Jump to content

Rusty White

Moderator-at-large
  • Content Count

    947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by Rusty White

  1. Forgive my ignorance as I am a ship builder. Are the fins on the exhaust pipe cooling fins? Fine model there.
  2. My 2 cents on the issue, and that's all it's worth. My most optimistic guess for implementation of an open judging system IMHO would be six to eight years. That is IF a majority of the membership want a change, and that is a big IF. Two years hard work by a committee to write up a formal proposal for the system and present it to the membership and E-board. One year to take suggestions and proposed changes. Three years to educate the membership, try it out at regionals, make proposed changes, train judges, and test the awards ceremony. One year to build a computer database and adopt a new record keeping system for the award tabulators while more regional trials continue and changes made. One year to educate the judges and membership. After all this (and I'm sure I overlooked many things here) the E-board will still need to offer a guaranteed profit to any clubs bidding on the convention the system will be used at the first nats to encourage bidding. And that's just the beginning. Fred is right. Many of us may not be around to see the new system implemented and it will cost the Society some bucks to get done, but I hope we are all considering the future of the Society.
  3. Don't worry. I'm watchin'. And yes, before this gets hotter I suggest everyone think carefully (and read the rules) before posting.
  4. There never was a "this". I have stated many times that the survey was just that. A survey. I noticed that the last survey was taken five years ago, and I figured it was time to take another so the E-board would know the current membership feeling on the matter. If I'm still around come 2024, I'll request another survey be done. If anything is in the works, I haven't heard anything about it. Like DAK says, any change to the judging at the national would take years and I doubt that any previously selected event would be required to use any new system. I have made it no secret that I personally support moving to open judging. Having said all that, an accurate survey showing a majority of the membership in favor of open judging would be the first step in the process of getting it done. I have yet to even hear what the results of the survey are. I can only assume it will be published along with official results of the election.
  5. " C'mon, you know some guys who really want to win will just enter down below their skill level. " Obviously, some sort of record would need to kept, but it would be simple to do. I.e. once one has placed "first" a set number of times at each level, a mandatory upgrade to the next level would be required until they reached the master level. It would be easy to police as judges and modelers are a close group. Someone will eventually expose anyone violating the rule.
  6. " wrecked his DeLorean at high speed " From what I have read about them, DeLorean and high speed were not synonymous. 😀
  7. As an ex head judge, I too was surprised how many times I noticed miss-aligned masts on ship and in particular submarines at a national competition. One would think such a "basic" mistake would not be made at the national level.
  8. I picked up some great brushes and a loupe magnifier from our Japanese friends along weathering pencils from the AK folks. EXCELLENT show! 👍
  9. Too bad. I've used MM for over twenty years. I hope some US based company picks up the line up.
  10. Well said David! 👍 Some time ago I tried my shot at running for President, but lost. 😭 You're right. The only way things will change is to have an E-board that shares common goals. My (losing) strategy at the time was to have two folks run with me to hopefully get elected. Unfortunately, the membership seems to be happy with the "If the house isn't on fire, and the Journals get to us on time, let's keep the status quo." Hopefully a group of like minded folks with similar goals will run and affect real change. Good luck.
  11. Gil, I completely agree with everything you said (or simply put out in a "survey"). Believe me, I sympathize. After about a year of work, my MAP program was hybridized into the program we have now with others recognized for it. However, the first rung of the ladder that MUST be scaled is; "does the membership prefer open judging above 1,2,3?" Until we have that statistic to back us up, the E-board is never going to support change. I hope Jaxcon reaches 1000 models next year which will only encourage the E-board to support change. I hope it happens soon. 😉
  12. After reading the last few comments, I have changed my thinking on using a point system and judging for an open judging system. It would seem that a team of judges (as we have now) should make the "cut" (as we do now) and judge each model to determine what medal (if any) should be awarded. This would be an excellent and much faster way to judge all deserving models. This is how the forum should work and is why I suggest posting any proposal on the forum. The knowledge base is here.
  13. Just a quick reminder to those folks out there that thinks the NCC is an all powerful, password-to-get-in, secret handshake, ring, fez, and sash wearing organization. The NCC works at the pleasure of the President of IPMS/USA, plain and simple. Check the IPMS/USA Constitution by-laws. It's there in black and white. If the President asks the Chief Judge to implement GSB, open judging, 1,2,3,4,5, or a 1,2,3 system of judging, that is what will happen because creating the contest rules is the NCC's function. The NCC's support or not doesn't seal the fate of any proposal. Actually, it doesn't matter what the NCC thinks about it. If anyone refuses to do so (anyone), they know where the door is. Having said that, the E-board does rely on the NCC for advice concerning the contest. I don't mean to sound heavy handed in my description of the process. I'm just making a factual statement as clearly as I can. DAK, please check out Chattanooga's web site for a very insightful look at how well an open judging platform can work in great detail. Gil, I wish I was there to see the presentation you guys did. I stand behind my statement that working with the E-board is imperative to get anything changed. I lost count how many hours I spent with my survey crew getting that short little survey worded just right. We started (paraphrasing) out with a very rough draft that I put together. It then took some time to get all the exact wording that everyone in the group agreed on. It was then passed on the the Chief judge where he consulted with the NCC and made their edits to the description. It then went back to the survey crew where they abbreviated the NCC changes to keep everything in a consistent, abbreviated format, then the survey went to Ron Bell where he made some edits, it then came back to the survey crew again for final approval. Once I got the okay from the survey crew, it went back to Ron again and was sent to the E-board for their approval. THEN we finally got it back and we were ready to go. Yeah, all that for that little survey! 🤣 Pain in the rump? Maybe, and I still have to go the nationals next month to compile the forms and hand them over to the office manager. My opinion of all this? IPMS/USA is like a stalactite. Change doesn't come quickly, but done properly with the support of the E-board will produce results.
