All Activity

Why should we have a code of ethics and a concise, delineated framework of how judging results are internally appealed and revised by check/head/chief judges? Seems rather self-evident to me. Also, this would have prevented the “social media uproar” that appears to have bothered you. At worst, it’s a waste of a few hours. At best, it makes the national contest appear more rigorous and eliminates any hint of impropriety. I can’t speak to the fact that all contests have been perfect prior to the past couple years when I attended them; I also don’t know anything about the various revised charters you mention. I would add that.. we are speaking on social media currently, and it’s really the only way for IPMS members to discuss the Nats 360 days out of the year! It’s not like we have monthly national meetings we can all phone into and discuss things. We have elected representatives, and we have various forums to discuss amongst ourselves. I do agree that the tyranny of the crowds must be resisted, but we need to balance that with the thoughts/opinions of dozens if not hundreds of members.

I bet you numbers are the same if not better. That’s exactly why things are happening now after 50 years. More people are joining, more people are attending, more people are competing. And now that they’re members all the same as us, they want to make things better. If a change such as “head judges can’t arbitrarily override the volunteer judges’ decision with 0 oversight” makes you want to leave… maybe it’s for the best, as that seems awkward for a head judge to be upset about.

Scalemodeldoc And why should their be a need for any of this. We haven't had a need for over 50 years. But now one person make the suggestion something wrong has happened , without proof only accusation and all hell breaks loose AFTER the Eboard and NCC have completed their investigation and found no wrong doing. The only reason this is still being talked about is the social media uproar. So again the E-board found nothing wrong, had been done with it, only to reopen it after more backlash. Can you say pandering to a vocal minority? Do you really think this organization can come up with rules and regulations for every possible senerio that "may" play out ? no. But hey they are going to do it anyways with more committees doing the NCC's job, more charters writen and while were on the subject of charters what happened to the one that the head judge wrote over a year ago and submitted to the Eboard? Funny how that got swept under the rug when it didnt say what the E-board wanyed it to say and all the NCC heard was we'll get to it. All I can say is good luck. I'll be saving 30 bucks a year. And telling everyone I know not to join or reup. I personally know of two vendors who have told me they are having 2nd thoughts. So while one vendor threatened to pull out if judges were allowed to continue handeling models like they have been the past 30 plus years I now know of two not coming due to perceived lower attendance due to all this . I feel for the Madison guys because non of this was of their doing. Jim

Ed Thank you for your guidance and assistance for the few years I was part of it. This organization is loosing some truly great people all in the name of "progress" Jim

Stepping away from the decision to suspend judges around the specific incident described, I’m not sure how setting up a committee to delineate a code of ethics is a bad thing? As well they identified significant ambiguity in the proper process when a check judge overrules an already signed judging sheet— to what degree should the class head judge and/or the chief judge be involved? Should the entire category be judged anew? Apparently the rules as written don’t have a clean process for this. I think we can ALL agree overturning ANY judging decision is a powder keg, even if everything is above board— why not have a detailed process to ensure the sanctity of results is maintained? To a relative outsider these look like reasonable and balanced responses to situations that, at the least, looked bad and gave the organization a bit of a PR black eye. I’m not sure why experienced judges would want to resign because of these recommendations? (I refer to the following sections from the EBoard letter, copied above)— “Absent any specific vehicle or language for guidance in the matter in the IPMS/USA Constitution and By-Laws, the Executive Board, and others in leadership positions acted to resolve this matter in a fair, appropriate, and just manner. That absence of language and guidance is the first problem identified here that needs to be addressed, and with your help, we will.” “The Executive Board is drafting a charter for the Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. This committee will be charged with updating the current judging rules to prevent future incidents such as this and any conflict of interest without obvious malicious intent. A viable contest will be held within the existing format and structure, albeit with appropriate rules and procedural revisions noted above. Those of you who have submitted other judging concerns to the Executive Board and the NCC, please know that they will be presented to this committee for action and follow-up” ”Additionally, the judging rules, procedures, and protocols for administration of the National Contest will be reviewed by a newly formed Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. The goal of this temporary committee is to identify and recommend rule updates to prevent this issue from happening again. We are currently identifying committee members. The committee will be established on November 1, and will serve for as long as necessary for the updated rules to be issued to the membership by January 15. We will also consider drafting a charter for an Ethics and Standards Committee to recommend language and procedures to guide an inquiry into incidents such as this in the future.”

