Highlander

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. Hey, you opened the door.

Never seen a Churchill (?) done up quite like this. Like it. I'm working on several 1/56 Warlord tanks and I appreciate you posting these images.

Never seen a model on a red base. Would have never considered it, but it works here. You are a clean builder.

That is one clean build.

There is merit in that argument. There is also merit in the argument that sometimes you have to save yourself. To harken back to Vietnam, you can't save a village by destroying it. You can't change and improve IPMS by eliminating traditional processes and structures and driving off long serving volunteers and replacing them with ..... what?

In another post on another thread, I pointed out that the Law of Unintended Consequences can come back to bite you. I wondered about Unintended Consequences that might occur. Below is one of them Sadly, I was correct. IMO, the NCC absolutely did not intend or hope or plan for David Lockhart to resign. My read is that he is a good guy who drew a bronc he couldn't ride ... got paired up with the wrong EB. No shame in not lasting for eight seconds. Maybe the bronc is unrideable.

I had to think on this a while. The general concept has merit. If you've even glanced at the FB page, it is apparent that the administrators would have an increased workload in moving and/or deleting political posts. OTOH, if you banned 123 vs GSB posts, their workload would drop by half. OTOOH, it seems to me that the impact upon IPMS's image and the damage that uncontrolled political firestorms have caused might be severe enough that the EB should consider some such action. OTOOOH, the FB page seems to be a tool where some advocate certain agendas and rouse the mob to storm the Winter Palace* -- they might not support such an EB action. And speaking of the FB page, which I shamefully admit that I looked at again, a recent thread provides linkage to a podcast that continues to roil up the recent judging controversy -- and where one poster states that a former judge who defended himself is "...denying, obfuscating, and lying." Talk about kicking someone when they are down ... all for the greater good, of course. *I apologize, but just a little bit, on my references to the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik ascendancy which led to Leninist Russia and the Soviet Union That place and era was a study of mine and I see parallels in our current situation.

You aren't aware of the clause in the IPMS Constituion that, if you don't post about your opinion on 123 vs GSB at least 10 times a year, you'll be banned from IPMS? I don'l recall the number of the clause, but I know it's in there somewhere.

Hey, Scott (my elder son's name, and spelt correctly) come see me at a Nats. You'll regret it , but say "Hi" anyway.

it seems that the eternal topic of GSB vs !23 has magically reappeared anew, all over again, once more, afresh, one more time. It is indeed a noble topic, however I'd like to respond to Bert's comment that the motive to dismantle the former NCC is to introduce a GSB system. Since it was perceived that the former NCC opposed that, it had to go. I offer that the former NCC did not fall on its collective sword because it opposed a GSB judging structure. It rode off into the sunset because of (1) the methods that were being used to discredit it, (2) overt animosity from some, and (3) the movement and consolidation of all Contest related decision making with the EB or some committee created by the EB. Item 3 is the important one. It ignores the necessity of continuity, combined with a degree of autonomy, to prepare for, coordinate, and conduct the Contest. To have a successful National Contest, there had to be continuity in people, processes, knowledge, collective experience, dedication, and working relationships. Two years of continuity is not enough. Please note that I did not say that continuity equaled static and unchanging; it meant a relatively smooth path from Contest to Contest to Contest. The former NCC actually had to pull off a credible Contest ... on a specific Friday night. On that Friday night, it couldn't postpone, couldn't revise rules and processes and standards, couldn't reorganize, couldn't shift responsibility, couldn't finally start to move entries into the proper categories and begin to think about splits, couldn't begin to coordinate details with the Host Chapter, and couldn't decide that it just didn't want to have a Contest that night. It had to be off with the starter's gun and had to perform adequately from the start of the Judge's Briefing on Friday afternoon to the final certified results being handed over to the Host Chapter on Saturday morning, The former NCC faced about 10 hours of intense, tiring, focused, hectic activity full of mini-crises, unexpected twists and turns, and the organization and management of a horde of volunteer judges who ranged in attitude from fully on board to bored and figuratively or literally absent. The former NCC Judges had to make on the spot decision after decision after decision. To pull off the marvel of a successful Contest each year for 50 years, the former NCC had developed and used a continuous thread of knowledge, experience, refinement, change, and personal relationships. Any member who wanted to judge was welcome ... and encouraged. Any judge who wanted to learn and become better could create a track record of competent judging and be a candidate for team lead and then check judge. And, after years of notable and reliable performance, that judge could become a candidate for a Head Judge position. These weren't guys off the street. These guys were volunteers who sacrificed a lot of enjoyment at Nats to serve IPMS. They also put in a lot of hours between the end of one Contest and the beginning of the next. Note that I have not said the the former NCC was perfect. Nor that it conducted perfect judging. Nor that all of its member were spotless. But it managed to address its problems and crises, some more smoothly than others, for 50 years. Relations with some EBs were better than with others. Poor judges were trained or asked to leave; unethical judges were banned -- the actions just weren't put up in photos or spread over the interweb. The former NCC managed to make changes and handle criticism ... if not as fast and as responsive as some demanded. If things had played out differently, one of the changes that the former NCC might have made, in cooperation and coordination with an EB, was conversion from 123 to GSB. We'll never know. But things change. It was made abundantly clear to the former NCC that it worked for the EB, that all National Contest decisions were to be referred to the EB, and that the former NCC was to do as it was directed. The tools of cooperation and compromise and goodwill were removed from the toolbox. Things like continuity and experience and relationships were now irrelevant. The 50 year run is over. The continuity is gone. The personal relationships are in tatters. The former NCC is gone and a new, improved NCC will rise from the ashes. Its relationship to the EB will be significantly different. We'll all find out what that means for the National contest. The reason the former NCC had to go was, paradoxically, its continuity and experience and relationships. They did not fit into the brave new world. Look up the Romanoffs. Or, better, the Old Bolsheviks. As we have been informed and as was pointed it out some years ago, but presented in a Celtic punk idiom. After all, if 'tis nae Scots, 'tis crap:

As of this moment, I'd like to present my view of where IPMS now stands in relation to the upcoming National Contest. IMHO, the Law of Unintended Consequences is in full swing. 1. There is no NCC. The combination of resignations, possible future resignations,, statements made that the remaining incumbents will have to compete for their former positions, and the ongoing process to create a committee to oversee and direct the future NCC have resulted in a title without content ... the word NCC is being used for a body that has no members, no charter, no operating procedures, no scheduled activities or products, and no capacity to plan or execute a National Contest. 2. The resigning and deposed former NCC members, who have the corporate memory and experience to pull off a National Contest, have been alienated and will not return. Their collective experience and network of working relationships are gone. They will not be replaced by judges who are immediately equally knowledgeable and competent. 3. The future NCC will have no experience in data gathering, analysis, preparation, and reporting, particuiarly under the time constraints of Friday night. It might not have the tools used by the former NCC. 4. The clock is now the enemy of the upcoming National Contest. The former NCC would have already been into the planning process. It would have been incorporating and educating new head judges, addressing categories, reviewing and revising rules, incorporating lessons learned from the prior Contest, finalizing issues that came out of the previous Contest, and coordinating with the host chapter and EB. None of this is happening and there are no resources identified or scheduled to do so. 5. The former NCC has been tarred and feathered with blame for any imperfections in the recent National Contest. In particular, its members have been labeled unethical and castigated in social media -- with no distinction between any of the former NCC's members. And with silence from the EB. The result has been a loss of confidence by the general IPMS membership in the NCC, its members, policies, processes, and judging results. That's my read on the current status. The future is more important, so let me ponder Unintended Consequences we might experience: 1. It will take more time to create the new NCC than anticipated. The documents governing it and the National Contest will (1) be slightly modified copies of the current documents, (2) be delivered late in the Contest preparation timeline, and (3) have content which will be confusing, create additional issues, and result in criticism similar to that aimed at the former NCC. Key language will be aspirational, not operational. Recruiting and placing Head Judges will take longer than anticipated. 2. The Host Chapter will be impacted by late delivery of the rules and categories required to prepare for the Contest. 3. The process by which the EB will interact with, direct, and manage the new NCC will range from dysfunctional to unwieldy to unworkable. The result will be a new NCC that acts in much the same way as the former NCC. Making decisions when it can't delay any longer. 4. Gathering and analyzing and reporting Contest results will range from poor and late to a disaster. 5. There will be several incidents involved in moving models. Incidents might include models which were not judged because they were not moved, models that were not appropriately judged because they were not moved, judges refusing to touch models that ought to be moved, confusion over the rules for moving and not moving models, constant running to various head judges for permission to move models, and conniption fits by entrants who learn that their model was moved. The Moving Models Police will intervene, causing further issues. Or the Police will ignore the movement in the interest of getting through the night. 6. Based upon current complaints about judges' conduct influencing results, there will be other complaints about the same. 7. After kicking the reform can down the street from San Marcos to Madison, there will be consideration of kicking the can further down the road to Virginia Beach. 8. Friday night will be somewhat confused, more than usually inefficient, noticeably disorganized, and frustrating for most. Because Madison will be judged by the new, inexperienced NCC. 9. There will be increasing appeals for members of the former NCC to "help out for the good of the organization". The appeals will claim that, unless the help is proffered, Madison will be the victim and the former NCC will be the reason. "Just this one time" might be an element of the appeal -- for the second time. Such appeals are already underway. 10. Any blame for negative experiences will be laid at the feet of the former NCC.

