[Skimmertalk] Categorizing Skimmer discussion points

[B. Scott Andersen]

Colleagues,

I thought it might be good to provide some kind of
"review" of the discussion so far. This is my attempt.

The Skimmer discussion has split into several discussions,
each relating to Skimmer but not entirely about Skimmer.
For example, what is the definition of "assisted"? These
other discussions are important because they help frame
the context and language we use to further the Skimmer
investigation. In some case, the discussions are about things
changed by the advent of Skimmer; in other discussions
Skimmer itself is characterized as one thing or another
depending on the viewpoints of the proponents or opponents
of the technology.

The discussions have wandered around quite a bit. Here
are the major points in the discussion as I see it.
Of course, if I've missed something, please add to the
list (or make any other necessary corrections).

1. Assistance
The Skimmer discussion very quickly raised issues with the
weak definition we've been using for "assisted". The Packet
Network was, and is, the only pervasive DX spotting mechanism
in use today. By loose agreement, the term "assisted" in
contesting has meant utilizing the packet network (though
instant messaging and chat rooms have been implicated in
recent 160m contests).  Should Skimmer be considered "assistance"?

Common view: The "unassisted" category demands:
Those stations at which one person performs all of the
operating, logging, and spotting functions.
(From CQ WW rules)

Disputed view 1:
Assistance also means information regarding the frequency, location,
or other contest-related data (other than the on-air signals
themselves) originating outside the 500m circle is sent to, or
intercepted by the operator. It does not matter if the information
was solicited or unsolicited. If one person performs all
activities as described above with equipment within the
500m circle, it is unassisted.
In short: Only other _people_ can assist. Computers are not people.
No computer can put you into "assisted" unless it is a conduit to
other people (Internet chat, packet spotting network, etc.).

Disputed view 2:
The use of DX alerting assistance of any kind places the station
in the Single Operator Assisted category.
(From CQ WW rules)
Skimmer "alerts" operators and therefore is an "assistance"
to the operator (making this operation "assisted").
In short: Skimmer is providing DX alerting assistance. We're assisted.

Disputed view 3:
This whole "assisted" thing isn't worth the trouble. Remove it.

Disputed view 4:
Maybe "assisted" would be worthwhile, but now it is unenforceable.
So, no point in keeping it.

2. Code Readers (Computer-aided CW decoding)
In a case of collateral damage, even the usage of computer-aided
CW-to-text conversion is now suspect. Two views are now emerging
as a result of the ongoing Skimmer discussion.

Disputed view 1;
Code readers are common and a perfectly reasonable shack accessory.
They have been in use for a while with no complaints. Some radios
have this feature built-in (and more will likely include the
feature in future products). It is a non-issue.

Disputed view 2:
CW contests should be about "a boy* and his radio" where the
skills of the operator are measured by the contest. A sculptor
with his hammer and chisel is not the same thing as a pre-programmed
milling machine.

3. Technology in the shack
The Skimmer software has opened up a discussion regarding
technology in general. What has been the impact of these
technology advances?

Common views:
* Computer logging (vs. paper logging) is superior
* The SCP database is very helpful in narrowing call sign  
possibilities on receive
* CW memory keyers are easier and faster to use than paddles or  
straight keys
* Computerized CW sending linked to computer logging is very useful
* Logging programs that recognize possible duplicates saves time
* Logging programs that alert you that a particular call is a  
multiplier is helpful
* Automatic tuners save time
* Automated band-switched resources like antennas and filters saves time
* DSPs and other computer filtering techniques can be invaluable on a  
crowded band
* Logging programs that "pre-fill" information from previous contests  
save time
* Logging information like run-rate, running score, multiplier totals,  
etc. are useful

All of the above, and more, are currently in use today -- largely  
without
controversy. I believe most hams would be shocked at the count of  
microprocessors
in their shack. My little Elecraft K1 QRP rig has three or four in it,  
for example!

