Nick Filippone

I am not sure where the “Ten Year Rule” came from ( Chairman Mao?), but if so we are all going to be either dead or senile, and it isn’t going to matter! Cheers. Nick

I refer you to National Contest Rules (2019) which should be considered the current contest rules unless or until the National Contest Committee makes any changes for next year. ( These are still on the IPMS Website home page.) Section III, No. 2, letter D is pretty explicit in that it states that improving the model by replacing parts would make the entry no longer eligible for an OOB category. Currently accepted exceptions are defined elsewhere under No. 2. Replacing parts that the builder feels are poorly molded or inaccurate is not one of the listed exceptions. As always, in grey areas, the judging staff has the final word. And, of course, keeping the playing field level, always, in the end, depends on the integrity of the modeler. If I may, I will let you in on a little secret of which you may not be aware. If you want to maximize your chances of winning in an OOB category and still obey the rules, pick a good kit and do a good job on it. Trying to resurrect a poorly molded lump of plastic by building it OOB and hoping to make a winner out of it in an OOB category is more work than it probably deserves. You may be such a good modeler that you can bring a 1970’s kit up to modern standards. But having done it, the result would not be OOB. Good luck. Regards, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

The rationale for rules such as these is, as always, to maintain as level a playing field as possible. Armor entries with a lot of figures may be perceived as being advantaged in the eyes of the judges over a model with few or no figures. Hence the limit. As Dak has suggested, the rules are plain and available for all to see. When competing at a level as high as the IPMS Nationals, it would behoove one to familiarize oneself with them before planning and building an entry. Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge.

May I add my congratulations to the Chattanooga team! A great show, great venue, and a vendor room that was almost too good. There was excellent organization and the entire staff was very friendly and helpful. The several choices for dining outside of the hotel were conveniently located with great food and service. Mark me down for the next time you host the Nationals. Thank you for all your effort. Nick Filippone

I was all set to buy a 2017 Rolls Royce Ghost from them but I spent all the money in the Vendor Room at Chattanooga! Now I’m walking. Nick Filippone

I found my error. So much for automatic fill-ins on my I pad. But the point is still made! But, I in the process of trying to figure out my mistake, I found an interesting fact about that quote. In fact, it was from a Letter to the Editor of The Daily Telegraph on 2 December, 1929 criticizing Prohibition in the U.S.! This thread isn’t ridiculous at all. We learned about Churchill’s attitude toward Prohibition. We also learned that I still can’t competently operate electronics communication devices. Oh! Damn! My ink well has gone dry! Nick

If it isn’t Churchill, who is it? When you google the quote, that is who comes up more than once! Educate me, please. Thanks. Nick

Dak, Since you did not put your last post in quotation marks, and did not cite the author, you have placed your self in the unenviable position of appearing to be plagiarizing Sir Winston Churchill. At least, that is what I would have been accused of by any professor of mine during my education. I will concede it is more likely to represent academic sloppiness on your part, and less likely to be intellectual dishonesty, but neither of those accusations is particularly desirable. I trust you judge with rather more care. Nick “ obtuse and sanctimonious “ (1)Filippone. (1) Kimberly, D; “ The PR Problem, “ IPMS Forum, 30July, 2019 See? That is how an educated person credits the intellectual property of someone else! Nick

Huh? Nick

Dak, By what confabulations do you get these notions? Where is your data? I have judged 35+ years and have never used preference for a particular subject to make a judging decision. Nor have I ever seen a judge do it- at any level. Such an idea insults conscientious judges. There is always another way to decide and good judges can always find it! I would be happy to give you a primer on good judging at the Nationals, if you are open to improving your judging skills. From your last posting, it sounds like you would benefit from it. Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

What exactly do you need the letters and numbers for? There are actually a lot of letter and number sheets available but the style or font, if you will, varies. RAF differs from U.S. for example. British aircraft civil codes have a different style than military. Nick Filippone '

Gil, I found your last post most enlightening and interesting. Your experience with your show reveals that such numbers of entries can be handled with open judging. More importantly, it shows we can do anything we set our minds to if we need to do it. And that brings us to Rusty’s equally sensible and relevant post- do we need to do it all? That is the first and most important question. Intelligent comments both. Nick

I can clearly articulate any idea I want, whenever I want and, while doing so, displaying a considerably better grasp of grammar, syntax, vocabulary and spelling than many of the people who post on this forum- present company excepted of course. I do not recall explaining cost matters. Please site the post, and I will stand corrected. What is “ the Single ward system?” There is nothing casual about this idea. It has been discussed ad nauseum for years on this forum. It has also been implemented at many local and regional shows for years. GSB is nothing new as a concept. I did not dream it up casually. Whether the membership wants to now extend it to the National is the question the survey will possibly answer. Nick

Rusty is right. The membership should be polled about every five years to assess any change in opinion. The details about how to implement such a change are moot unless or until we know we are mandated by membership consensus to do it. I have my ideas as many have had and have expressed on this Forum. But we need not bother ourselves with them until we know we have to. Nick

I am looking at this from a different angle. Now this is just a hypothetical situation I am sugggesting for the purpose of making a point: We have held a survey. Of c. 4000 members, 3500 members cast a ballot. Of that 3500, 3200 indicate that they want open judging at the Nationals - a clear and overwhelming majority of the membership. What would we do? Well, since this a democratic organization- you know, “By modelers, for modelers,” we would, as such an organization, be obligated to give the membership what it wants. We would have to do a lot of work, a lot of experimentation, trial and error, ( you know, like we did when we started out 50+ years ago at the first National) to give the dues paying members what they say they want! Now, personally, I do not think that will happen. And in some ways, I hope it does not because of all the work that would need to be done. But there is an important principle at issue here: if IPMS is a democratic organization, then the membership informs the leadership what kind of contest it wants, not the other way around. Power to the people, baby. Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge, President, IPMS Northeast New York