[Skimmertalk] Archive?

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

> Is the use of a offsite skimmer cluster which involves no 
> humans, but does involve remote receiving equipment not 
> "assistance" because there are no humans involved?  It's not 
> "multi-op" because there is only one human operator?  

An offsite skimmer is a "remote receiver" which is prohibited 
to all classes (including multi-multi). 

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Dick 
> Dievendorff
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 4:17 PM
> To: skimmertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Archive?
> 
> 
> I'm troubled by the word "assistance".
> 
> It has a common dictionary meaning which could be applied to 
> any human or non-human helper including all the non-human SO 
> tools (computers, SCP) we've used in the past.
> 
> The contest organizers created SOA to mean "SO + spotting 
> help using the efforts of other people". 
> 
> Some of us argue that since the SOA category contains the 
> word "assistance" and SOA means "spotting assistance using 
> the efforts of other people", therefore anything that is 
> enabled by non-human local technology is not "assistance". 
> 
> Let's say, for the sake of argument that a local CWSkimmer is 
> permitted for SO in some contest.
> 
> Is the use of a offsite skimmer cluster which involves no 
> humans, but does involve remote receiving equipment not 
> "assistance" because there are no humans involved?  It's not 
> "multi-op" because there is only one human operator?  
> 
> So does assistance mean "other people"?
> 
> I believe the contest organizers can arbitrarily, by fiat, 
> and without apology define a new or modify an existing 
> category in any way they wish. The organizers may be 
> motivated by popular opinion, consistency, fairness, ability 
> to verify that the rules are being followed, desire for fewer 
> or more categories, convention from other contest organizers, 
> a desire to change or preserve the status quo, or any number 
> of pressures that I can only guess at.
> 
> Once the contest organizers make their decisions, the 
> contestants will vote with their feet. 
> 
> Dick, K6KR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com
> [mailto:skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of K0HB 
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 12:32 PM
> To: W4TV Joe Subich; skimmertalk at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [Skimmertalk] Archive?
> 
> 
> >
> > If I connect a CW decoder to each of those 17 receivers where
> > is the "assistance?"  
> >
> 
> The "assistance" is the CW decoder.
> 
> I submit that there ought to be a "classic" category in CW 
> contesting in
> which only a single human operator decodes the Morse signals, and
> consequently the most skilled operators in that category 
> would have the
> best chances of winning.  If they were skilled enough to 
> simultaneously
> decode signals by ear from 17 receivers, then they should win over the
> operators whose skill was only sufficient to simultaneously 
> decode signals
> from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 
> receivers. 
> Diana Moon Glompers would hate such a category!
> 
> Such a category would exclude operating aids such as CW 
> decoders, SCP, and
> similar means of determining the callsigns of others stations.
> 
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
> Just a boy and his (17) radios
> --
> ><{{{{*>    http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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