jcorley
-
Posts
1,548 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
62
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jcorley
-
-
7 hours ago, Eric Aitala said:
One is the IPMS/USA #, the other is the internal Wild Apricot number. Both can be said to be a valid IPMS/USA membership numbers.
Members with 'historic' IPMS numbers will get both
E
Thank you explaining it, Eric
-
16 minutes ago, Bert said:
Special entrant, special entry? Who and what might that be?
Maybe the guy in Missori that sued IPMS because he didn't win?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Highlander said:
My snide contribution is that an entrant arrives with an airplane, sees a table with airplanes, and places his airplane on it -- entry complete!
That's generous. I've found tanks on the airplane table.
-
1 hour ago, Scalemodeldoc said:
my IPMS number is 52392
So weird, here is what I see
-
6 hours ago, noelsmith said:
Is it not made clear to all contestants that their models are placed on the table entirely at their own risk and that IPMS although taking reasonable care will not be held responsible for any loss or damage howsoever caused.
Maybe a disclaimer needs to printed on the bottom of every form we use for the entrants to the contest, in red, in bold, in italics, maybe even in braille!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Bert said:
Although I don't build armor and have not judged any, I can't see why it was necessary holding the model over his head and shining a light on it. What is there to see? I don't get it.
Bad paint, glue spots, seams, etc. Anything could happen to the bottom of a model during building that can happen on every other surface. This gets back to the whole 'judge the entire model' argument.
Art Gerber said the main reason some guys put tanks in dioramas with mud up to the fenders was to hide flaws!
-
26 minutes ago, Scalemodeldoc said:
Careful moving for splits is clearly ok
during judging, only the team lead may lift a model, and this should be a rare event clearly required for judging
If there is to be a "DO NOT TOUCH" code enforced (as some want), there's a certain IPMS/UK rule need to also be implemented; If you put your model in the wrong it will not be judged.
If there is such a rule implemented, the second point I've shown would not be allowed. Moving models during judging was also said to be illegal, only moved before the judging would be allowed.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Scalemodeldoc said:
The photo was taken (I believe) initially as evidence to share up the chain of command in the room to get some re-education and reign in the team. This DID occur.
What re-education was needed? I was at the meeting (in the hall, no more room inside) and heard Mark specifically say we could pick up models. Your premise is wrong.
And what's up with the super large IPMS number? We should be in the mid 50,000s not way up at 60967005? I'm not blaming you for this, but did they adopt a new numbering system? Six Million plus? really?
-
If you didn't see it, they announced a decision further Social Media Manager. She certainly sounds qualified for the job. I just hope her mediation skills aren't overtaxed!
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, highflight said:
The Treasurer (who does an excellent job for the society, I might add), is appointed. That means 63% of the Board will not have been elected to the post they hold.
Does the EB not vote on this position anymore? I understand the original reason for this; I have been told we had financial issues partly brought on by a non-professional in the position.
-
Mr Cook is wrong about the '80% appointed EB'
Right now the only "appointed" member is Noack. Soon there will be 3 replacement officers, but even then it'll only be 37.5% (3/8) 'appointed
I think appointing past officers that volunteer to serve, myself included, is only fair to the Society. After all, we were selected by our peers before and none of us have done such a bad job that we were expelled from the society.
-
1
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, ghodges said:
I read the 2030 Vision for IPMS proposal with very mixed feelings. Overall, I have to say it is NOT a vision I can support.
The premise of "continuing to accept the current culture of fear and bullying" is something I cannot accept.
I don't think such a "culture" exists in IPMS/USA. Even reported instances of "fear and bullying" are fairly rare and totally subjective. An example I heard as RC last year was this:
One member made a series of proposals at his local club. The group discusses the proposal and voted it down. This happened more than once.
The reported bullying was totally subjective. Having ideas rejected by a group decision is not getting bullied, even though it may feel that way after it happens in a series of events.
Everybody feels bullied by somebody at some time. This is part of the human nature as individuals either assert their established dominance. We usually choose to apply this to animals, but forget we suffer the same fate. The older sibling dominates the younger thanks to size and experience as children. The younger usually feels bullied. Most people can grow past this to become "well adjusted adults" but some carry that grudge to the grave. This grudge often makes them insecure & oversensitive and they cry "bully" every chance they cam.
Other ways dominance plague society at large are dominance nice games related to territory, religion, resources or mating. One a large national scale we have drug lords fighting for dominence and the resultant widespread criminal activity. One a personal scale it leads to people fighting (even murdering) over any number of issues as they try to gain or maintain dominence over one other.