(A note from K3KU 06 Feb 2008, "...reading old NCJs: In the Jan/Feb 1989
issue WB0IKN and NI0E say that computer logging is good for DX contests,
but they recommend against it for SS." So maybe this was not
_always_ uncontroversial!)

It is probably a "straw-man" argument to ask a Skimmer opponent if they
want to outlaw these technologies, too. (And, I've shamelessly employed
this so I'm certainly not above reproach in this.) But, it does seem
reasonable to ask, "how is Skimmer different from the above?"

Disputed view 1:
Skimmer is no different. Just another program running on another  
computer.
The operator may glean information from Skimmer but must still act upon
that information in order to achieve any benefit. The operator is still
in control. In an SO2R situation we have two radios and one operator.
In a Skimmer-equipped shack we have two radios (one as the receiver for
Skimmer) and one operator. How is that different?

Disputed view 2:
Skimmer is different from the above. The aforementioned technology,  
with rare
exception like CW keyers, does not perform its function unattended.
Logging program features (duplicate checking, score calculation, pre- 
fill)
respond directly to operator activities (entering the call sign, tabbing
to the exchange capture area, etc.) Skimmer runs unattended, can work
as a replacement "spotting" operator for minutes--or hours, populating
band maps and performing work that no single operator could reasonably
be expected to do. Even in SO2R, the operator is doing all the  
activities.
In essence, Skimmer is acting as a second PERSON in the shack.

4. The "Level Playing Field" argument
Contests have categories for power (QRP, LP, HP), number of
radios, number of operators, bands used, assistance (with all
the caveats above), and so on.

Disputed view 1:
I want to compare my station to others in the given categories
so the score comparison is meaningful. There should be a category
where Skimmer is not allowed so those who wish to compete without
it can continue to have these meaningful comparisons.

Disputed view 2:
There is no such thing as a "level playing field". In any
category there is a significant variety of possible antenna
assets available to the operator. Those in deed restricted
areas can never compete with the guy with twin towers and
stacked yagis. Any influence Skimmer could have would pale
to those differences already permissible in the existing rules.
(K6VVA had an interesting post on this on 7 Feb 2008.)

5. Views on the need for action
What should contest sponsors do now?

Disputed view 1:
Skimmer is contrary to the spirit of current contest rules.
Disallow usage for all categories now.

Disputed view 2:
Skimmer is DX spotting assistance and should be confined to
contests and contest categories that are clearly labelled "assisted".

Disputed view 3:
The impact of Skimmer on contests and contest scores is pure
speculation right now. It would be best to collect data over
the next few years to see if Skimmer affects the average scores
of users vs. non-users. Only after the effects of Skimmer have
been analyzed can we assess what actions would be best.

Disputed view 4:
Skimmer may affect scores, just as computers, memory keyers,
SCP, and a myriad of other technology changes have. Absorb
the changes without further comment or action.

=-=-=-=

There are probably other issues with positions (a), (b), (c)
that could be listed, but this is a good start. My hope would
be that we would isolate the particular points to be decided,
discuss them within the confines of those options, and (hopefully)
integrate all the ideas into something that would resemble a
consensus. That is completely optimistic. I know. But the
alternative to working things out ourselves is to agree-to-
disagree and have our fate decided by others. The latter
seems unsatisfying to me.

-- Scott (NE1RD)


PS I started to attach call signs to various positions just for
reference--but decided ultimately that was a bad idea. Getting
even one stance wrong would generate long threads. So, you get the
issues absent supporters/detractors in this message. If others
would like to do that mapping, I wish them luck.

* Or "a girl and her radio", of course. I believe we're all in favor  
of that!


B. Scott Andersen           | "Magic is real, unless declared integer."
bsandersen -atsign- mac.com | -- The collected sayings of Wiz Zumwalt
Acton, MA (NE1RD)           | http://www.bsandersen.com