widelitz<widelitz at gte.net>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>   I've just downloaded and started to plan with ViewProp. What a neat
>>>> tool!
>>>>   If I don't display the path grid which shows call signs, does
>>>> displaying the
>>>>   DX Atlas map that ViewProp creates make me assisted?
>>>>   Per CQWW rule VIII 2. QSO alerting assistance: The use of any
>>>> technology or
>>>>   other source that provides call sign or multiplier identification
>>>> along with
>>>>   frequency information to the operator.
>>>>   I think viewing the DX Atlas map is NOT assistance per rule VIII,
>>>> since it
>>>>   doesn't show call signs and frequencies. The ViewProp grid does not
>>>> tie into
>>>>   my band maps, so I can't see the calls and frequencies there either.
>>>>   73, Ken, K6LA / VY2TT
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest