Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/28/2023 in all areas

  1. I think it matters if the complaints came from IPMS Members or not, 13,000 people belong to the IPMS/USA Facebook page, yet we have less then 5000 members, so 7000+ non-members are complaining? And IPMS should change the society for them? With no indication they will join and help with the changes? If there were plenty of emails and phone calls from members maybe the e-board could practice some of the transparency the NCC was accused of not having and prove how many, is it hundreds? Thousands? Less then a hundred? I doubt it was that many, compared to the membership, if it was then prove it.
    8 points
  2. The IPMS social media pages need to be run like any organization's pages. Coke doesn't allow some jag-off from Pepsi to come on their page and talk smack about them or their customers. GM has no compunction about deleting posts from the guy who insists his 1968 Camaro is haunted and it's GM's fault. Stauffers immediately deletes posts from that one person who posts about his exceptionally intimate relationship with stuffing. We are under no obligation to accommodate everyone on our own social media page, especially when the sole intent is to cause controversy and make the organization look bad.
    7 points
  3. Years ago, at a show in the Northeast which shall remain nameless, someone entered an M-113 APC. The rear troop ramp was down, and when you looked inside, there was a soldier figure flipping the bird, holding a sign saying, 'And your little flashlight too!'
    7 points
  4. As one of the much maligned IPMS/USA FB moderators I want to bring a little reality to this conversation. The IPMS FB group is a very small piece of modeling on Facebook. As mentioned above, the group has about 14,000 members. For comparison "Doogs Models", a popular group run by a single individual has 19,000, "Starship Modeler" is run by a mail-order company and has 95,000, and "I Love Scale Models" has 186,000 members. There are easily 100s more groups all related to various aspects of the hobby. Modelers are not breaking down the door to join our group - they have lots of alternatives. The IPMS group is - by Facebook standards - heavily moderated. A moderator must explicitly approve every member the first time they try to post or comment, and we review their profile and their answers to our "security" questions to try to weed out scammers and trouble makers. We also approve (but not always read) every post before it appears. When the rare T-shirt seller or "middle aged woman looking for love" manages to post, that post is deleted, the person who sent it is blocked, and it is never seen. Facebook does not let us see comments before they appear, and if they did we don't have the manpower to look at them all, but when scammy stuff slips through it will be reported and the person who made the comment blocked. When I say "we", I mostly mean me; a few other folks have become moderators but mostly lose interest. Most of the posts are modeling related: photos of completed models, research photos of interesting subjects, how to questions. Commercial posts - mostly from small aftermarket/speciality companies - are allowed at a rate of 1/week. Local and regional club shows can advertise as much as they want, and some do. A large fraction of the most active members do not seem to be IPMS members, although we have no way of knowing. Personal names are not unique, and FB makes has no requirement that you use your real name (and many people now use "handles" - like "Iron Wulf" or "Tex Modeler"). There are a fair number of members from foreign countries (there are IPMS societies around the world, and they are all welcome and often come to the US Nats). Posts and discussions that are critical of IPMS but civil are allowed. This is a very small fraction of the posts made, and is little different from the same discussions about IPMS that are held here on the IPMS forum. Because of this there seems to be an assumption that the IPMS FB group is a hotbed of anti-IPMS conspirators; I get the impression some think the whole "flying tank" and "sharpie judging sheet" controversies were launched on the IPMS FB group. The truth is that both of those posts appeared first on other groups and social media, and I did my best to verify that they weren't hoaxes before approving those posts. I paid close attention to keep the discussion on those posts from raging out of control - deleting comments and suspending individuals. I know this policy is not popular with some in IPMS. As a moderator, I refuse to outright censor posts and comments only because they point out problems in the Society, mostly of our own doing. If the group is limited to putting a "happy face" on IPMS, FB members will recognize that the group is propaganda and ignore or discount it. If the EBoard decides that's what they want, they will have to replace me. What does IPMS gain from having the group? We get the IPMS name in front of modelers who may not even know it exists. They see contest announcements, can ask questions about modeling and IPMS, and can be encouraged to join a chapter, join the National organization, or come to a National Convention. Post pandemic there was a lot of buzz around the Las Vegas and Omaha Nats on the FB group, and I have to think that contributed to the turnout at those events. When controversial issues do pop up, we (mostly me) can respond as the voice of reason, correcting misinformation and explaining why things work the way they do. There is also an opportunity for IPMS to "take the pulse" of the hobby by following and participating in the discussions on the group, although there doesn't seem to be much interest in that. I have seen suggestions that this group is a thing of value that should be for "IPMS Members Only". Aside from the technical aspects of enforcing members only (remember, we have no way of knowing who member "Iron Wulf" is, or if they are an IPMS member, or if they let their membership lapse), the IPMS group is little different from the many other groups available to everyone on FB. There is nothing special in the way of how-to information, and EBoard members rarely (ok, never) come to discuss issues. It doesn't cost anything but the moderators' time. I've also seen suggestions that discussions of IPMS business should be done in a "Members Only" group to hide our "dirty laundry". Consider that with 5000 members anything discussed in such a "Members Only" group will immediately leak to social media, and nothing will stop the greater modeling community from trash-talking IPMS in all of the other FB groups and social media forums.
