[Skimmertalk] Category Definitions

[Dick Dievendorff]

Good point, David.

I'd like to see SOME single operator category that permits use of a local
CWSkimmer. I think it's important to find a place for this technology in
single operator contesting. I don't really care if that category is SO, SOA,
or a SOnew category.

I do not think that a local CWSkimmer should be disallowed in all categories
(I call this "SOL").

SOME single operator category should permit the use of a publicly accessible
remote CWSkimmer cluster (the kind that spots CQing station). That category
could be SOA. SOA could allow use of remote spotting assistance from any
source, Packet, internet telnet clusters, VHF spotting nets, or a remote
CWSkimmer cluster spotting CQing stations. The key is that the clusters
should be available to anyone. Some will be regional; none should be
private.

A remote receiver controlled by or benefiting only a single station (the
remote CWSkimmer decoding who is calling me on my run frequency) should be
not permitted. This could be an aspect of the existing "remote receiver"
rule. 

Multi-op categories should be able to add a local CWSkimmer and a publicly
accessible remote CWSkimmer cluster (the kind that spots CQing stations) to
their existing arsenal of spotting tools.

I think use of existing single-signal CW decoders, like the one in WriteLog,
is a non-issue. It allows more people to join in, and more entrants means
more fun.  No one cared about this until CWSkimmer arrived and the argument
was made that since CW decoders are already permitted, therefore CWSkimmer
was already permitted in SO. Serious SO competitors aren't worried about the
other guy using Writelog's CW decoder, one of the MFJ products, or the one
built into the K3.

I believe that CWSkimmer, although "just" a wide-band receiver combined with
"just" a CW decoder, is significantly more capable than the sum of its
parts. It does what no human can do.  It processes a wide swath of
frequencies in parallel, decoding them simultaneously.  While this sort of
wide band receiver has been used by the military for some time and also in
band scopes, the combination of wide band receiver and in-parallel CW
decoding is a very powerful result.  It's "disruptive technology", or we
wouldn't be having this passionate discussion.  

Contest organizers can, by fiat if necessary, put CWSkimmer (and any other
technology) into a separate category or disallow it entirely, whether
consistent with their past practices or not.  The "they can't do that
because of X" arguments are wrong, for all X.  They sure can.  It's their
contest. Then contest entrants vote with their feet.  Enough "traditional"
SO ops want a category that excludes local CWSkimmer that serious
consideration should be given to their point of view.

I would very much like to see the "extended line score" make it clear
whether or not a technology like CWSkimmer was used.  Even if the decision
is to let SO use local CWSkimmer, it should be possible for those that
choose not to use it have a way to compare their results with other
like-minded competitors. Similarly, if use of local CWSkimmer means SOA,
then those SOA who choose just local skimmer should be able to tell whether
their competitors used CWSkimmer alone or packet or both.

I would prefer that "assisted" not be used as a category differentiator to
mean "SO + packet".  "Assisted" has too many meanings.  "Unlimited" is
perhaps too broad, because maybe limits will someday still be needed.  Pick
new words that don't have so much semantic loading.

It seems that a major debate is whether a local CWSkimmer should be SO or
SOA or SOnew.  I'd be happy with any of these. 

Some contests (WAE?) can come to one answer on this topic, others (ARRL SS?)
could come to another. I don't think it important that each contest's set of
rules copy all the others in this regard.  I'd prefer that most contests
permit the use of this technology in some category.

If I were a WRTC organizer, I'd be opposed to its use by WRTC competitors.
WRTC competitors are multi-single. But they haven't allowed WRTC competitors
to use packet spotting, although other IARU multi-ops can use packet.

Dick, K6KR







-----Original Message-----
From: skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:skimmertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of David Gilbert
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 6:23 PM
To: skimmertalk at contesting.com
Subject: [Skimmertalk] Category Definitions


One of the reasons I subscribed to this new reflector was that I thought 
it might lead to some discussion on what might be desirable for category 
definitions looking forward, and I suspect that the various contest 
sponsors had similar hopes for usable feedback.  So instead of getting 
derailed by excursions into no-code and ADA (for which personal 
contribution I apologize), maybe it would be more productive to hear 
some thoughts on what should constitute the intent of a baseline 
category for amateur radio contesting.  There have been several comments 
regarding the operating aids that already exist with logging programs, 
SCP, keying buffers, CW decoders, waterfalls, etc, but if you had your 
choice, where would you draw the line (if at all) for an 
operator-emphasized category?

In the interests of keeping this civil, let's not turn this in to an 
argument.  I'd like to suggest that anyone who sees fit to offer an 
opinion simply list what they would include or not include as being 
permissible, and why, and then maybe refrain from immediate 
counter-posts for just a bit.  If you think that different flavors of 
contests (DX, domestic, etc) warrant different treatment, you might want 
to try to break that out as well.

I don't know if that will work, but at least I tried ...

73,
Dave   AB7E



_______________________________________________
Skimmertalk mailing list
Skimmertalk at contesting.com
http://dayton.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/skimmertalk