What a cluster. Madison will be interesting. If I go I planned on opting for a display table myself.

Hey! Please volunteer! So we can screw you when weasels scream about something on social media! This is no way to run a railroad. Absolutely pathetic.

Thank you for following the 'WIP' on this project ,it's quite appreciated ! (OCT 02nd)...Today ,I painted and glued into place the pipe done last week ! If you like to see the complete WIP on this project , just follow this Google link : https://photos.app.goo.gl/Yor8v3Q9pGkybXLh6 If you are curious and like to view the other WWII GERMAN sub I have done in 1/48 , just follow this link : https://goo.gl/photos/PM4EWugGVMb8Fzgm9 Enjoy ! jmarc

I have today also submitted my resignation effective immediately. I can no longer effectively serve the current organization. Ed Grune (former) Head Ship Judge

So no real new evidence. Just more investigating after the social media flare up. They investigated, with the NCC and all was found to be in order until it wasn't after the published "Signed" letter. So they were not very through in their investigation or they are pandering. My bet is on the latter. I haven't seen one bit of evidence, just accusations. The board can't have it both ways. First all is well, then 2 weeks later after the voices on social media are riled up they have to do something?. So to put out the fires they do "more" investigating saying new evidence has turned up, well lets see it, Going back and using items from meetings and twisting the judges handbook is not evidence, just a way to look good and pander to the vocal minority on social media. Which all plays into their agenda. So glad I'm done with all this nonsense. This was the goal all along, dismantle the NCC and they accomplished that with a photo posted by a judge during judging, humm funny nothing was done about that but only the fact that a judge held a model that they were allowed to do by rule. Now this accusation with no evidence of malicious intent. So ban three judges with no evidence, just bad looks. Humm I wonder what will be deemed "bad looks" going forward from this e-board since that's all they operate on, looks and likes on Facebook. Sure smacks of what the first constitutional rewrite that got canned was all about so they are doing as they please and what was written the first time around with all the shall nots... As for class heads signing the sheets, that has never been done. If there was a requirement by the Head judge to do so then there would have been a spot provided to do that. None of what they are pointing to has ever been required. So lets make things up to make themselves look good is as always par for the course with this bunch. Everything has been fine until recently, wonder why that is. Again, hummmm very interesting... Jim

Just didn't know when the change actually took effect as the letter was written after the convention. Like I said, I wanted to be clear on who was speaking.

October 1, 2023 To the Membership of IPMS/USA and the hobby community, The appearance of impropriety or questionable integrity is unacceptable in any sector of this organization. The IPMS Executive Board will work diligently to fix those issues when they arise. View the full article

