[PVRCNC] Re: [PVRC] Petition Opposing Use of CW Skimmer by Contest
Competitors
Guy Olinger, K2AV
olinger at bellsouth.net
Sun May 4 00:48:43 EDT 2008
Frankly, I really don't see skimmer-aka-super-spot as much of a factor, except
for ops trying to maximize score with a three or four hour effort. Same deal
as packet spots now. How many years did we go in PVRC SS before someone
running assisted turned in the top single op score? And that effort was by
someone who had already turned in the top single op score running UNassisted
in other years beating all the assisted scores.... It takes the top
UNassisted ops to do the assisted route well, using spots AS LITTLE AS
POSSIBLE to minimize time lost in "packet pileups".
Spots have to some degree been "vetted" by a human being. Skimmer is still a
computer trying to copy code, something I have yet to see done WELL on
anything except stronger signals. But IF computers DO get to where they copy
code better than my ear, will we outlaw that as well? The CW copy spools
across the display on a K3. Will we put it in the rules that all K3 owners
have to turn off the CW spool?
EVERYBODY can work the decent signals that skimmer can post. A DX contest in
particular is made or lost by how many of the really trashy signals can be
worked.
Packet spots create "packet pileups". This has been used for quite a while by
top tier multi's: If you work a station that hasn't been spotted, listen to
see if anyone else works him. If not then don't spot him. But if anyone else
works him, or he's loud enough to be easily found, spot him right away. The
pile will make it harder and/or more time-consuming for the other multi's to
work him.
That's easy to do at a multi when there is a run op on a band, AND a spotting
op on that same band who has nothing to do except find the next new signal
that pops up.
A skimmer ban CAN'T be enforced, and those using packet spots will NOT see any
reason to avoid "skimming".
For a single op not using spotting networks, the best use of skimmer is to
fill up the bandmap with THE STATIONS ALREADY WORKED, so one can spend one's
precious time listening on UNSPOTTED frequencies for a new station with one's
own ears, USING THE RADIO KNOB, which will do a better job anyway. In the
end, that will probably be the ONLY really unique productive use of skimmer.
There is no way a log analysis program can detect such use of skimmer. It
can't analyze what was AVOIDED, only what was worked. What was worked will
show the familiar start at one end and find new stuff going low to high or
high to low.
The neat added function key will be to move the radio to the next higher
frequency (or lower) NOT within 250 Hz of a station already worked and spool
up to the next frequency with ANY signal in it, decipherable by the program or
not. That just saves mechanical motion. How's that any different than
sending my call from the computer instead of a paddle?
Once skimmer is out there, "packet spots" will get worse than they are now,
given that the message about how to use packet spots well in a competitive
effort continues to fall on deaf ears. At some point it will finally become
clear that the SKILL OF THE HUMAN is what makes top scores, just as it HAS
been and always will be.
73, Guy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Jordan, K4QPL" <k4qpl at nc.rr.com>
To: "Marty Young" <w4my at yahoo.com>; <pvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PVRC] Petition Opposing Use of CW Skimmer by Contest Competitors
Hi Marty,
I agree--things are easier than my first contests in the 60's with paper
dupe sheets and everything sent with a bug and I was listening to the
"narrow" bandwidth of only 3 khz for cw!
But there is a difference. You still need to copy the callsigns, one at a
time, even if you use the SCP to do some typing. If you don't confirm it
with your own brain, your LCR is going to look pretty awful. And you're
hearing each and every signal yourself. And most of the time, I send my
fills with a paddle. We joke about packet (which is a separate class) as
"shooting fish in a barrel." I think if one follows that analogy for
skimmer, it's like dropping a stick of dynamite in that barrel. You get them
all at once. I suppose that if computer games, instead of cw, is what the
contester is looking for, then I could probably live with it being a
separate class, but it's probably like saying you're in a sailing contest
but you're just using the motor instead of the sails. Why should anyone
complain about that?
73,
Jim, K4QPL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Young" <w4my at yahoo.com>
To: <pvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [PVRC] Petition Opposing Use of CW Skimmer by Contest
Competitors
>I find myself in philosophical agreement with Frank
> and Jim.
>
> In addition, however, the following thoughts have
> crossed my mind:
>
> Computer keying -- In a CW test I find myself pressing
> F1 for CQing, F2 for the report, F3 Thanks and good-by
> (even this can be streamlined with strategic setup and
> use of the ENTER key) Skill?
>
> Computer logging -- I enter the first three letters
> of a call and the field auto fills, the anticipated
> received exchange auto fills, and I'm left to copy
> along with what I see filled in to verify. Skill?
>
> Auto S&P -- Double click on the call on the
> band-spread map, callsign and anticipated received
> exchange fill in, radio changes freq/band, antenna
> turns automatically, press F4 to pounce, F2 for the
> exchange, press ENTER and its done. Skill?
