Highlander

I doff my hat to you, Sir. Game, set, match. You have done the Corps proud. Well done. Oh, well done.

Sounds like reasonable reasoning. Are you a forensic accountant? Of course, it leads to other questions. Why would one call a membership system "consulting"? And, is $54K a reasonable price for a membership system? An answer, I'm sure, is forthcoming.

Dropping back in. No answer? Gil, as I stated, "Consulting" is not defined. Rather than leaping to assumptions and speculations, I am willing to wait for a comprehensive and clarifying answer. Your expansion of my question, however, is interesting. My idle interest was piqued when I saw that the consulting was 1/7 of IPMS's 2023 expenses. It was also about 9% (or 1 in 11 dollars) of the 2022 expenses. The expense burden for 2022 seems disproportionate; for 2023 -- well, it catches one's attention. Hmmm, cause this is the way my mind works, the combined expenditure for consulting for 2022/23 was $82,352.00. At this point, I would like to expand my question to include the year 2022. If I am not completely off base, I think the answer might be of interest to the general membership.

Checking back for an answer. Just because I do stuff like this, I went to the trash (literally) and recovered my Imperial Union of Jurisprudence (IUJ) publication. And: $54,688.00 (Consulting)/$388,995.52(Total Expenditures)=14.06%[rounded] (Percentage of total expenditures for consulting). Roughly one in every seven dollars of expenditure went to consulting. $54,688.00 (Consulting)/$392,236.23 (Total Revenue)=13.94% [rounded] (Percentage of total revenue that was allocated to consulting). Again, roughly one in seven dollars of revenue went out again for consulting. To give the devil his due, consulting is not defined. It could be a number of things or a combination of a number of things; we don't know. But I am eager to learn. An anecdote. Many years ago, whilst in the military, two of us idiot Captains were approached for help by the senior nurse in the Base Hospital -- a Lt Col. As an additional duty, she was the head of the board that "managed" the Officer's Club. In that position, she received periodic financial statements that she could not understand; nor could she obtain reasonable answers to her financial questions. She decided to ask two junior officers, who worked for the Group Comptroller, to analyze the statements to see if they made sense. We did. And deduced that the Club's Dining Room was being subsidized by the Club Bar, in violation of various regulations and procedures. In short, in order to keep the Dining Room, which was losing money, open, the accounting service combined Dining Room losses with the Bar's hefty profits -- showing a wash. Armed with our analysis and a suggested list of questions, the Lt Col revealed all at the next Officer's Club Board Meeting. When asked where her questions came from, the Lt Col gave us full credit. We two enterprising Captains received a call the next morning from the Group Deputy Commander to report posthaste to his office. Not being given the opportunity to speak, we listened while the Colonel explained, in soft and understanding language, that our jobs were not to analyze the Officer's Club financial statements. He tutored us on the importance of having dining at the Officer's Club and indicated that the methods used to provide that dining were not something we should be involved in. We were then encouraged to return to our duties and perform them well. So ... I am a bit loathe to get involved in analyzing financial statements these many years later. But then, I not longer must respond to various Colonels.

The neural connection it engendered may be entirely appropriate.

In the most recent Journal, or whatever it is called, consulting expenses for 2023 were $54,688.00. $54,688.00? Absent a convincing explanation, I wonder how that is possible. For actual consulting. I must also ask why IPMS needs consultants. And who they are. And what they did. I will check in from time to time for the answer.

Got my issue. Wish I hadn't. In ambient light, largely reflected sunlight, aided by a desk lamp, the text is unreadable without extra effort. I tossed it. All water under the bridge.

Didn't spot a date. Could have missed it.

In light of the refreshing candor and added information above, the thread asking when the next Journal will appear grows more interesting.

... and so on. Well explained. Thank you.