And for the sake of completeness, here is the referenced letter "See (way down below) the message I got from Dave Lockhart". Read it all before replying, please. I post it here as it has not been posted on the website as yet.... trying to maintain neutrality for now. October 1, 2023 To the Membership of IPMS/USA and the hobby community, The appearance of impropriety or questionable integrity is unacceptable in any sector of this organization. The IPMS Executive Board will work diligently to fix those issues when they arise. We owe the membership more details on the matter than were included in our September 19 statement. More information has come to light in the interim, prompting us to revisit the Category 608 judging incident reported at the 2023 IPMS National Contest. As a result, three senior judges involved in this matter will be suspended from participation in the IPMS/USA National Contest judging corps. They may choose on their own to present themselves for consideration as supervised OJT judges for retraining in the application of the rules in place at the 2025 National Contest. Additionally, the judging rules, procedures, and protocols for administration of the National Contest will be reviewed by a newly formed Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. The goal of this temporary committee is to identify and recommend rule updates to prevent this issue from happening again. We are currently identifying committee members. The committee will be established on November 1, and will serve for as long as necessary for the updated rules to be issued to the membership by January 15. We will also consider drafting a charter for an Ethics and Standards Committee to recommend language and procedures to guide an inquiry into incidents such as this in the future. For any interested in why, the following is our reasoning and actions in coming to these decisions: Actions and Conclusions Prior to the First Statement Absent any specific vehicle or language for guidance in the matter in the IPMS/USA Constitution and By-Laws, the Executive Board, and others in leadership positions acted to resolve this matter in a fair, appropriate, and just manner. That absence of language and guidance is the first problem identified here that needs to be addressed, and with your help, we will. After reviewing the letter submitted by a member of the original judging team to the Executive Board and the NCC, a board member was directed to investigate the judging of Category 608 – Mecha at the contest in August. Members of the original judging team were interviewed by the representative from the E-Board. The letter was also submitted to the NCC for their response to the allegations cited. Three senior judges were directed to provide their statements in response, which were then forwarded by the Chief Judge to the President for our review. In hindsight, we would do this differently. After review by the Executive Board, the findings of that investigation and statements from the senior judges were inconclusive as to any clear violation of the published rules for the 2023 National Contest. The findings of the matter from those interviews and statements concluded the results of the initial judging team were overturned by senior judges under the premise that the original team had incorrectly applied the weight of the scope of work/effort of the judging evaluation of the eventual winner. The published rules are not clear on this action. Two additional factors complicate the matter. First, there was an appearance of impropriety by the check judge, considering his close association with the entrant of the eventual 1st place winning model. Second, the entrant has been nominated by the NCC as the incoming Head Space/Sci-Fi Class Judge for Category 608. The entrant was observed hovering near the area during the judging process. The proof of intent is exceedingly difficult in a court of law, let alone an organization of hobbyist volunteers. The check judge claimed there was no bias on his part in his reasoning for changing the results of the category and did so only on his interpretation of the rules regarding the weight of the scope and effort of the work vs the other criteria involved. The overturn of the original team’s results was not communicated nor explained to them until after the revisions were recorded into the permanent judging records. The Head Class Judge agreed to the change, altered the judging form, but did not initial or sign the document in the box provided to indicate his concurrence. In the view of the President and the Chief Judge, they felt no specific published rules had been violated during this incident. The appearance of impropriety was strong, but we choose to err to a benefit of doubt to those involved, because the rules as they exist allowed them to be placed in their tenuous positions. Official actions in response to matters of integrity have consequences for individuals, and as such should not be rendered in haste, or without clear proof of wrongdoing. The Board felt that we lacked “sufficient proof” for any actionable sanctions to the individuals involved. However, a review and update of the Contest Rules and Procedures is clearly due. In a follow-up executive session on the evening of September 24, the Executive Board revisited this issue in light of new information. Results from our 9/24 Executive Session Our discussions prior to this meeting were focused on clear violations of the published 2023 Contest Rules. Many have suggested that other documentation could be relevant. Upon review of the generally accepted judging protocols presented in the pre-contest judges’ meeting, the actions of the check judge in independently making his decision to change the judging results are unacceptable. The documented rules are unclear on this; we will address that with the temporary committee. We investigated language in the Modeler’s Guide and Competition Handbook published on our website and slides presented by the Chief Judge during the pre-contest judges’ meetings at our 9/24 executive session, the following statements are emphasized: • We apply impartial consideration and integrity in our decision-making. • Go to your Class Head Judge to resolve a stalled/undecided team. • Please don’t: o Hover around a team that is judging your entry! o Advocate a friend’s work! None of the log sheets for Class 600 were signed by the Head Class Judge to indicate his concurrence with the results. In fact, very few log sheets in the results book were signed by the Head Class Judges for other Classes. This indicates a lapse in due oversight by the Head Class Judge in this case, and a clear need for documented oversight procedures. What is now evident from the investigations and reports presented and our review of the accepted judging guidelines, is that all the above apply to what happened in this case. Because of their actions, lack of attention to verifiable accountability, and a clear violation of some rules and certain accepted judging protocols, the three senior judges associated with this matter are suspended. We will codify a version of the above statements into effect as documented rules, rather than an annual reminder, quickly referenced in the pre-contest judges' meeting. Moving Forward The Executive Board is drafting a charter for the Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. This committee will be charged with updating the current judging rules to prevent future incidents such as this and any conflict of interest without obvious malicious intent. A viable contest will be held within the existing format and structure, albeit with appropriate rules and procedural revisions noted above. Those of you who have submitted other judging concerns to the Executive Board and the NCC, please know that they will be presented to this committee for action and follow-up. We sincerely appreciate your patience in our handling of this matter. We hope we have reached an outcome that is fair to our members. Thank you for your interest and membership in IPMS/USA. The Executive Board of IPMS/USA