    6 points
  5. Volunteering to do anything you are probably not going to get a lot of thanks from the masses, more then likely you will hear nothing from the people who are thankful and a lot from the complainers of everything, volunteering for a leadership position can be, speaking from experience, the toughest of all. Len P has stated his reasons and I will take him at his word, same with Dave L., now Rob B has stated his reasons, I’m glad they stepped up for the society, and glad they were able to realize when it was effecting them negatively. One thing I will say is I don’t think it’s possible if you are in a leadership position, volunteer or paid, to publicly share an opinion without it being taken as an official stance of the group (e-board) your part of, even if you state it is a personal opinion. Like it or not, when you become part of a group that is seen as the leader’s of an organization or club or whatever, no matter the size, your public face has changed, and everything you do or say will be scrutinized to the highest degree, I’ve learned that from experience. Despite all the sky is falling, IPMS is dying crying on Facebook I don’t see our current situation as the worst IPMS has faced, or had to rectify, I’ve been hearing that IPMS is dying, no one builds models anymore, blah, blah, blah, for 35 years, since the day I joined, and here we still are. I believe we have members that WILL step up and meet these challenges. I don’t believe there is a large percentage of IPMS members who want big changes to the society, 80+% of IPMS members never voice an opinion, or vote on officer and/or constitutional changes, saying nothing and/or not voting is also a choice, and a statement, if there is a mandate to do anything, it’s to change nothing, if the vast majority of the membership is really taken into account. That said I do think IPMS needs to look at updating and modernizing were possible and realistic, and altering practices as needed. But we are NOT for everyone and never will be, we are a club of like minded hobbyists, growing larger for the sake of it, or being everything for everyone should not be our focus, getting like minded non-members to be members is an achievable and realistic goal in my opinion. And for the record, I have volunteered for a position, just waiting to hear it’s accepted…
    6 points
  6. This is the ID/Combat vacuform kit of the EC-121 Constellation built instead as the Connie used by the Blue Angels in the late 1960s. Everything except the basic airframe had to be scratchbuilt or grabbed from spare parts or repurposed aftermarket. There's a complete "in progress" post on building it and its components in the "build" topic area for anyone interested in the gory details. All of the small round windows were made by using UV cured clear resin that was then sanded and polished with a final coat of Future to brighten them. The model was (in the end) painted in Testors Gloss Dark Blue for the BA Blue (I was out of MM BA blue!) and the BA yellow was done using Tamyia rattle can Camel Yellow applied over flat white primer. The bare metal areas on the cowl sides are Alclad Airframe Aluminum while the prop spinners and cowl leading edges were sprayed Alclad Chrome. The Blue Angels markings came from 2 different sheets, BOTH of them 1/32 scale (to allow for the larger 1/48 aircraft lettering); a CAM A-4 BA Skyhawk sheet and a Draw Decals F7U-1 Cutlass Blue Angels sheet. I did, however, make stencils and mask and paint the yellow "8"s on the tail fins. The American flag decals on the center fin are actually ship decals from the spares box! And now on to the rest of the pics! And... just to answer the question "where would you put it'? I have a display case purposely built big enough for such models. The others currently in the case are a 1/48 B-29 and B-50, as well as a 1/32 B-24D, F-86H, and F-84G. Questions, critiques, and comments welcome, as always. Gil
    6 points
  7. From my perspective, this is unwise for a number of reasons. 1 - The conversation is going to happen regardless. Talking about IPMS on the IPMS group makes sense. Where else should it happen? Dictating that people have to go somewhere other than where they already (and become paying members if they aren't) just means they won't engage, or they'll engage in other groups, or hear about it via other pages and podcasts and youtube channels and blogs. This is the internet. You can't have smoke-filled backroom conversations. 2 - There seems to be an operating assumption that everything would just go away if it wasn't for non-members on Facebook. This is straight up untrue. Most of the people I see involved in conversations are members. A great many of them I've met at Nats. 13K members doesn't mean squat. Again...it's the internet. 90% of those never engage, comment, or even like a post. 9% comment, and along that same distribution curve. And then you have 1% driving almost all of the activity. And I'll guarantee that the most active are also mostly members. 3 - For all the talk of growing the hobby and making IPMS more inclusive and welcoming, this is slamming the door on that intention. You don't win hearts and minds with members only signs and locked doors. 4 - Respectfully, the problem is not the where. A controversy arises that people are understandably upset about. And instead of any official voice saying "eesh, yeah, that looks bad, and I understand why you'd be upset, but that picture isn't telling the whole story" it's instant defensiveness and dismissal. It's ad hominem attacks. It puts a sour taste in people's mouths. So does attacking whistleblowers. Pitchforks are raised because people are pissed, and at every turn they've been given reason to be. And when you have the (now former) head of the NCC calling what from the outside reads like an extremely thorough, level-headed report "that McLain bull!", well...yeah that's just another thing that's going to keep the era of bad feelings rolling.
    6 points
  8. Ian (and all): As a well known and bonified enemy of the NCC for the last decade (despite my position as a senior Nats judge), I can unequivocally state that your view of the NCC is dead wrong. As someone who has publicly railed against their past lack of transparency and resistance to change (here, on this forum) I can state that they STILL put IPMSUSA and the Nats Contest first, above their own personal interests. Their decades of contest experience, even if it does lead to their complacency, should NOT be discounted and ignored; which is exactly what this Eboard has decided to do. And it was a CHOICE to do so by the Eboard. They could have tried to change the "touching" rules, or taken further action against the Sci-fi judges THROUGH the NCC, instead of handing down edicts. They have purposely decided to bypass the NCC making them impotent, at first unconstitutionally, and now with the voting in; constitutionally from here on. Most all of the criticism of them has come from people who have little to no experience or knowledge of how judging is done or even how to organize a show and contest. It's easy to say and support a "changing of the guard" and to throw the NCC into a waste basket of disgruntled judges when you haven't had the experience nor the opportunity to work with them, know them, and even personally butt heads with them. The ignorance in some of the statements above is staggering. But.... it's water under the bridge. Whether they resigned or not the Eboard is forming a "new NCC". They're calling it a different name, but it's a committee to review, reform, and run the Nats contest. However, they don't specify what will be reviewed, nor what reforms will be made, nor who these people are who will do this. Will they have the same experience at running a contest with 2000-3000+ models that need judging? Will they be able to call on the same number of experienced judges going forward in order to get the job done? Will they be able to get all of the judges in Madison, the old ones who continue out of a sense of duty and any new ones who volunteer to support the changes made, all on the same page and trained to implement whatever they come up with, providing they can come up with the changes they want by then? The Eboard has thrown the baby out with the bath water, and we can only hope that the consequences are less dire than they seem at this time. Most of the NCC may have quit, but it wasn't because they're "not getting their way" anymore. It's because they've been spit on by the current Eboard. It's because despite offering some compromises to the Eboard they've had that hand slapped away and been handed edicts instead. It's because they've essentially been told their experience and knowledge is no longer needed or wanted AND that their years of past service to IPMS (in some case DECADES of service) doesn't count for anything with this current Eboard. They're not getting mad and quitting because they're in a snit. They're washing their hands of a situation where they no longer have any say. I've always said the NCC needed to be changed, if only to be more open to change itself. I've never been stupid enough to think they should be disbanded or overruled by a group who themselves will be out of power in 2 years. If you're glad to see them go, you're just displaying your ignorance. Gil
    6 points
  9. Your example about the judges getting overruled is exactly how it should be handled. Everyone straight up admitted that is NOT how it was handled. I have a conversation with Kaliste himself saying he wishes he did it like you had happen in 2019, not how they handled it which created this issue. If everyone did it properly there would be no need for this. But here we are. and you’re right about this being about power but not how you think you’re right. You see, the NCC by all accounts had no oversight, and now that a little is being applied, everyone is quitting. You guys are upset you don’t have the unlimited power you once had, and I get it; that’s hard to take. But really as you said, you resigned over this, so it’s up to the rest of the membership that is still in to carry on and figure it out. You had a great many years of service, and for that we thank you.
    6 points
  10. 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.
    6 points
  11. I'm on the side of I like being more informed than less informed. I also look at these early updates as an encouraging sign of what is (hopefully) an extremely well organized, communicative, and motivated host committee for 2024. I have two concrete requests/suggestions for when the 2024 hotel reservations do finally open up: First: ONLY ALLOW ONE ROOM RESERVATION PER PERSON MAKING A RESERVATION! One of the reasons that these hotel room blocks are selling out so fast is that there are members booking 2 and 3 (or more) hotel rooms at one time. I certainly realize that there could be a reason for that, being it either a larger party planning to travel together or a friend doing a friend a favor because they cannot be on the computer or phone the day/time when the reservations open. The problem is, that short changes those who can and ARE trying to make reservations at that time. Save the multiple room reservations for their SECOND time they get on-line or on the phone. Second: OPEN UP TO IPMSUSA MEMBERS ONLY FOR RESERVATIONS THE FIRST DAY, AND TO EVERYONE ELSE THE SECOND DAY. It's the IPMSUSA National Convention and IPMSUSA members ought to have this PERK as a part of their membership. If you want to include vendors on the first day, you could do so, but with a special code or ID that allows them. I don't know IF this can be done since it'd have to be tied into somehow being able to verify who's a current member and who's not, but it would seem with computer abilities, it's just a matter of adding a current list into the hotel's data base which then cross checks the person making the reservation against that list before letting the reservation even start to be made. Or, perhaps the "early" date and time would only be emailed to the membership by the Wild Apricot system so that only they would have that info to begin with, with regular reservations opened up a day or even a week later. Would it be fool proof? No, as there's always people looking to game any system. But it might help! More importantly, it would show IPMSUSA is trying to give something more of value for their membership money. Other than that, I'd like to repeat my request from early 2022 for the '23 show which went unheeded by the San Marcos committee: Please, Please, PLEASE "beta check" the hotel reservation "system" before opening it up to the membership. Be sure the membership KNOWS of any possible snafus inherent in the system (like trying to add a Tuesday to the preset Wed-Sat computer reservation, which the computer page would allow, but the "system" would then reject and not allow it to go through). It will help immensely if we know of any specific things to do or don't do when we log on to get a room. Thanks! Gil
    6 points
  12. This is one of the later (1957) entries into the Aurora 1/48 biplane series and is actually a pretty nice kit. This is a later release that supposedly has some "new parts" which I suspect are the cabane and interplane struts in the common "U" configuration as the box top says there is "new easier wing assembly" so maybe the original had individual struts which are fiddly to get in place in correct alignment. If you were a super-detailer it is a pretty good starting point. The kit freaked me out while I was building/painting it as nothing went wrong and everything fit. The guy in the pilot seat is an enigma. He's not really in flying gear as he has no helmet nor googles and I have no idea what he's waving at. Like all these kits, there was almost no interior so I "imagineered" some stuff just to fill the space. No windscreen is provided oddly, so I made one out of my spares box. Also, the real aircraft had thos long exhaust extensions and they are not provided in the kit, so I made them out of plastic tubing. Even the decals went on like a treat. However, after dull coating I noticed there was was some silvering which was not there beforehand. But, it's only bound for my shelf so that's ok. Normally these kits came with a little base and one or two figures as a sort of ground crew, but not in this case but I wanted something to set it off a bit so I scratched up a little cart with some mail bags and a satchel in it However, so some reason, even though it's not all that complicated, the rigging on this stressed me out a bit. But, it's done now and I'm moving on.
    5 points
  13. Two points -- per the excerpts above. First, my experience is that, most often, people say "Why can't you just"... Which is a version of "Why can't somebody else do what I want done".... Second, I very much agree. Over time, I have concluded that the average IPMS member had not a clue how IPMS, the National Convention, or the National Contest work. That, BTW, is not a criticism ... there is no need for the average member to know. The average member needs to know just enough to register for the Nats and enter his entries. The issue, as I see it, is the members who have not a clue, but are energized to demand that damn near every thing be changed. Witness recent events.
    5 points
  14. James: The ridiculously long number, I believe, is one that makes it immediately evident that THAT member joined AT the Nats and is assigned that number when they join there as an identifier. It is indeed a legitimate membership number, but one that the office uses to more easily track members who renew there as opposed to others who renew through the regular process or at a time other than the Nats. ALL: While we can argue over the idea of what the handling policy was, is, and should be; THAT was not and IS not the immediate problem.... the PROBLEM is that in response to the controversy over the pic (whether THAT was contrived or just bad luck) the Eboard issued an ORDER/EDICT to the NCC DICTATING a new policy for the Nats contest, and they did so BEFORE the amendments passed giving them any "right" to do so. Whether or not you agree or disagree with their idea of the handling policy, the PROBLEM is two-fold: First- they displayed an attitude of unwillingness to consider working WITH the NCC (and take advantage of their decades of practical experience), and instead adopted an immediate policy of telling them that the NCC works FOR them; something that had never been true (and still at that time wasn't). Second: The Eboard decided to double down on their totalitarian stance of being the "boss" of the NCC and precipitated the resignation of almost all of the Head Judges. It also caused the incoming Chief Judge to step back, and as of this date (and according to the Dec. Eboard meeting minutes) HE has declined to work for them too. Whatever you think of the NCC (and I've been their detractor more than a supporter) the LOSS of that much contest experience hurts IPMSUSA, and more importantly shows extreme short-sightedness on the Eboard. That leaves IPMSUSA without a group of experienced Nats contest leaders and administrators, and also calls into question how many of the judging corp will be willing to work in Madison UNLESS this Eboard takes immediate, positive, TRUSTWORTHY steps towards solving THAT problem (and I've already listed what steps I think they should take). The handling problem (perceived or real) and the percentage of "elected" Eboard members as well as how IPMS should tackle those problems (and others) in order to move forward with sure footing for the future are of lesser concern and priority at this time. Even with all of the "goodwill" that can be engendered from volunteer IPMS members and judges who go to Madison, IF the Eboard is counting on that alone to save the day and put their changes into place; I'm concerned they're banking on something that will come up very short. I'm STILL waiting after 5 pages of discussion for the President or another Eboard member to come here (or in the 3rd members only section below) and show me how my concerns are wrong or overblown. Gil
    5 points
  15. For the record, I did not say “unless it is brought up at the annual in person meeting”, the person(s) with the concern and photo were at the convention, and could have easily attended the meeting and voiced their concern, there were other avenues as well that did not require access through any gates. They decided on a much more drama producing and shaming “outing” on social media. Smacks of an agenda….
    5 points
  16. Cameron said: "As far as the incident with the tank being held overhead, is that how you would want your entry being held?" And there-in lies the problem.... There was NOTHING WRONG in that picture. The problem was that no one on the Eboard, nor none of the NCC, nor any of the armor judges got on social media and FB to push back against the comments and say "it's NOT a problem". Some of we judges did... but no one in a position of authority did. And my answer is YES!, I have no problem with a judge carefully picking my model up, keeping it level instead of turning it upside down (much more dangerous), and using his phone light to get a better lit look instead of tilting it to try to get the ambient room light to hit where he's trying to see. Since I have decades (literally) as a national judge I know that SOMETIMES the judging gets that tight and tough at the Nats. I know, from experience, that a judge only does that when needed, and NOT to every model judged. AND, the rules clearly state that models are judged in ALL 3 DIMENSIONS. And yet people act astonished that models are picked up to view the bottoms.... The picture was posted IN ORDER to make you THINK that that's "the norm" and is done to every model, and that the judges do it in a "cavalier" way without regard to the model or its builder. Posting it could serve no other purpose, and was designed to create the fervor it did so the Eboard could issue their "absolutely no model handling" edict to the NCC; all the while knowing the NCC wouldn't stand for it. They precipitated the resignations of most of the NCC and now we are less than a year away from the Madison Nats without an experienced group of head judges and a BIG question mark as to how many of the judging corp (also made to look like fools in that pic) will be willing to work that show. Would YOU want to judge knowing someone may take a pic of you, post it, and make you look like a "judging rube"? Yes, the person who posted that pic did that much damage, and what's worse, isn't sorry he did it either. The picture also implies that model breakage is a problem at the Nats and it's not. Breakage is carefully tracked during the judging and it does occur, but in VERY small numbers, especially compared to the number of models being moved and handled over the entire 4 days of the show. In fact, as much or MORE breakage occurs from viewers with swinging badges on lanyards, dangling cameras, and careless leans trying to get better looks at the back rows. ALL breakage is regrettable and certainly important, especially to the builder whose model is damaged. But are you even AWARE of the judging rule that IF a builder puts a note saying "damaged in transit" then that damage isn't held against the model during judging? Funny how THAT never got mentioned in all of the outrage over the tank pic! And IF a judge does cause some damage, THAT is (of course) not held against the entry either. Does the "handling policy" need modification or change, especially considering the "outrage and concern" expressed on social media? PERHAPS.... but then I challenge YOU and every other person that thinks so to first go to a Nats, undergo the OJT judge training, actually judge AT THE NATS, see how it's actually done, and THEN step back and offer an experienced opinion; which lets out 95% of those commenting on the subject on social media. I agree with you in that IPMSUSA has a big decision to make: WHO do we want to appeal to, WHO do we wish to "target" our efforts to get to join us, and HOW do we need to change in order to appeal to that broader group of people? We should certainly listen when we ask non-members what can IPMSUSA do to make you possibly want to join? But, IPMSUSA has NO obligations to listen to or heed ignorant comments on Nats judging largely made by those who've never even tried to judge in that arena. Gil
    5 points
  17. Let's see - set up an actual social media strategy, now and for the future has experience in the various platforms find new ways to engage our current membership and prospective members be able to set up rules for the various platforms, and chain of command for the moderators, admins, etc. co-ordinate between Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and other platforms, including ones IPMS is not currently using interact with our other public facing spaces - the Journal, the home page, the reviews site, the forums, the gallery, etc. Which may include strategic planning and co-ordination I made an argument a while back (8 months ago?) that we needed an overall Director of Communications to handle many of the situations we find ourselves in... Given the silliness that took place before and after, the DSM role is a start. E
    5 points
  18. I appreciate Doug joining the conversation here, although I see it differently. 1- The problem I see is there has not been constructive conversation on Facebook about these issues, something is posted and it is a dogpile of fire starters and pot stirrers, the few that tried to add thoughtful comments were basically shouted down, insulted and/or bullied, so they left, leaving it to the mob. This forum is not a smoke-filled back room, it is available to all members, the society has a constitution and by-laws, that basically dictates how members will operate while they are IPMS members, I realize in this day and age people might think everything should be open to everyone, especially on social media, that is not reality. I see no problem with requiring people to go to a members forum to discuss member issues. By looking at the comments on Facebook posts, IPMS related or not, there are plenty of people that would not be missed if they did not engage. If anyone thinks backroom conversations do not go on, or they can or have been stopped, they are fooling themselves. 2 - That’s not the assumption I have heard from anyone I know, it is that non-members should not be the driving force behind knee-jerk reactions and major changes to the society, and that is what I believe is happening. By your math 130 of the 13K people that follow the IPMS Facebook page are responsible for almost all of the activity on issues, and I don’t believe that all of them are IPMS members, being generous I would say 80 of them are, so do I understand correctly that less then 1% of the membership should be driving the decisions for major change? 3 - In my opinion IPMS is not responsible for growing the hobby, and it HAS and continues to be more inclusive and welcoming, it will never be what every last person wants, or do exactly what everyone wants, and it should not have too, or even try. It should be common knowledge that you can not make everyone happy all the time. What part of membership is confusing, to be a member you need to join, and for IPMS that means a membership fee, I belong to two different chapters, they do not allow me to keep being a member without paying the club membership fee, no doors are locked, you just need to join and be a member. 4 - I disagree, the problem is where, and the tactics used to turn them into a supposed controversy. Now we have any and all complaints, valid or not, understandable or not, made out as an outrage on Facebook to rile up the mob. Case in point, a picture was posted two days ago of someone (judge?) at a contest in Spain HOLDING UP a model at eye level with one hand and using a flashlight with the other to look at it. So far it has 4-5 likes and one post, and no pitchfork and torch welding mob of angry people have turned it into a controversy, or even a joke. As for attacking the complaint, they opened themselves up to criticism, good or bad, by choosing facebook to air their grievances and should have known that.
    5 points
  19. Which is why the only PRACTICAL solution (if you want to keep the FB open to the public) is to restrict it to modeling related posts only. That way NO admin has to try to keep up with ANY non-modeling post. If others want to rant about IPMS "politics" elsewhere, let them. In fact, there are Eboard members and other IPMS members with their own podcasts where that can easily be done. I disagree that ANY non-member should have a say as to how WE run IPMS. If they want to have a say, then JOIN and become a PART OF THE PROCESS. I disagree that the vocalism of the non-members hasn't made a difference. In fact, it's their obviously inexperienced and ignorant statements about IPMS judging (especially concerning handling the models) that has caused the Eboard to react in its knee-jerk methods. Take the non-members out of the POLITICAL equation, but allow them to continue to post model builds and related posts on the FB page. Save the politics for HERE, and for members only! Gil
    5 points
  20. Dave is the only person in a position to head off what will be a catastrophic set of decisions that will end the society. I'm glad we updated the process for disbursing our assets in the event of dissolution, because that's where we are headed right now. BTW, I'm not resigning as Journal editor for one of the specific reasons Gil cited. I don't believe you can save something by removing yourself from it.
    5 points
  21. If I might suggest then...... simply make the IPMS FB NON-POLITICAL, PERIOD! Any non model building post is automatically deleted by any admin immediately with instructions that ALL IPMSUSA political debate be sent HERE. HERE, all of the politics should be moved by admins to the THIRD, MEMBERS ONLY AREA (not deleted, but moved). This will insure that ONLY members are in on these discussions. While non-members may yell about it being some sort of "non-transparency" tactic, they can yell elsewhere or JOIN and come here to participate. The model only policy is also very much in line with many other FB modeling page policies. GIL
    5 points
  22. There is not an intimidation factor, there is an arrogance factor, as Gil put it, an Elitist Reputation. At the 2019 Nats, other then the nice folks manning the entrance tables, not a single member, or an officer of this group greeted me. I was wearing both the show supplied name tag, plus my own home club hard plastic, engraved tag. Not a single, " Hello, Hi, thanks for coming.." nothing. On the flip side, my girlfriend was allowed in free of charge, and they printed up a name tag for her ! She was sadly verbally assaulted by a women in the ladies room out side the display room because how she was dressed. Which was very conservative and nice, being a long skirt and a blouse and flat dress shoes. Weird that.... Now, I did reach out to several people, including Barry Numrick, Robert Steinbrun , Joe Youngerman, Paul Boyer, and had some nice conversations about modeling. Also met Bert Kinsey at his table, plus caught up with Roy Sutherland. Made the president of Zoike Marua laugh, as I asked why the new tool 1/144th Ho-229 didn't have the same level of detail as it's 72nd counterpart ! Slapped me on the back and said I was crazy ! My girlfriend bought coffee for the Wingnut Wings guys on Saturday, as they had been up late enjoying the adult spirits... We used to make fun of the guy at the door at Walmart, but at a venue like this, it might not be a bad idea. We have a huge train show every winter, and they always have folks in train caps handing out directories to the vendors, and saying " Hi , thanks for coming " with a smile, every year. I know this doesn't pertain to the current judging/power play, but any change that will cause the IPMS to be in a better light, can't hurt. IPMS USA needs to stop assuming every one knows who is who, when most of us do not.
    5 points
  23. 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.
    5 points
  24. I have today also submitted my resignation effective immediately. I can no longer effectively serve the current organization. Ed Grune (former) Head Ship Judge
    5 points
  25. Please do ME, the 2024 Nats Team, and the E-board a HUGE favor by NOT calling the 2024 Nationals venue asking for information. It is NOT their job, nor is it their responsibility, to satisfy your personal need to have information ahead of everyone else. The venue has already contacted me directly asking for the phone calls to cease. No IPMS member should be contacting the venue and demanding free parking and lower hotel rates, neither of which are the venue's responsibility. I have instructed the Monona Terrace staff and my personal POC (Point of Contact) to not field calls from anyone within IPMS EXCEPT for the 24 Nationals team and the Executive board. This behavior is unacceptable. All it does is convolute the process and spread rumors, false information, and outright fabrications pertaining to the '24 Nats, which I am already having to deal with, and we aren't even past San Marcos yet. We are more than one year out from Madison, so there are LOTS of things that haven't even been discussed yet. The Monona Terrace staff only knows what I and the E-board have told them thus far pertaining to the convention. They know nothing of the floorplan, or the menu, or the schedule of events, because none of those items have been addressed yet. The sole purpose of this forum is to address questions you have. There's already a list of things we can and cannot answer at this time. Please show the team a little trust and respect and let them do their jobs instead of running around responding to half-truths and rumors. If you have LEGITIMATE questions for the venue, such as handicapped accessibility or things of that nature, we will be HAPPY to convey those questions to them in our regularly scheduled meetings. But PLEASE, bring your questions to US, not the venue. (EDIT - This situation today, over the weekend, and then the personal attacks from IPMS members already accusing us of not doing our jobs, has put me in a not-so-friendly state of mind.) Jeff Herne 2024 IPMS National Convention Chairman IPMS/USA Region 5 Coordinator.
    5 points
  26. After staying out of this for 9 pages, I'll throw a few thoughts out based on my experience running the 2019 Nats. First, Gil, I don't know of any vendors that are using 30-50 tables, even at the Nats. Eduard, Special Hobby, and Free Time Hobbies were our three whale type vendors if I remember right. Free Time took up space where we would have placed about 25 tables. I think Eduard and Special Hobby were more like 20 tables worth of space. But it does look impressive in the room. As for Ron's comments, the Chattanooga Convention Center actually cold called us. They had a saleswoman who was scouring convention records from around the country and had seen the IPMS USA Convention pop up several times, reached out to Marie, and Marie sent her to us. We had just started hosting our local show in the multi-use room of one of our club member's church, which we ended up out growing after 2 years. The convention center hooked us up with affordable space and the club has run its show there ever since. That did help build a great working relationship with the convention center (which I'll hit on later). We were also able to work closely with the Chattanooga Visitor's Bureau to secure good hotel contracts. The CVB was also able to get us within spitting distance of getting some serious Volkswagen sponsorship money. Unfortunately, after looking into what the convention was all about and the seeming emphasis on military models, the corporate honcho's put a halt on that sponsorship. Of course, our theme of "Was it Over When the German's Bombed Pearl Harbor?" may have played a part in that decision????? To Michael's point about the banquet. The need for a banquet is two fold. Many members like it and want it. And, in order to meet the food and beverage requirements of most facilities, a banquet is the best option. In Chattanooga we opted to pay the $5000 rental for the room and do the desert thing rather than do a banquet. We could have done a banquet and gotten the room for "free", but chose to try something new. Which many folks really appreciated, even thought the desert bar concept really tanked. As to requiring banquet for registration, I'd say that in almost all cases, that's a physical impossibility. You can't get that many people seated in the room, which is why people complain about feeling like second class citizens having to sit in the hallway listening to the awards presentation. There are other costs like banquets though. Audio-Visual can be one. We took a look at the AV vendor's pricing and decided to do much of it on our own. They were charging $600 a day for LCD projectors. 4 projectors (one for each seminar room) would have cost $2700 for 3 days. We spent $800 to buy one good one and borrowed several others. We also bought projection screens rather than renting them. Our AV budget would have been 75% higher than it ended up being if we'd have had to rent everything. But talking to the guys in Phoenix, they didn't have that option. They were required to rent everything from the facility AV vendor. There are just some costs that some hosts just can't avoid. To add to Ron's point about the difficulty of maintaining relationships, I'll attest it's hard. Again, the Chattanooga Chapter had a great working relationship through 8 years of local shows and the National Convention. Once the Nats came and went, that relationship has started to fray. I'm no longer in Chattanooga, but I keep in touch and attend the local show every January, and the new head guy running the show was telling me this year that the relationship is really strained. The price breaks the club used to enjoy are no longer on the table, and their responsiveness is dropping. This after more than 10 years working together and the same folks largely being involved. The other shocker was how quickly the relationship with the Marriott attached to the convention center fell apart. The hotel sold to new ownership during Covid, and when the club tried to get a reasonable rate for a small block of rooms for their January show they were given a rate of something on the order of $180 a night. When we tried to explain we had a 10 year relationship working with them and had sold out the hotel for a solid week, management shrugged an said that was then. And finally, to Nat's point about vendors. Yes, we do rely on them. At $100 per table for the nats, and nearly 400 vendor tables sold, they generated north of $30,000 in income for the convention after table rental costs. We couldn't hold a Nats without them without significant cost increases for the attendees. However, we can't discount what the vendors get from coming to the show. It's a two way street and it has to work for both sides.
    4 points
  27. HI ! Here a project I have done in the past using the MONOGRAM UH-1C kit , If you like to view more pics, I have set-up an Google page for it, Just follow this link: https://photos.app.goo.gl/XVeb1mKitqHBtrZz6 Enjoy ! Jmarc
    4 points
  28. I talked to Bruno a couple of weeks ago and he yelled at me too! 😁😁😁 If we quit, they win! Besides... as I stated somewhere else.... at this point I'll stay in IPMS JUST to make them squirm with my every post! 😉 Thanks to you, and to anyone else willing to step up to at least try to help and/or work at bettering IPMS and to repair the damage done last summer! Gil
    4 points
  29. Gil, I put my name in for consideration for the pending R5 coordinator opening. I rather be a part of the Society for as long as I can. I realized that I can offer something rather than yelling from the sidelines. The last 5 months I really thought it was time just to let my membership lapse. But following this thread has made me reconsider that. I wish you luck in your possible E- board appointment. We have to in it to win it. I can hear Bruno yelling at me as I type. But with you and some like minded members I think and hope that this ship can be righted. Let's get thru Madison and reset this abomination and put the train back on the track. Then we will see how this will go. I willing and somewhat able to make a difference on a local level. Time to think about local chapters to stay in the Society there has been rumblings about tagging out and at my age I can be a Walmart greeter for IPMS. Ron Ronbo Thorne Jr. Head Bottle Washer.
    4 points
  30. The problem is, once you've had two or three GSB contests and the same people win gold, then some folks will AGAIN think there's some "insiders' club" or something. At a certain level, some folks have a sportsmanship problem that leads to their perception problem. I've gone to 24 Nationals and I've won four times (statistically, less than the average 24-time attendee) and it's not because there's a cabal or because I'm not a good modeler (I hope!). It's because that's the way it goes. If you can't accept that, or if your personal identity is defined by where your model finishes, you're going to have a rough time in contests (or in watching team sports, or following politics or anything where there's winners and non-winners).
    4 points
  31. I believe Gil is right, it’s really ironic that those that feel they are on the outside of a perceived group will themselves become the “good old boys” of that group if/when they replace the existing people that are perceived to make up that group.
    4 points
  32. This is the Badger 3D printed FV180 Combat Engineer Tractor. This item arrives in one piece. There is no assembly. The only thing you need to do is remove the small printing tendrils, which is easy. The model does not come with the trim vane panel, so I made that from sratch, there is not antenna mount so I added that and the orange beacon was added as well. If you choose not to do those things, just paint it up and you've got a very nice rendition of the vehicle. It is disconcerting, however, in that the bucket is actually attached to the rear of the vehicle. Just looking at it you'd probably assume that was the front, but it's not.
    4 points
  33. "The armor judge in the photo has since quit IPMS and who can blame him?" An update: that member contacted me and told me he's staying in IPMS. I would like to think that's because enough members contacted him with positive sentiments to keep him in the fold.
    4 points
  34. Several reactions to Mr. Cook's attached post: 1. This is mild, even polite, when compared to many other posts on the FB page. 2. I have read multiple posts in which the poster asserts that they have paid dues and that, therefore, IPMS owes them whatever it is that they think IPMS owes them. "Dues paying member" is usually cited as their particular status. I offer that IPMS owes them exactly what it owes all other PMS members. I won't go over everything, but it seems that IPMS members are principally owed the Journal and the ability to attend the Nats. I don't know that they are owed tit-for-tat interaction with an officer or judge or another member. 3. I have noticed that, in addition to being annoying (a word chosen rather than others I considered), on social media, there are those who demand that you engage with them. It goes like this: I make some nasty assertion or characterization or demand, nobody responds (the ultimate put down), and I go bonkers and demand that whomever I demeaned must respond so I can demean them again. 4. Another strain in this, and other, grievances is that IPMS stuff costs money. Whatever the amount of money, the complaint is that it is too much. A complaint I have heard many times is that Nats vendors should be required to offer significant discounts because it costs a lot of money to attend the Nats. Some vendors are selling something I want at, horrors!, MSRP. After all, I spend too much money to attend, so I entitled to a subsidy. HST, I am again pondering who IPMS is beholden to. Does IPMS exist for IPMS members? Or does IPMS exist for anybody who has ever built, is building, or may build a model? I am reminded of an IPMS chapter of which I was once a member. It was routine for one non-member (because the general meetings were open) to show up and try to sell various items to the attendees. I complained. I was told that someone might sometime for some reason want to buy something he was offering, so the seller was of value to the chapter. I concluded that one mission of that chapter was to provide IPMS customers to any vendor from off the street. So, again, what is the purpose of the IPMS FB page? To serve current IPMS members or to serve anybody who wants to be served?
    4 points
  35. Why? This is a long ramble, but if you’re really interested … I had promised myself I would try to stay quiet about all this, but I want desperately to steer this in the right direction. To be very clear, I left the IPMS/USA Executive Board not because the other seven members are bad people. They are friends, and all good people doing the best they can to hold together a widely diverse association of hobbyists. We just had an honest disagreement of opinion at the December working session about what a seat on the Board means, and how it affects the freedom to express our opinions. I was in the minority. I walked away after several weeks of honest reflection. Here is verbatim what my emailed resignation to the Board said: “I’ve been reflecting on the job the members of this organization elected me to in the weeks since our working meeting in December. I promised to be transparent to the membership if they elected me, and to work for positive change to many things within IPMS/USA. I believe I have effectively carried out all the Secretary’s duties outlined in the C&BL to that end, and then some. However, my understanding that an elected seat on the IPMS/USA Executive Board is the best of all possible places to express my values and opinions, and work towards a vision for the future of this organization based on the input I get from the membership who put me here, is wrong. My views and values just don’t mesh with a status quo that is so entrenched and inflexible that it does not allow for consideration of the changes I have lobbied for at the urging of the membership. The rebuke of my public comments on social media and my addition of the “heavily redacted” comment in the closing of the published minutes regarding the Bucholz editorial made an expectation clear. I am not here to actually represent, speak, or work for the members of IPMS that voted for me. I am expected to fall in line without publicly expressing any dissent, to present the appearance of a unified Board. I’m sorry, but I can’t and won’t do that to the people who put me here. With that, please accept my resignation as Secretary on the IPMS/USA Executive Board. Respectfully, I’m done today. I will assist in any way I can with the transition of the Secretary’s duties to your appointed replacement. Just let me know how you want to do that. I plan to maintain my IPMS/USA membership and continue working from within to effect positive change to the Society. I look forward to joining you along with my modeling friends in Madison this summer.” The fact that I had added the notation to the December minutes that they were “heavily redacted” prior to publishing them was not well received by several on the Board, and they told me so. So much for transparency. And with that, I was done. It took less than 30 minutes to receive an email that all my access to the membership database had been locked out. I struggled with the free speech issue regarding Chris’s editorial. On the one hand, he has every right to express his opinion on whatever he chooses. On the other hand, I just don’t think that the Editors page in the official publication of IPMS/USA was the appropriate place for that particular opinion piece. IMHO, that space should be used, to quote Jeff Herne, “Educate, entertain or inform.” True, any of