  14. I agree with Nick that it most likely won't happen. But without a survey taken say, every five years, how would we know just what the membership wants? It would be up to the E-board to decide what action would be taken. I.e. appoint or solicit a committee (or the NCC) to begin the process to create a potential open judging system. While that is being done, solicit proposals/ideas and discussion here from the membership. Chances are, ideas from all submissions could be collected into one solid, workable proposal. All the questions DAK proposes should be answered by any committee who submits a proposal. Attempting to answer them up-front without a complete proposal, would be virtually impossible. This process (proposal and implementation) will take years to complete with careful planning.
  15. THIS IS ONLY A SURVEY. Its only purpose is to find out which judging system the membership prefers and report our findings to the E-board. I want to publicly thank the E-board because they have supported this survey so well from day one. IF, IF, IF, it was decided by the E-board that IPMS/USA was going to change judging formats, that would only occur AFTER they determined the proposal was workable. If anyone out there wants to propose a medal system of judging, now is the time to start. Grab some folks who agree with you, put together a committee and get started. I WOULD SUGGEST working with the E-board though. If you can't sell them the proposal, you're wasting your time and I promise they will ask critical questions a proposal must answer. Moreover, any proposal doesn't have to be similar to past GSB events as Dave pointed out. If your proposal involves judging teams (or not) and non-numerical scoring (or not), and a different number of awards, so be it. The E-board is always open to new ideas, which is why I suggest working with them. Believe it or not, they want what's best for IPMS/USA and this survey provides information so they can make an informed decision. Everyone knows how fast rumors start and spread on the Internet. Put the proposal HERE on the Forum for transparency! Once the word gets out a proposal is in the works, transparency is your only defense against the rumor mill. Check out the number of views for the survey. You will see it has collected 3,503 views so far! That's by a healthy margin, the most views any subject has yet to collect. My point being, the ideas are here. The knowledgeable people who know our system are here. Most of the E-board is here. Not all suggestions are worth considering, but some sure will be. So the forum is the place to iron out any potential wrinkles before submitting a proposal. I promise you, IF, IF, IF, GSB wins the vote, someone out there will be putting together a proposal. Enough gassing on. I'll be at the nationals somewhere around the registration area with survey forms and copies of the survey for anyone not competing or somehow missed sending in your survey card. If you don't vote, your preference will never be known. I don't care what it is; VOTE! See you there. 😉
  16. Many people outside the society still have the notion that we are just aircraft modellers. Why this still persists after fifty odd years is anyone's guess! This misconception is due to ignorance of the organization or just plain discriminatory behavior by poor losers, pure and simple as explained previously.
  17. "Try staying on topic, Nick " Thank you DAK. 😀
  18. To vote on-line you have to officially vote on the IPMS/USA ballot. The survey is at the bottom of the ballot. I have yet to get my Journal yet, but I was told a card would be issue that you can mail in. FWIW.
  19. " Perhaps they are afraid to admit they indulge in a so called "childish" hobby. " When I hear remarks like that, I tell them what Flagship Models made last year and the argument ends quickly.
  20. Noel, IPMS/USA is what I consider a supply-and-demand organization where the contest is concerned. There are a lot of A/C categories because they are the most popular plain and simple. As an ex-head ship judge for the society, Nationals chairman, and ex-NCC member, I can tell you our categories are based on what shows up on a consistent basis. The head judges for each category have yearly records for numbers entered as well as the type of models. When I was a head judge, if there was a consistent and potential growing number of say, Martian aircraft carriers over a three year period, I would put in a request to the Chief Judge that a category or split be added to next year's contest to accommodate the increase in those models. If the request was granted by vote of the NCC, the category was added on a three year trial basis. This was done to insure that it wasn't a one time occurrence, and could be removed if numbers went down for three consecutive years. Under-attended categories also face removal by the same system. I realize this sounds like it would take some time to expand category numbers such as automotive, but that's the tried and true way IPMS/USA regulates its categories. Furthermore, the NCC must consider the cost to the host chapter when adding categories. Ideally, every category should have a sponsor which never happens; so the host chapter must foot the bill for un-sponsored categories from their profit margin. In short, "build it and they will come".
  21. I have enjoyed reading this post. Gil put it better than I ever could describing the overall devewlopment of the US and UK events. As long as display space is made available at the nats here in the US, we will see the development of the event grow to the betterment of the Society. I also believe the contest will develop naturally into a GSB or 123 event at the will of the participating membership's popular demand.
  22. IMHO, for the reasons you describe, too much or too little weathering shouldn't be a consideration when judging. The realism of the technique is what should be considered. If the modeler chooses a factory finish or rust dripping to the ground, what matters is how well (or not) it was done and how realistic (or not) the weathering looks.
  23. "...it's not perfect,... " You enjoyed building it, and that's what really matters. BTW, what's the purpose of the circular pattern on the rear of the canopy?
  24. EXCELLENT! I love this. I recall seeing many of these models in person, which is the only down side. Photos just don't do them justice.
×
×
  • Create New...