[Skimmertalk] Skimmer use places op in Assisted category forCQWW

[Ted Bryant]

Let's try a what-if example: (major plagiarism of the ARRL DX Contest rules)

Single Operator:
A) One person performs all control, transmitting, receiving, and logging
functions within the station location.
B) In the performance of those functions in (A), information concerning the
callsign, time and transmit frequency  of other contest participants
gathered by any means from any source external to the station location is
not permitted. (alternately: will place the entrant in the XXXXX category.)
C) In the performance of those functions in (A), information concerning the
callsign, time and transmit frequency of other contest participants gathered
within the station location by automated means is not permitted.
(alternately: will place the entrant in the XXXXX category.)
D) Single-Operator stations are allowed only one transmitted signal at any
given time.
E) Single Operator stations may be divided into subcategories based on power
output:
   1.QRP: 5-W output or less.
   2.Low Power: 100-W output or less.
   3.High Power: More than 100-W output

Of course competitive categories are strictly the purview of the contest
sponsor. This would likely affect how items B and C are implemented.

73, Ted W4NZ


-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Muns [mailto:w0yk at msn.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 9:29 AM
To: 'Ted Bryant'
Cc: skimmertalk at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [Skimmertalk] Skimmer use places op in Assisted category
forCQWW


I agree with Ted, but in all the postings on this topic, none have proposed
rules wording that is more clear than the hardware/software terms.  That is
the practical limitation of using functional descriptions.

A while back K5ZD challenged us to come up with actual rules drafts.  The
few responses were presumably clear to their authors, but all left me
wondering what the original question was.

73,
Ed - W0YK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ted Bryant
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 August, 2008 06:19
> To: skimmertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Skimmer use places op in Assisted
> category forCQWW
>
> I'm going to beat this drum one more time....
>
> Instead of defining the categories in terms of what
> hardware/software is or is not allowed, it seems to me that
> categories should be defined by what functions the operator
> is allowed/not allowed to perform in conjunction with what
> information is allowed to be used and from which sources it
> can be obtained.
>
> If this is not done, inevitably there will be new hardware or
> software developed which falls outside the category
> description and we'll be right back here again.
>
> Also, the use of the terms "assistance" or "assisted" MUST GO.
>
> Would anyone like to try defining "QSO alerting assistance"?
>
> 73, Ted W4NZ
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com]On Behalf Of Paul
> J. Piercey
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:10 AM
> To: 'Vladimir Sidorov'; skimmertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Skimmer use places op in Assisted
> category forCQWW
>
>
> CW Skimmer is nothing like the packet cluster. An operator
> can manually duplicate anything that the local Skimmer can do
> but cannot duplicate what the cluster does. While I agree
> that getting Skimmer data from a network should be equated to
> cluster use, the use of a local Skimmer should not.
>
> It'll be interesting to see how they enforce it. I would
> venture that this decision will create far more problems than
> it was intended to solve.
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com
> > [mailto:skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Vladimir
> > Sidorov
> > Sent: August 11, 2008 18:03
> > To: skimmertalk at contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Skimmer use places op in
> Assisted category
> > forCQWW
> >
> > Scott,
> > Thanks for bringing up good news.
> >
> > Apparently it turned to be clear for everybody that Skimmer
> is perhaps
> > even more "QSO alerting assistance" than the traditional spotting
> > system. The list's activity has slowed down simply because
> there was
> > virtually nothing to discuss anymore. All the reports of
> trial use of
> > Skimmer in contests have cleary proved the fact that SO and
> SO+Skimmer
> > are totally different animals.
> >
> > Sanity is there at last, thanks to the CQWW team.
> >
> > 73,
> > Vladimir VE3IAE
> >
> > ---
> >
> > > Though this list appears to be winding down, I thought I
> would point
> > > out for the record that this text now appears in CQWW rules:
> > >
> > > A. Single Operator categories: For
> > > all single operator categories, only one person (the
> operator) can
> > > contribute to the final score during the official contest period.
> > > QSO alerting assistance of any kind (this includes, but is not
> > > limited to, packet, local or remote Skimmer and/or Skimmer-like
> > > technology,
> > > Internet) places the entrant
> > > in the Single Operator Assisted category.
> > >
> > > -- Scott (NE1RD)
> > >
> > > B. Scott Andersen           | "Magic is real, unless
>
> _______________________________________________
> Skimmertalk mailing list
> Skimmertalk at contesting.com
> http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/skimmertalk