" Below is a letter I and others received from the current national head judge." - So, Yes, Mark P.

Just to be clear, was that letter from Mark Persichetti? You don't mention his name and the last name was not given in the 'signature'. Wasn't he stepping down as Head Judge anyway to be replaced by Phil Perry? I just want to ascribe things to the correct people as we wade through this drek.

All This E-Board (Who runs un-apposed) is running rough shot over all things in their quest to (change for the better) the National contest. The current constitutional re-write was the last point. They only listen to who they want, most of whom on social media are not even members. All in the name of "Making it better". Never mind that we had near record turnout of models and that the survey after the 2022 show stated the biggest problem was the awards banquette. This year may have been different with a ton of new members that HAVE to be catered to. Most of these new members only complain as they do not read the rules, or just disagree so they go all social media and not understanding the history behind the rules as written. No, they just want it their way acting like spoiled children. But then again its just a direct reflection of society in general, isn't it? Below is a letter I and others received from the current national head judge. He spells out perfectly what is going on. This is a takeover by the E-Board. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Now you see why they wrote the first constitutional re-write the way they did, and why they dis-regarded the constitution in the voting. ONLY after being held accountable by the members did they re-submit another watered down version but were also held accountable for the timeline of presenting this to ALL members via the journal and presented to all at the National convention (Where I still didn't see it presented but may have missed it) . Their original plan was to ram it through at the beginning of this year, so even they don't read the rules but do what they want since they feel they have some sort of mandate. Well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but running unopposed isn't a mandate. So read the letter below, it's what I have been saying all along... So much for transparency. I Quit the NCC, Effective Immediately! Why? See (way down below) the message I got from Dave Lockhart earlier this Sunday evening, and the Attached "E-Board 608 Judging Statement" that came with it. Just two weeks ago (Sept-17th), I had a Zoom meeting with President Dave Lockhart and Director of Local Chapters John Figueroa, in which they presented their proposed "joint" statement about the Chris McLain bull!. There were just a few points in their "joint" statement that I asked them to change, to reflect what the NCC has done to-date to address the McLain bull!. They did so, and then posted their statement on IPMS website's page-1. Part of what they had said during that Zoom call, was that in the future, a member of the NCC would be part of all E-Board meetings; yet to be determined was whether the NCC member would have voting privileges or just be an "advisory" role. Then a day later, the "outrage" started anew on IPMS' Facebook pages. When I last corresponded with Lockhart a few days ago, he said there was going to be another E-Board meeting, where they would redo their earlier "unanimous" E-Board public pronouncement. No mention was made by him, about having either me or Phil Perry included in that E-Board meeting. So now, with this brand-new "unanimous" E-Board decision issued today, you can see that ALL contest-decision-making authority that the NCC has had for almost a half-century, has been claimed by the E-Board. So, if they want to directly take-on the task of writing/re-writing rules, guidelines, etc, well then, they're welcome to have it all. And so much for anyone from the NCC being at all involved in this most-recent series of broad decisions! I'm done! I will not be sending along any draft documents for contest Rules or Categories for the 2024 Madison contest. I will not be sending along any draft text for any revisions to our online Competition Handbook or Modelers Guide to IPMS Contests. I do not intend to send along any pdf or power-point copies of our What Judges Look For slide show -- it was particularly criticized by Rob Booth's cohort Dana Mathes right after the San Marcos show, for failing to adequately cover in all aspects the ratios of different model subjects - after all, he counted the number of aircraft photos versus other model-subject photos, as if a failed seam or alignment error wouldn't apply in other types of craft, figures, or objects. So now, Mathes can show all of us his "much better" version of