wrote in message
...

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

As long as we all have to follow the same rules, the playing
field *is* level. The players may not be equal, though, but
that's what competition is all about.

Competition is NOT about "level playing fields". True competition is about
working (within the rules) to tilt the playing field to your own advantage.
Things like honing your skills, improving your station, and seeking out new
(legal) tools that your competitors may not have gained access to.

1. Ignore the new technology and live with the fact that folks who
use it will likely increase their contest scores.

Like every other tool that has come along...

"Skimmer" isn't "like every other tool that has come along". It is an instant
game changer; in military tactical terms a "force multiplier".

But where does one draw the line? Should a panoramic
display/bandscope be allowed? Should logging computers
be banned?

In terms of the classic "boy and his radio" category of contest participant, I
believe the line must be drawn on the south side of Skimmer.

A panoramic display simply gives a general idea of conditions and activity
levels on a band. It's a handy tool but doesn't identify a single call sign, or
replace any CW copying skill.

A logging computer simply provides a more efficient means of "book-keeping".
It's a handy tool but doesn't identify a single call sign, or replace any CW
copying skill.

Skimmer, on the other hand, is like having dozens and dozens of assistant
operators scanning the bands from top to bottom and in real-time feeding you the
callsigns and the QRG's of EVERY STATION THAT IT HEARS ON EVERY BAND IT
MONITORS, and "nudging you in the ribs" when it identifies a needed multiplier.

For this reason, I believe that every major contest sponsor must maintain one
category "Skimmer free" where humans can compete with humans, finding,
identifying with their own ears, and working the stations that go into their
log.

Outside of that "classic" category, let Skimmer roam free.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Jul 11, 11:35�pm, "K�HB" wrote
:
wrote in message

...

How the CW contesters will deal with this new technology while
keeping the playing field level?
As long as we all have to follow the same rules, the playing
field *is* level. The players may not be equal, though, but
that's what competition is all about.

Competition is NOT about "level playing fields".

I disasgree, Hans.

�True competition is about
working (within the rules) to tilt the playing field to your own
advantage.
Things like honing your skills, improving your station, and seeking out
new
(legal) tools that your competitors may not have gained access to.

Perhaps we're using different definitions of "level playing field".

You mentioned the excellent KVG short story "Harrison Bergeron". IMHO,
that story isn't about leveling the playing field; it's about leveling
the *players*. The things you describe - honing your skills, improving
your station, and seeking out new (legal) tools - are about improving
the player, not changing the field.

"Skimmer" isn't "like every other tool that has come along".
�It is an instant
game changer; in military tactical terms a "force multiplier".

Perhaps.

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE MODE = ON

But isn't that true of many other tools?

Consider the rig that can transceive as opposed to separate
transmitters and receivers where the transmitter frequency must be
manually set to match the receiver. When working hunt-and-pounce in a
contest like the SS, the transceiver-equipped station is way ahead,
because a whole set of operator skills has been automated. Same for
the modern no-tuneup rig with ATU vs. one that has a series of manual
tuneup steps.

Or consider the integrated logging/sending computer system vs. paper
logs. A considerable amount of operator action is automated in such a
system. The op doesn't have to record band, time, date or mode, the
computer does all that unerringly. The op doesn't have to send the
exchange or keep track of serial number, the computer does that too.
Avoiding dupes is easy; the computer flags them and even gives you the
info on the previous QSO.

The past few years on FD we've used N3FJP software networked between
computers at each rig. If you enter the call of a station that has
been worked on another band/mode, it will tell you the exchange and
fill in the blanks for you!

But where does one draw the line? Should a panoramic
display/bandscope be allowed? Should logging computers
be banned?

In terms of the classic "boy and his radio" category of contest
participant, I
believe the line must be drawn on the south side of Skimmer.

A panoramic display simply gives a general idea of conditions
and activity
levels on a band. �It's a handy tool but doesn't identify a singl
e call sign, or replace any CW copying skill.

Agreed.

A logging computer simply provides a more efficient means
of "book-keeping".
It's a handy tool but doesn't identify a single call sign, or replace a
ny CW copying skill.

But it does replace a lot of operator skills, and reduces the workload
on the operator. It also replaces huge amounts of operator *sending*
skill if enough function keys are programmed.

I've worked contests where a human logger was used to improve the
performance and reduce the workload on the op running the rig. The
logger's main job was searching the paper dupe sheet for dupes. In
many contests, the use of a human logger put the station in the
multiop category.

I've also seen operations where the logger's job included spotting the
transmitter and keeping it tuned up properly. Band change goes a lot
faster when there are four hands to do it! And in many contests, the
use of a second op like that put the station in the multiop category.

What logging computers and no-tune-up rigs have done is to automate
those skills that were formerly done by human operators *without*
putting the station in the multiop category.

Skimmer, on the other hand, is like having dozens and dozens of assista
nt
operators scanning the bands from top to bottom and in real-time feedin
g you the
callsigns and the QRG's of EVERY STATION THAT IT HEARS ON EVERY BAND IT
MONITORS, and "nudging you in the ribs" when it identifies a
needed multiplier.

Just like your own personal packet cluster. Which puts a station into
a different category (assisted).

I can imagine that it could (in theory) be set up to determine which
of the stations it hears is the most desirable to attempt to work
next, based on a complex formula of rarity, propagation, one's own
DXCC totals, etc. (if it doesn't do this already...)

For this reason, I believe that every major contest sponsor must
maintain one
category "Skimmer free" where humans can compete with
humans, finding,
identifying with their own ears, and working the stations that go
into their log.

Outside of that "classic" category, let Skimmer roam free.

I agree 100% with the "classic" category. Or call it "Unassisted", or
even "Iron Op" or some such.

But while still in devil's advocate mode, consider this:

You use the phrase "finding, identifying with their own ears, and
working the stations that go into their log.", and I agree on the
reasonableness of that.

But when it comes to finding stations, isn't the use of a logging
computer a big help in finding new ones, because it will tell you
instantly and unerringly if a station is a dupe? Isn't it a big help
in getting them in the log because it automates some of the data entry
and makes the rest easier?

When it comes to working them, isn't an automated sending setup (Morse
Code or digital voice recorder, for example) a big help in working
them, because it eliminates most or all of the sending?

IOW, you'd keep a Skimmer-free category because Skimmer acts like a
group of robot second operators helping the human operator. But aren't
logging/sending computers, DVRs, and even no-tuneup rigs in a similar
situation, because they behave like robot operators helping the human
operator? Granted, Skimmer is different because it acts like a whole
group of robot operators, but isn't the concept the same?

I guess it all depends on what you define as operator skill. ISTM that
you (and many others) consider it OK to automate Morse Code sending,
but not receiving. It's OK to automate logging and duping, spotting
the transmitter frequency and keeping the rig tuned up, but not
finding new ones.

I'm not making a judgement, just an observation. I'm not sure where I
stand on those issues. But I do agree a line must be drawn; there's a
difference between developing a better bicycle for the Tour de France
and allowing the use of motorcycles in that race.

I really do support the idea of a "Classic" category in all contests.
Perhaps we should write up a proposal and send it to the various
contest sponsors?

Seems to me that if the use of Skimmer is classed the same as the use
of a packet cluster or spotting net, we're 99% of the way there.

73 de Jim, N2EY