I wouldn't use the word "stupidity", but both?

As a former military logistics planner, I salute you. Good planning. Good contingencies. Good awareness. Good communication.

Just got off Facebook. My initial reaction was to post there. But i decided that I've simply had enough. Naive as I may be, i was, and after all I've already heard, surprised and dismayed by the vitriol aimed at the former NCC. Simple nastiness. By those who know little to nothing about the issues at hand. However, the interweb and all. I contemplated the myriad of suggestions about improvements and changes and training and certification and procedures and rejudging, some of which contradict others, that are now on the table. Nowhere did I see a suggestion about who was going to accomplish all of them. Or any of them. Or one of them. Could be the professional judges, as one poster suggested. Or the EB. Or other, this time, ethical volunteers. But one thread, I intuited, permeated all of the suggestions .... somebody else will need to do it. Time to saddle up and head into the sunset. All of us old guys and unethical volunteers and stubborn elitists and enemies of the people. Oh, and, believe it or not, the NCC has nothing to do with the distance between contest room tables. Or the weather. Addendum: I went back to Facebook. Because I'm a masochist. In the various derogatory and demeaning posts, I found two of particular interest. One asserted that those who deny wrongdoing are demonstrating their culpability. Thus the former NCC is guilty. Another stated, in essence. that failure to speak up to deny wrongdoing demonstrates culpability. Thus the former NCC is guilty. Two points. First, it's all my fault. Cause I went back to Facebook. Second, Orwell was right. He pointed out that ... “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” And, Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

Not at all. One of the most, of many, frustrating issues in this the latest, and most serious, scandal is the lack of knowledge among the general IPMS membership and others of the former NCC's scope and depth of work in preparing and conducting the annual contest. And the efforts the former NCC made to invite and include the EB and, in some cases, the host chapter ... in its deliberations and decisions. I offer that if you don't show up for a meeting, it is disingenuous to complain that the deliberations were not transparent. One example, of several, was the attendance for the annual NCC public meeting held, usually, on the Saturday afternoon of a Nats. The agenda included both old and new business. The entire NCC was present to respond the attendees questions and suggestions. Items were recorded for further action. Attendance was sparse. Against this background, I have heard multiple complaints about the inaccessibility of the the NCC to IPMS members. In some cases, when informed that the annual public meeting was open to all for direct interaction, the response was that the complainant had other, more attractive things to do. Note that I said "former NCC". Because the NCC of the past no longer exists and its replacement has not been created. I think we can all look to those who demolished the NCC and the way it conducted the annual contest over 50 years to deliver a new, improved, nearly perfect, completely transparent, smoothly conducted contest that will please everybody. It will be a blessed relief for some of us to attend Nats to enjoy ourselves. And not be vilified for being imperfect during our hours and hours of volunteer work each Nats and for contributing years and years of service to IPMS. Addendum: "....by all accounts." So every account of the NCC confirmed that it had no oversight? Accounts by whom? When? In what forums? Because that's not what happened if you were sitting on the NCC. That allegation feels like a strawman used to justify the purge and elimination of the former NCC.

I see you chose wisely in selecting a Marine subject.

Or scratchbuilt? If you live outside the USA, coming to a National Convention might be fun.

If you haven't taken them to a Nats, I suggest considering it. Perhaps the Miscellaneous category?

Great advice from Gil on the decals ... I'm amazed that they are the originals. For a 1984 kit it is an incredible build. Kudos.

Freakin' impressive.

Wow. In a good way.

Nice little vignette.

That is a busy paint job ... an unusual approach. But a good result.

Spot on. Though he looks a it out of scale in the aircraft photo. Perhaps a review of parallax?

That kit has always been a POS. You've done a remarkable job.