those terms could be slanted and used to describe the piece, but I just thought it was incredibly bad form to poke at that incident after it had finally sort of gone away. Just my opinion, but it was incredibly damaging to the organization as a whole. As to the source of the controversy, the tank picture, that issue will likely be debated as long as there continues to be competitions in our hobby. I happen to be one who feels that it is a matter of respect to the piece and the builder that it not be subjected to any more risk of damage than is absolutely necessary. It’s an opinion, that’s all. If the “rules” say otherwise, pay your money and take your chances, or don’t play. Don’t sit on the sidelines and bitch about it. The rub is that “the rules” vary on this, depending on where you look, or whether you were listening closely at the judges meeting. I don’t spend a lot of time in these forums as many of you do. And I wasn’t ever informed that “official IPMS business” should be posted here for discussion. I don’t mean to digress, other than to say I think that after reading many of the comments here from Gil Hodges and others, I am not the wildly radical, social media trolling instigator that some of you have made me out to be. My values, opinions and agenda initiatives don’t differ much from yours. Example: “Overall I believe IPMSUSA needs to change its image so that (as you rightly point out) we are more interesting and palatable to more modelers in general. I believe that we should try to emphasize the artistic side of the hobby and de-emphasize the competitive side, which is where most of the criticism of IPMS stems from. I also agree with your idea of offering the Journal in digital format, at least to some if not all, IF it's affordable. In the past it didn't offer any financial advantage, but with the progress of technology perhaps it can do so now. I believe those two things MIGHT offer growth past our seeming ceiling of 4000+- membership numbers. We both have the hope to see IPMS grow and thrive, even if we differ somewhat on our views of the current situation and the exact paths we need take to get there, and that's the light at the end of the tunnel! Now if we only knew where our current Eboard stands on these things and EXACTLY how they plan to tackle them.” These are EXACTLY the things I have been championing for the membership while I served on the Board. The issue I have is that the “institution” that the Board has become is paralyzed by the fear of doing something wrong and being criticized for it. It takes FOREVER to convince a quorum to take action on anything that might be perceived as controversial to anyone. These forums and the world of social media have a lot to do with that. I listened when people (members) talked to me about issues, and tried my best to incorporate their opinions, initiatives and ideals in Board discussions. In the end, I became frustrated when I was told that as a Board member, I should refrain from discussing such things in public forums. Even though clearly stating that my opinions were my own, and not reflective of the Board or the larger organization, their concern was that by voicing them in a public forum, they would be perceived as “Board policy”. During the December meeting discussions, the implicit approval for Chris Bucholz to do the same thing IN THE OFFICIAL IPMS/USA PUBLICATION, well … here we are. So, I still want the same things for IPMS that I noted from Gil’s post above. I assume he, and many of you on this thread do too. I would be happy to host a monthly members town hall on Zoom (or any other appropriate medium) where such things can be openly discussed (within some respectful ground rules) to any who would like to participate. I meant what I said in my resignation about remaining as a member and working from within to affect positive change. Let me know at rbooth@hctc.net, and we can take it from there. Whether we agree on things or not, thanks for being a valued member and your support of IPMS/USA.
    4 points
  36. My modeling interests focus on 1/72 scale aircraft, but my daughter inspired me to try something outside my “comfort zone.” Like a number of young Americans, she faced a difficult time during the COVID pandemic. During that time, she lost her job. Despite this set back, she didn’t give up, and within a few months of searching, she found a career path that continues to the present day. I wanted to do something for her to celebrate her determination and perserverence. As a modeler, I thought…build her something. As I thought about it, the idea of building a 1/72 scale model wasn’t going to cut it. I mean, if I was going to build her something, I needed to show detail. I wanted to build her a fighter, because in facing all that adversity, she was a indeed a fighter. I decided to build a Supermarine Spitfire, because it was not only a first-rate fighter plane, but one of the most aesthetically beautiful aircraft ever built. The Tamiya 1/32 Spitfire Mk IXc certainly fit the bill. It’s well engineered, the instructions are clear, and the kit includes photo-etch parts and canopy masks. I didn’t like the photo-etch seatbelt harness, so I bought a cloth seatbelt harness made by HGWModels. That was a kit all by itself. I also added cabling for the throttle, radio, cockpit lighting, and on the control column that support the guns. I added an oxygen hose on the cockpit side-wall for additional interest. The kit provides three different versions to build including a clipped wing model. I built the model representing the aircraft flown by Wing Commander James Edgar “Johnnie” Johnson, Officer Commanding, Kenley Wing , RAF Fighter Command during the Spring of 1943. The Osprey Aces series stated that Johnson achieved 12 victories and 5 shared victories flying this aircraft. It took a while to complete this model, but it was worth it. To those attending the upcoming Nationals in San Marcos, safe travels and enjoy! We now return you to our regularly scheduled 1/72 scale model aircraft programming.
    4 points
  37. I am glad that we got to hear the side of the story from one who was accused of wrongdoing. To have people exonerated from any perceived wrongdoing then 2 weeks later totally reverse the ruling certainly makes the powers that be look confused. I am a senior National judge for going on 20 years and can also state that it is HEAVILY emphasized at the mandatory judges meeting by the head judge that if you see ANY perceived impropriety report it IMMEDIATELY do not wait to the next day or next week or whatever. If there is a problem the judges will be interviewed and if necessary the category will be rejudged. Thats why we have Check Judges to spot these problems. Once those judging sheets go to the tally team it is pretty well carved in stone. It is also called out in the judges meeting for judges to stay in the area as they may be needed to judge another category or be asked about a problem that the check judges have found. At the total end of judging the head category will release the judges and or have the team leaders stand by for "Best Of" nominations depending on how that class does things. I sincerely hope that the powers that be can do a hard reset on all of this out of the megaphone of social media. The judging system works, true not everyone wins a trophy but as it is set up it works. I think if the rules laid out in the judges meeting were followed this would have been handled THAT night by the appropriate checks and balances and not in the podcast / social media spotlight in hindsight. Pat Donahue IPMS 5261
    4 points
  38. Looking at the old bylaws (2017 revision, on the IPMS website), I don't see anywhere in writing that the NCC was a wholly separate entity from the elected IPMS infrastructure, apparently internally appointed and omnipotent per decades of tradition? I see the following relevant sections--> The National Convention and Contest shall be conducted in compliance with the National Convention Operating Parameters set by the Executive Board and the National Contest Rules and Categories provided by the National Contest Committee. 7.,The National Convention and Contest shall be conducted under strict compliance with the National Parameters and Contest Rules and Categories provided to the Convention Committee by the National Executive Board. Committees established for specific tasks as required shall be created for a set period of time by the President and the Executive Board. Thats about it. Being something of a rule-of-law guy, and also I self admitted relative newcomer to the IPMS Nats scene... I don't understand the drama about the "NCC being chased away" or "the NCC having its power taken away". From the written bylaws, the NCC ALWAYS worked for the members of IPMS via the elected board. And the check/balance would be the elected officials requesting / demanding meetings/committees to address topics of interest to the membership. I understand being irritated if your previously unchecked power was being questioned, but it seems well within the long term written bylaws of the organization?