>
> Would a circa 1960's contester consider those things
> above "disruptive technology" not in the true
> contesting spirit?
>
> How will CW Skimmer make it any more a "computer game"
> than it already is?
>
> Remember, in the early 1930's there was a move to ban
> AM phone from the ham bands as it was thought it
> didn't require any "skill" and thus was not thought to
> be in the true spirit of Ham Radio.
>
> Obviously, the paradigm has shifted numerous times.
> Is it time for another one?
>
> I don't mean to be contentious, just want to provoke
> some thought.
>
> 73 Marty / W4MY
> PVRCNC East
>
>
> --- "Jim Jordan, K4QPL" <k4qpl at nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Frank. I totally agree and am copying this to
>> the NC reflector. All
>> other sports have rules to maintain the necessity
>> for human skill--golf,
>> baseball, sailing, etc. Being a technology oriented
>> sport, I'm afraid there
>> is a philosophy that if it represents a technology
>> advance, it must be good
>> and the human element is diminished thereby.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>> Jim, K4QPL
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <donovanf at starpower.net>
>> To: <pvrc at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 10:53 AM
>> Subject: [PVRC] Petition Opposing Use of CW Skimmer
>> by Contest Competitors
>>
>>
>> > Today I signed an on-line petition opposing the
>> use of CW Skimmer by
>> > competitors in CW contests. Well over 100
>> contesters have signed to
>> > petition, including many callsigns you'll
>> recognize.
>> >
>> > I added the following comments to my signature:
>> >
>> > Computer automation is a growing part of our
>> contesting sport; however,
>> > operator skill and performance continue as
>> critical success factors in our
>> > sport. CW Skimmer is such disruptive technology
>> that it will shift the
>> > focus of CW contesting from human operating to an
>> on-the-air computer
>> > game. I strongly support the request that CW
>> Skimmer not be allowed for
>> > anyone submitting an entry in a CW contest.
>> >
>> > If you also have concerns about the use of CW
>> Skimmer by competitors in CW
>> > contests, please sign the petition at:
>> >
>> > http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/skimmer
>> >
>> > After you click the box adding your name and
>> callsign to the petition, you
>> > will be prompted to make a donation. A donation is
>> not required and you
>> > can simply close the window after you add your
>> name and callsign to the
>> > petition.
>> >
>> > 73
>> > Frank
>> > W3LPL
>> >
>> > ---- Original message ----
>> >>Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 09:00:43 -0500
>> >>From: "Stan Stockton" <k5go at cox.net>
>> >>Subject: Skimmer Petition
>> >>To: <donovanf at erols.com>
>> >>
>> >> Frank,
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what your thoughts are regarding
>> Skimmer and
>> >> the full station automation that will follow in
>> the next few
>> >> years.
>> >>
>> >> Following is a link to an on line petition that
>> I wrote a few
>> >> nights ago. I sent a link to N6TJ and went to
>> bed at midnight
>> >> and signed off asking him to read it and get
>> the ball rolling
>> >> if he liked what he saw.
>> >>
>> >> I asked K1ZZ, knowing that he could not take a
>> position on the
>> >> subject, what he thought. He said it reminded
>> him of a
>> >> story Mario, S56A likes 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.
>> >>
>> >> Please read what the petition says.
>> >>
>> >> SOME of this is stock stuff that I have sent to
>> a few people:
>> >>
>> >> I am not against technology but think that RTTY
>> would be a
>> >> better place to create automated QSO machines,
>> etc.
>> >>
>> >> I understand and respect that some want Skimmer
>> to be included
>> >> in CW Contesting. My opinion is that it will
>> soon turn the
>> >> "sport" into nothing more than a computer game
>> with the future
>> >> being computers working computers at 100 WPM or
>> so.
>> >>
>> >> If you also believe this is true and is
>> detrimental to the CW
>> >> Contesting Sport, pass this along to as many
>> others who might
>> >> also believe the same way. If you belong to a
>> club of
>> >> contesters, that is a good way to reach the
>> masses and if each
>> >> person sends it to several others that have not
>> received it,
>> >> it will go worldwide quickly.
>> >>
>> >> If you sign it, please use your name followed
>> by your
>> >> callsign. When you sign it, you do not need to
>> go to the next
>> >> step where they try to get you to make a
>> donation.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/skimmer
>> >>
>> >> You can click on Signatures at the top of the
>> page and see who
>> >> has signed it in the last few days.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Frank & 73...Stan, K5GO
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PVRC mailing list
>> > PVRC at mailman.qth.net
>> > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrc
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PVRCNC mailing list
>> PVRCNC at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrcnc
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> _______________________________________________
> PVRC mailing list
> PVRC at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrc
_______________________________________________
PVRC mailing list
PVRC at mailman.qth.net
http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/pvrc
More information about the PVRCNC
mailing list