[Skimmertalk] Skimmer use places op in Assisted category forCQWW

Tue Aug 12 11:44:51 EDT 2008

I had originally thought the new rules for the basic single operator 
category were crystal clear.  After reading some of the posts, they are 
obviously not to some.

In addition, remote Skimmer is specifically mentioned as being allowed 
in the assisted category, and assumed to be allowed (although not 
mentioned) in all other categories other than the basic single operator 
category.

The term QSO Alerting Assistance is not defined, although I make the 
assumption that the intention was to prohibit having a Skimmer-like 
system alert you to stations that were not calling CQ or making QSOs. 
Other assumptions about that definition would also be reasonable.

What is allowed and what is not allowed in using remote Skimmer is not 
so clear, and the rules are subject to interpretation, given that:

Skimmer does not work without a receiver, yet all receivers must be 
within a 500M circle for every category

A private Skimmer "spotting network" gives an unassociated nice guy 
direct access to a receiver and code reader located on another 
continent.

Anyone who has used it will tell you that Skimmer does not limit its 
spots to those calling CQ even if you have that particular mode 
selected.

There are several undefined terms for which assumptions must be made

My opinion is that everything would be crystal clear if the single 
operator category, now that I read the other posts, were to be clarified 
somewhat (specifically allowing someone to use more than one radio 
although it is reasonable to assume that if it says only one transmitted 
signal at a time, it would be OK to listen on more than one receiver) 
and all other categories were allowed to use local Skimmer only. I would 
like "ALL RECEIVERS MUST BE WITHIN THE 500M CIRCLE, INCLUDING ONES THAT 
FEED CALLSIGNS FROM SKIMMER OR LIKE PROGRAM."

Even many who fought hard for allowing local Skimmer in the single 
operator category thought remote Skimmer should not be allowed at all in 
any category.

73...Stan, K5GO

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul J. Piercey" <p.piercey at nl.rogers.com>
To: "'Ted Bryant'" <w4nz at comcast.net>; <skimmertalk at contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Skimmer use places op in Assisted category 
forCQWW

> You're exactly right, Ted. The categories need to define the operation 
> of
> the station rather than the opposite. I also agree totally that the
> "assisted" category needs to be eliminated.
>
> As for the wording of the new rule, it seems to be more ambiguous than 
> the
> "assisted" criteria ever was. A second radio being tuned to another 
> band can
> be described as "QSO alerting assitance" so SO2R falls into that 
> category in
> my opinion. This is turning into a tragically complex farce when 
> simplicity
> was all that was required.
>
> 73 -- Paul VO1HE
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com
>> [mailto:skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Ted Bryant
>> Sent: August 12, 2008 13:19
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Skimmertalk mailing list
> Skimmertalk at contesting.com
> http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/skimmertalk 