what the judges should look for. The E-Board's action to disqualify our long-time NCC members and check judges is unprecedented, ill-advised, and wrong! Not that it needs to be said to any of you, but to be very, very clear, Manny Gutsche and his check judges have done nothing wrong and are undeserving of this punitive action by the current E-Board. The NCC's investigation - my inquiries and discussions with ALL the relevant parties - are being completely ignored / dismissed / overturned by the E-Board. Since the E-Board is refusing to hear from the NCC, then I see no need to be a puppet in this losing battle. All of the Facebook ranters are demanding "transparency" at the same time they completely annihilate everyone who attempts to support our judges and judging processes. So there's simply no need to jump into the rancid social -media pool. Let the E-Board attempt to satisfy the FB ranters, since they now accept this input over and above their own NCC. The precedent has been set now -- no matter what irritates you, the effective action to take is to go onto IPMS' Facebook pages, and just keep hammering away there, until you get what you want. I think the strong drivers on the E-Board for taking away all decision-making authority from the NCC are Recruitment & Retention Secretary David Knights and Secretary Rob Booth; Booth's writing style is obvious in all the recent press releases. I believe that Prez Dave Lockhart, 1st-VP Phil Peterson, DLC John Figueroa, and Treasurer Mike Oberholtzer are generally supportive of the NCC and how it's been managing the annual contests. But their stated support hasn't translated into their being able to resist those E-Board members who want to completely redo the NCC. But seeing today's E-Board decision reported as "unanimous", seems to show that we really don't have their support. (I have no idea of what the opinions of the new 2nd-VP Len Pilhofer or Historian-Publications Director Ro Annis may be.) The first "secret-emergency" E-Board meeting right after the San Marcos convention, that resulted in the so-called "unanimous" "no-more-touching-the-models-during judging" decree (as stated in Secretary Booth's reporting of the E-Board's decision) was not a unanimous decision. Neither 1st-VP Phil Peterson nor Treasurer Mike Oberholtzer were present for that meeting. So much for accurate reporting of E-Board sessions by Secretary Booth! I recommend that all of you getting this message from me, should specifically resign or withdraw your recent selection to be a new Class head judge. To do that, just send a resignation statement to all the E-Board members; I won't presume to speak for any of you, about what you may decide to do. From this current E-Board, you will not be directly informed by them that your services are no longer required or desired -- you'll read about your "de-selection" in the next press release posted online by Secretary Booth -- or the next Facebook rant by McLain! For those of you who were told by me in the past few months, that your names would be forwarded to the E-Board for their confirmation of our NCC selection of you as new Class head judges -- well, that ship has been sunk by the E-Board's take-over of the NCC's functions, and I'm very sorry it has turned out this way for you. And for those of you who have worked with me on the NCC for the past several years, I want to thank you very much for all your work over the years! I'll look forward to seeing you again at future national conventions, when we can reminisce about the 'good old days'! And for any of you who are still interested in working with the E-Board, to implement whatever they may decide for future judging standards and procedures -- well, just keep an eye out for future super-happy-talk press releases from Secretary Booth, and follow his guidelines for new Class head-judge applicants. All of you getting this message from me are welcome to distribute it to whomever you wish, on any forum of your choosing. After I've sent this message along to all of you, tomorrow (Monday) morning, I'll be sending my immediate resignation notice to all the E-Board members. And after that, I'll be sending this same message to my other IPMS friends and associates. My best wishes to all of you for better experiences than what we've had since the end of the San Marcos convention, Mark So there you have it. The e-board wants nothing but yes men and puppets working (For) them. Absolutely no division of powers. I have to laugh at some who called the NCC the politburo, seems the E-board are doing just that, being the Politburo. This is all the result of Social media and podcasts where two members of the board can pontificate all they want without any counter point being given. Jim

