[UK-CONTEST] Skimmer Prediction - myths

[Bob Henderson]

Stan

When I ventured that we are all crystal ball gazing, I wasn't referring 
to the technology.  A "skimmer" could have been delivered years ago.  
What we're all crystal ball gazing over, is the effect this might have 
upon our contesting events & categories.

There is little I disagree with in all you've said.  The exception is 
your conclusion.

Engines aren't allowed in glide plane events.
Nor are they in peddle bicycle races.
Trawl nets are yet to be allowed in fly fishing tornaments, so too 
electronic fish finders.
Formula one racing cars are not allowed in formula 2 events and neither 
are allowed in formula 3.

Need I go on ?

It's unecessary and undesirable to ban a techology altogether when it's 
exclusion from a category is all that's required.  I'm unconvinced by 
the argument that contest organisers will face enormous pressure to 
provide for use of such technology in all operating categories and will 
as a consequence bow to it.  So long as there remains interest in 
recognition of operator skill, I believe its recogition will reasonably 
be provided for.

73  Bob

Stan Stockton wrote:
> ---- Bob Henderson <bob at 5b4agn.net> wrote: 
>   
>> Aren't we all crystal ball gazing ?  Surely you too are making 
>> assumptions, which with the passage of time may also prove to be less 
>> than entirely accurate ?
>>     
>
> In 1986 (a very long time ago on the technology clock) 
> N6TR programmed a Z80 processor and made automated 
> QSOS without the need for an operator in Field Day.  
> That predates my owning a PC by four years.
>
> I told K1ZZ, knowing that he could not take a position 
> on this technology, about the Petition.  In his response, 
> which did indeed tell me that he would not take a position, 
> he told me about a story that Mario, S56A, likes to tell.   
>
> He said Mario, S56A used to tell about building a fully 
> automated CW contest station about 15 years ago. He 
> watched it make a couple of hundred QSOs without 
> any human intervention, decided it would destroy his 
> favorite operating activity, and took it apart and never 
> hooked it up again.
>
> This is not looking into a crystal ball, but instead 
> evaluating what was done in the early days of code 
> readers and computers and knowing what can be 
> easily done now.  
>
> If you look at the time and resources stations put into 
> trying to make their signal as good as it can legally
> be to more effectively compete in Contests, and look 
> at how computer technology and software is advancing
> you will realize that this is reality, not just looking into 
> a crystal ball with the possibility it will not come true.
>
>   
>> I am a CW operator man & boy.  CW is one of the great loves of my life.  
>> Skimmer is very close to the top of my list of things, which were it 
>> possible, I would cause to be uninvented.  Alas technology facilitates 
>> all manner of invention.  All, that is, except the coveted uninvent 
>> option.  Consequently, the world is burdened with a legacy of appalling 
>> WMD and contesting suffers the existence of Cluster and now Skimmer.
>>
>> I think attempts to ban skimmer are doomed to failure and anyway are not 
>> desirable.  Were contest organisers to ban the technology altogether 
>> there would be two highly undesirable effects.
>>     
>  
>   
>> 1.  The unscrupulous would use Skimmer anyway and those with scruples 
>> would be disadvantaged.  The unscrupulous already have too big an advantage.
>>     
>
> You are correct in that the technology cannot be uninvented, and 
> you would be spot on in saying that if it is ever sanctioned in CW
> Contesting, it could never be taken away. 
>
> Those who will cheat will cheat.  Those who cheat regularly will be
> known by other contesters and will likely not feel good about 
> themselves in the process.
>
> There are many other ways to cheat that cannot as easily be 
> determined as using Skimmer if disallowed.
>  
>   
>> 2.  Contesting should be open to all, with provision to enjoy it fairly 
>> and in a way which suits the individual.  Would be contesters might be 
>> persuaded to engage this aspect of our great hobby with the support 
>> Skimmer can provide.  IMO that would good, whereas working to exclude 
>> such budding contesters would not.
>>     
>
> There is no call to have the Skimmer code destroyed.  In fact, the 
> petition calls for the enhancement of the technology for use 
> in RTTY Contesting where a computer already has to be used
> to decode the signals.  Those who would enjoy this type of 
> automated operation very well might become interested in contesting
> and decide to learn CW so they could enjoy more contests.
>
> I think Ei5DI was correct in saying that CW is a legacy art that does 
> not require new technology for enjoyment or survival.
>  
>   
>> IMO the SOAB category represents the greatest test of operator skill.  I 
>> believe steps should be taken to ensure this continues to be the case.  
>> To that end, I believe you would be better off with a petition which 
>> focuses on the exclusion of Skimmer from deployment in any single 
>> operator Unassisted category.  In the absence of such a petition, I 
>> encourage all interested parties to lobby contest organisers directly.
>>     
>
> As stated in my previous e-mail, the advent of automated station
> capability built into new transceivers will create so much pressure 
> that it will eventually be allowed in all categories.  
>
>  73 Bob,
>
> Stan, K5GO
>
>
>
>