    4 points
  39. "Most of the NCC may have quit, but it wasn't because they're "not getting their way" anymore. It's because they've been spit on by the current Eboard. It's because despite offering some compromises to the Eboard they've had that hand slapped away and been handed edicts instead. It's because they've essentially been told their experience and knowledge is no longer needed or wanted AND that their years of past service to IPMS (in some case DECADES of service) doesn't count for anything with this current Eboard. They're not getting mad and quitting because they're in a snit. They're washing their hands of a situation where they no longer have any say." ^THIS^ There is a lot of corporate memory among the senior judging people: How the split methodology works, `How to assemble the judging teams, How to handle Q/C problems, How the paper work trail to Eileen Persichetti works, to name a few. 20 years ago, the A/C judges were judging until the early morning hours, now with the exception of the Best A/C the judges are finished by 10 P.M. or so. All this has happened while the conventions have become more and more successful, and with larger model turn outs (IIRC 800+ A/C alone in San Marcos) so they have to be doing something right. If the EBoard does not get a handle on this and enough of the senior people go then a lot of the knowledge as to how and why the conventions work as well as they do is going to go with them. I wish that a reset could be done and this could have been handled out of the social media environment. I have been judging since 2005 and IMO judging have improved by a factor of magnitude. Yes there have been Q/C problems and as Jim alluded to above if we had to the category was re-judged and Q/C'ed again. 6 judges moved a probably 300 models Thursday night setting up splits and putting misplaced models into the correct spots nothing was broken to my knowledge. One of the secrets why the A/C judges finish early-all the splits are done and waiting for the judges to get to work after the judges meet at 6P.M. A lot of good people volunteer their time and effort in all the categories to make these things work seemly are being told now that they have been doing it all wrong. I think this is a slap in the face to those who have worked really hard to make the conventions successful. Pat Donahue IPMS 5261
    4 points
  40. I agree, the way the people who have volunteered hundreds of hours of their own time (and money) over the years to make IPMS what it is today, and they were involved in a lot more then just the contest, are being treated is disgraceful. The groveling to the Facebook pot-stirring non-members by this e-board is pitiful, and using that to justify an agenda of change has never worked out in anyone’s history. In my opinion they will learn that those same “allies” they are pandering too will turn on them at the first opportunity. I hope that IPMS can survive this chapter, maybe when a completely different group of people are elected to the e-board, I guess time will tell. To anyone I’ve worked with judging over the past 32 years, thank you for all your hard work and dedication!! I for one appreciate it!! My advice to anyone who continues to judge, please be aware that you could be photographed at anyone’s whim, whether you did anything wrong or not, and used to further an agenda, so proceed at your own risk. There was a time I put up with this sort of disrespect and drama, but someone else was paying me a lot of money to do so, not the case anymore.
    4 points
  41. It's not a purge if you resign...
    4 points
  42. Had this little casting of a chupacabra waiting for so long. Looking thru art to get ideas, that most of these real beasts looked like coyotes with mange. So I thought I'd do something I hadn't seen before and create mange. Out came the static grass applicator and some 2 MM grass and went to town with some hit or miss spots. Didn't know what color I wanted , so since he was green I threw on a different green with some blue and a few other colors. Thanks for looking.
    4 points
  43. HI ! Here another project I have done in the past , This is the TRUMPETER PANTHER modified as the 2KD version , as you can see I have done a little surgery and detailing , if you like to view more pics, I have done an GOOGLE page for it , here the direct link: https://goo.gl/photos/nBfAzREP36PNqUQW9 Enjoy ! Jmarc
    4 points
  44. Also known as the civilian Vimy, this is the Maquette kit of this rather ungainly looking craft. It is actually the Frog Vimy kit with a few parts for the different fuselage. The Vimy kit is VERY old and the molds have obviously seen better days with much flash, mold seams, sink marks and warpage on the parts now. Just getting the lower wings to fit to the fuselage was a task and there were no locator holes in the fuselage for where anything went so there was much guesswork involved. Accordingly, it's no contest winner and I didn't bother to rig the flying wires as that would also have required installing control horns and there was enough rigging as it was. However, it's done and fits in quite nicely with my other queer beasts of the RAF.
    4 points
  45. I'm already optimistic about this, just from the excellent communications being put here by the Madison team. I have no doubt that they will try to make it as unique and memorable as they've stated. The fact that they're already so responsive, this far in advance, gives me great confidence in them. Thanks for the prompt and informative replies folks! Gil
    4 points
  46. Keep one thing in mind. Our convention in it present format is not suffering. Attendance and model entries are at all time highs. Let's work to plan for the future but lets not waste time "fixing" stuff that isn't "broken" about it.
    4 points
  47. North Central Texas has never recovered from the 2000 convention in Dallas and have no desire to try it again. I had already been working on the show planning since ‘97. The show doesn’t happen by magic. IMO the other clubs in the DFW Metroplex would feel the same. Bring in a professional company to run it. Go back through this thread and note the top tier concept. Dallas is a top tier city, as is Arlington, Plano, McKinney, Grapevine, and FtWorth. Get up to Frisco and you still have to pay handsomely for the privilege of using JerryWorld North. Other locations will not support the size/density of the Nats. And, once you have toured the Frontiers of Flight museum what would bring you back in successive years? My recommendation to whatever powers that be are to get rid of the requirement to hold the show in the summer months. That would open more locations which are currently cost prohibitive ‘in season’.
    4 points
  48. My 1/25 ice road moonshine diorama, based on the historical pic. Thanks for looking.
    3 points
  49. I’m sure it was part of their evil plans, that and climate change, and high gas prices, they were probably the ones that staged the moon landings too……
    3 points
  50. Hotels have been contracted with initial blocks. We are working with Destination Madison, our control point organization, and establishing a rollout and all of the pertinent information. This information will be released later this fall, after which time we will open blocks for hotel reservations. There will be MULTIPLE options for convention attendees. Options will range from 5-star accommodations downtown for those who don't care how much they spend, to budget-oriented facilities a short driving distance from the convention center. If you try to book a hotel at any of these facilities prior to the block-dates opening, you will be charged whatever the market rate is for that time frame. In other words, you will not get the IPMS rate. You are, of course, welcome to book your rooms outside of the block-rate window, but that's on you. And I will address this rumor directly - we are NOT already sold out. We haven't booked a single room under the auspices of IPMS/USA, as of 7/28/23, in any of the five hotels we currently have under contract.
    3 points
×
×
  • Create New...