[UK-CONTEST] CW skimmer ramblings

[m0blf at domsmith.co.uk]

Hi all,

Firstly, apologies for the long post. It sort of grew as I typed it :)

For me, amateur radio is first and foremost a technological hobby. I think that we have to accept that we get commercially valuable (especially at VHF) spectrum basically free-of-charge from the government in which to do what we do. Whenever this spectrum comes under threat, appeals are made on our behalf emphasising, amongst other things, the science training that amateur radio provides.

In that context, I really cannot see how we can ever justify fixing the rules of contests (or for that matter award schemes) in such a way as to hinder progress and fossilise the hobby. In a fast-changing world, if such a major aspect of amateur radio as contesting has rules which essentially haven't changed since the 1960s or 70s, does it not undermine the whole raison d'être that we have set ourselves?

Certainly, innovations such as CW Skimmer will change the nature of the beast, but this isn't new: the arrival of SCP, Cluster integration, band maps etc have all caused similar concerns to be raised before. But surely that's just progress. It does, however, raise some questions which I think we, the contesting community, should address.

Firstly, I'm concerned that, judging by the reactions on this list and elsewhere, we seem to have been surprised by this innovation. If we had sat back and thought about it, could we not have foreseen it? What about future developments? 
A conversion to digital voice modes at HF in the medium-term looks quite likely, I would think, and a feature of this would be that callsigns are carried in the packet headers. Therefore, it is perfectly conceivable that in CQWW in the year 2020, the full callsign of the station calling you will be on your computer screen before the operator has said the first character.  That will be a much bigger change than CW Skimmer's advent. 
And what about remote controlled stations, which I suspect will also become a major discussion point in the years ahead? Certainly I'd love to be able to operate M4A from the comfort of a sofa rather than a damp wooden shed! 
What I am arguing for is for contest organisers to start a debate as to where the maximum permissible amount of technological 'assistance' lies, and for that to be defined in the rules. Ie. rather than having an assisted category in which x, y and z are permitted, have a category in which anything is permitted, providing that a, b or c do not happen. This would make it clear to the developers of new technologies whether something would be allowed, and should save us from having reactionary debates as to whether a specific technology should be permitted after it has been invented.

I also think, and I haven't seen anyone else mention this, that we should probably start recognising that innovation means that contest scores might not be comparable from year-to-year. What are the effects of this on 'records' that some people claim to hold? Is it sensible for WRTC selection to involve adding up scores over a period of years, when the selectors do not know how much the hobby might have changed by the end of that time? Or maybe I should leave that can of worms firmly sealed.

73,

Dominic M0BLF