The basic form of dominance games IPMS deals with is our competition itself. Modelers enter their works in the hopes they can dominate their fellow society members. This used to be more genteel with the losers often grouping that the judges are either incompetent or just plain stupid for not seeing the excellence of their masterpiece. This still happens, only now they have a larger audience thanks to social media (itself being an arena for dominence games)
This doesn't create a "culture of bullying"
Everything else I disagree with this premise, flows from it.
-
14 minutes ago, Highlander said:
Which leads me to ask .... exactly who is the IPMS FB page for?
I think it was opened to everybody in the hopes they would join the page, and then the Society.
It hasn't worked out that way. I think only a small percentage of your 76% are the problem. IPMS got a reputation of being elitist after the 1978 Nationals and the "No model met National standards" fiasco. 45 years later, we still deal with the fallout of this.
-
If we purge people from the current group, the howls of outrage WILL be louder than it was this past year, so that's not a tenable solution.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, noelsmith said:
How can anyone really police an IPMS Facebook group or restrict access to it?
There are thousands of private pages on FB. These are hidden from public view.
It might be something to add for the leadership of the Society. With access limited to current and former members of the EB, NCC, RCs, Staff and Chapter Contacts. It would be a good clearing house for general topics of importance to the Society and allow the EB to get a variety of views for input before decisions are made.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:
With this, we, the experienced troop of National Team Leaders and Judges can support each other and fill in the knowledge gaps in operations if and when they appear.
Don't be too secure in that "experienced troop" bit. The San Marcos Show Report PDF showed that 111 (37%!!) of the judges this year had 1 or 2 years experience (1 year is OJT per the page), and only 90 judges (30%) had 10 years or more experience. It doesn't break down how many teams had more than 1 very junior judge on it, nor if any of these led a team. I know it wasn't true in Ships. Perhaps this high percentage accounts for some of the precieved "problems"
https://calendar.ipmsusa3.org/sites/default/files/article/ncc2023finalreport_0.pdf
If this percentage is repeated, Madison will likely suffer the same "slings and arrows" of social media.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:
In the face of this deepening crisis, especially the disappearing leadership at both the E Board and the NCC positions, then those remaining to manage IPMS/ USA must assume a caretaker role and concentrate on the one and only important task facing the Society this year: the planning and carrying out of the National Convention and Contest in Madison. Policing social media, rethinking how to judge any contest, how to award winners- now or in the future, challenging the freedom of expression rights of the Journal Editor, electronic journal vs. printed, cogitating on how competitive we should be, etc., etc., etc. are all, now, unimportant compared to Madison!
As a good friend of mine says - GAZACTLY!
And there should be a separation of IPMS members from everybody else on our FB page. It seems like the EB paid so much attention to the Never-IPMS crowd that they forgot "them what brung 'em to the dance"
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Highlander said:
The rising tide of taring and feathering, both on social media and in the context of internal IPMS activities, those with whom you disagree. And those who won't fall in line. While claiming to be on the side of the angels. This is coupled with a rise of an "us vs. them" posture in IPMS governance and communication. There seems to be a message that you are with the changes or you are against IPMS.
This phenomenon is merely a symptom of the rising tribalism seen in society in general. Social media is sewer of uncontrolled diatribes, rants and tantrums... it's not just IPMS.
-
1
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, highflight said:
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.
Minutes are not transcripts and are, by their very nature, are always heavily redacted.
Change is always a slow process. In 1999, I was appointed by Chuck Davenport to formacommitte to explore GSB. Not because I was a proponent, but because Chuck knew I had judged in several different systems and understood how each works. We had many meetings and discussions and were finally ready to present some findings. A seminar was scheduled in Phoenix in 2004. There were several then-members of the NCC that came in and shut down the meeting. They were not about to even allow others to discuss any possible changes to "their system"
Now, the membership is evenly split on the topic. So, two decades later change **might** be something to consider,but I'm not holding my breath.
-
1
-
-
Write down the rules and post them.
One announcement per day? Two?
Anything over that gets canned.
-
1
-
-
If you have access to a3d printer there is this one (under $30)
-
Dogs and Cats, Living together ... Mass Hysteria!!
-
1
-
-
A voluntary lottery where we enter our names here on this site using WA. Once the "winners" are chosen, via random draw (I will volunteer to administer this if need be) or a randomized spreadsheet using only the numbers (no names), WA sends an email to the winners and a list to the hotel. The members then have a week to confirm with the hotels. After a week, if only 140 of 150 have confirmed, the next 10 get notified, and so on.
Not on the list? No room until all the slots have been given out.
-
First full weekend of August, 6-9 is what I put in my phone during the bid session
More Resignations
in News and Announcements
Posted
Some guys, the ones Chris alluded to, need the ego boost. They need to feel like they win the dominence game, thus they cannot fail to compete.