[CQ-Contest] Preview of CQWW Rules 2015

[Dick Green WC1M]

N8HM wrote:

> There's no real reason to expand the definition of "assistance" from using DX
> clusters and the RBN. My view is that if you are solely receiving signals using
> your own antennas and your own computers and equipment, then you are
> not "assisted."

That battle has been fought and settled. While many would agree that using a local CW Skimmer is not really "assistance" in the sense that no other person or remote station is helping you, it provides information that's so similar to what you get from a packet cluster network that it falls under the maxim, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it must be a duck!"

This is why the ARRL CAC decided to focus on the information provided by the technology, rather than the technology itself or the source of the information. The question is how the information affects the nature of the contest category and the competitive balance. Local CW Skimmer spots allow you to work new stations and multipliers without tuning and listening for them. You can' t tell the difference between that and operating with packet. The task of tuning and listening is the heart and soul of Single Op Unassisted operating, so it made sense to prohibit CW Skimmer spots in that category.

The argument here is how to define spotting assistance. Must it include frequency information or not? I'm arguing Yes, and that all of the sources of information that might eliminate or reduce the need to tune and listen, or that provide a material competitive edge, do in fact contain frequency information.

73, Dick WC1M