"KC4UAI" wrote in message
...

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology
while keeping the playing field level? Beats me, but thinking
about it leads to a number of possible solutions (Please folks
let's add to this list.)
1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks
who use it will likely increase their contest scores.
2. Regulate its use by handicapping folks who choose to
use such tools.
3. Make the use of such tools illegal for the contest.

I have a 4th selection to add to your list, but first some thoughts on
radiosport contesting in general.

I have a general dislike for the notion of "level playing fields". (To help you
understand "level playing fields", read KVG's "Harrison Bergeron" at
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

I think that every serious participant in contesting should be developing
skills, adopting technologies, and engineering his station with an eye on
tilting the playing field to their advantage. Contesting and contesting rules
ought to be crafted in a fashion which encourages innovative thinking, adopting
new ideas, and increasing the pool of good operators and the pool of
technological communications tools, not handicapping those who would do so.

So it would appear that I'm advocating your choice #1 above (basically saying
"let 'em play and get out of the way"). And, yes, I support that mindset.

BUT........

Contesting rules should also preserve a traditional space where "just a boy
and his radio" can compete with other "just boys and their radios". There is a
real concern that technologies like Skimmer can "crowd out" the human factor of
contesting, leaving just a collection of robo-stations duking it out.

SO........

Here's the 4th selection I promised you (and I've asked the major contest
sponsors to consider).

4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW contest
include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her)self
locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like Skimmer,
packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked
stations.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"KC4UAI" wrote in message
.
...

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology
while keeping the playing field level?

To me, this is a classic example of "hand wringing" which I've seen
repeated over and over with ever new bit of technology to appear.

First it continuous wave, then AM, then SSB then RTTY, packet, PSK
etc. This is amateur radio, not "Freeze Frame" your favorite era.

4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW co
ntest
include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her
)self
locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like
Skimmer,
packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked

stations.

I'm with Hans on this 4th approach. It's really no different than
Field Day where they have single operator battery vs multi-operator
on generator categories.

As it is, nobody's complained, or effectively at least, about the
canned "CQ CONTEST" keyers or voice loops. Used to be, "the big
thing" was to have a panadaptor to see who might be around you.

Short answer, "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the
porch." But they should and do have special categories for the
little dogs too.

Jeff-1.0
wa6fwi

KØHB wrote:

4. Allow new technologies like Skimmer, but in the rules for each CW co
ntest
include a "Classic" single operator category where the operator him(her
)self
locates and works the target stations without any "automagic" aids like
Skimmer,
packet clusters, or other techniques which locate and identify unworked

stations.

I like this concept. I think that there is a place in contesting for
people who use no technology except what's between their ears (and radio
equipment, of course) and just as much a place for people who use every
bell and whistle available. Developing new technology and learning to
use it is a goal that contests should support.

I wonder if this could be implemented by adjusting the credit for QSOs
based on how they were made. This is similar to CW contacts counting
more than phone. It needs to be kept simple, but perhaps there's a way.

But the bottom line for me is that both groups should be encouraged --
the "classic" operator, and the technology-aided operator.

73, Steve KB9X