I just started using AK Real Colors. I thin them with either Tamiya Lacquer Thinner or Mr. Leveling Thinner, and they lay down quite nicely. AK also markets their own "High Compatibility Thinner" for these colors. Ralph

I grew up in South Florida. You could get models and supplies in hobby shops (our main locals were Universal Hobbies, Warrick Custom Hobbies--my home away from home--and Orange Blossom Hobbies, along with about a dozen and a half smaller shops), toy stores (Lionel Playworld had a huge model kit section), discount stores (K-Mart and The Treasury--other than the hobby shops, The Treasury was the only place that had the individual Testors square-bottle flat enamels), department stores (Woolco, Zayre), convenience stores (7-11, Mr. Grocer, and U-Tot-Em--saw my first Monogram Do-335 at the local Mr. Grocer), drug stores (SuperX, Eckerd Drugs), five-and-dime stores (Walgreens, Ben Franklin, and McCrory), hardware stores--they were everywhere. When Skaggs-Albertson's came to the area, it added another outlet for the hobby. For those not in the know, the typical Albertson's of the day would remind you of a Walmart today--half the store was a grocery store/pharmacy, the other half was a discount/department store. My first kits came from Playworld (Revell 1/32nd scale Wildcat, dad and I put it together) and K-Mart (Monogram Snap-Tite "L'il Red Baron"--my first "I built it myself" model). I discovered Scale Modeler magazine at Albertson's, and later, FineScale Modeler at Warrick Custom Hobbies. At the same time I found FSM, I discovered the Pactra Authentic International Colors, Otaki kits, Solvaset, Squadron Green Putty (the original), Plastruct Plastic Weld liquid cement, and Microscale Decals...those were the days when I made the step from just knocking kits together in a few hours to becoming a "serious modeler" (whatever that means)... 🙂

Wow, I don't remember 7-11 around here ever having models. I got most of mine at Woolworths as a kid and they used to have a model contest there. Steven

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNice !

Nice work on the classic kit! She cleaned up nicely!

The original Renwal kit had a mechanism where the range finders/radars turned in synch with the main gun and terrier launcher, but it was deleted from this re-release. The ship is depicted in one of its early refits with the terrier launcher but retained the twin 40mm forward. The kit had planking ribbing on the main and second deck, but these ships did not have wooden decks, so I had to remove all that, which was a messy pain. It also had molded in railings on the main deck and in some places on the second deck. I removed all these. I substituted generic railings on the main deck and in places on the second one but did not do it all as I just didn't want to put in the effort at this point. And after seeing the photos, I realize I didn't replace the molded in anchor chain on the bow, so I'll take care of that now. However, despite her age, she turned out surprising well and makes a nice display model.

29 of 30, also remember when you could buy models, glue and paint at 7/11, at least in my town. If the last one is talking about balsa models then I remember that too.

26 for 30 on those questions... LOL! Archer Hobbies... now thats a place I hadn't thought of in ages.

Cross & Cockade International is a non-profit UK based group known as the First World War Aviation Historical Society that publishes their journal four times a year. Issues are available as printed as well as digital copies (or both). They also provide a free newsletter (sign up on their website) and occasionally publish WWI themed books like the Sopwith Dolphin monograph I reviewed earlier for IPMS USA. This Journal is the sister of the US Journal, Over The Front. View the full article