I concur. But not for the moderation reason ... although that is an issue. Facebook provides a great place for non-IPMS members to post photos of their various builds. And to learn a bit about IPMS. IPMS members have the forums to showcase their efforts -- though most don't. FB is convenient, and familiar, and easy ... so it seems to have become the default. FB is not the place for IPMS to air its dirty laundry ... or slightly soiled laundry ... or even pristine laundry. However, once FB is open to the general public, there is no way to control who posts what .. even with moderators trying (if they do) keep up with it all. It has been suggested by others, but if the FB IPMS Group was limited to IPMS members, it would make a lot more sense to me.

I don't want to get involved with the latest in this, the trail of IPMS turmoil. However, it seems to continue a series of events that have marked IPMS governance over the last several years. Bear with me. IPMS depends upon volunteers. That statement is obvious, but, it seems, not really understood. Because, no matter how noble the goal or counterproductive the edict or critical the event, there have always been good, solid IPMS members who stand up and fill in and keep the creaky vessel that is IPMS afloat. A prime example was the coup that decapitated the NCC ... somehow folks stepped up and the show went on. I offer that the litmus test for whether IPMS is successful ... or not ... is whether the Nats (with the all important Contest) come off and whether the bulk of the members attending are satisfied. IMNSHO, IPMS is graded annually. If the Nats are OK, IPMS passes. And, speaking of volunteers, it always seems that some chapter somewhere decides to bid on hosting the Nats, wins the bid, and the future of IPMS is secure for one more year. The current Journal contretemps seems a bit different. The Journal is not an annual hurdle ... it is a bi-monthly marathon. It is not one and done; it is continuous. Where is the good-hearted volunteer willing to step up and take on that onerous baggage? Where is the volunteer with the skills and experience and track record to take over the Journal -- a truly professional publication? We'll find out. My experience in IPMS and other volunteer organizations (some a good deal bigger than IPMS) is that there is an infinite supply of members seeking positions where they can tell the core volunteers what to do. And how to do it. And how to change the way it is being done. You know, for the good of the organization. The result? It is not uncommon for those volunteers actually doing the work to play their only available card -- "I quit". Seems like there has been a good deal of "I quit" in IPMS recently.

Thank you.

The contest results and photos are surely posted somewhere, but I can find them Does anybody have a link?

But they are not. Willing...that is.

Even mo' later: In the other Con, cited above, I note that one who got a block room admitted to calling in early ... and recommended others do the same. I responded with a sarcastic - "That's one way to beat the system". The shameless reprobate actually responded with a -- "Thank you." They took it as a compliment! And, in another post, the poster provides information about their medical issues, the associated costs, and the need for a block room because it would save her money. And, in yet another event -- a chess tournament, one complainer states that transport should be provided from his room to the playing venue, in the same facility, because of a mobility issue. I conclude, from the room block chicanery across two Cons and a tournament, that people will do what it takes and demand whatever they can get ... without shame or embarrassment. After all, they got theirs. And want more. I feel a good more sympathy for the Con organizers.

Just today, at high noon, went through a similar stampede with a room block being released by another Hilton property for a different Con. The room block of 100 rooms sold out in less than a minute. Those who did not get rooms experienced a myriad of issues with the website and with getting access to the link provided by the Con ... and, frankly, in believing that they had the leisure to try to get a room at 12:02 or :03 or :04 or later. There was a major difference. Absolutely no rooms in the room block were assigned before the Con organizers personally sent out the reservation link. At exactly high noon. The hotel front desk staff was unable to reserve rooms because the hotel staff did not have access to the room block. From the jillions of posts that are still flying about, a number of folks overtly admitted to trying to weasel their way in early and were peeved because the front desk informed them that they did not have access to the reserved room block. Not that it matters now for our Nats, but Hilton does have the mechanisms to keep room blocks intact before they are released. The issue could well have been the arrangements (i.e., software locks) that were not used for room block control. It interesting to note that claims, valid or not, of disabilities are now appearing. In short, "I'm disabled so you have to put me in the Con hotel". Even, "I'm attending with a disabled person, so you have to put us in the Con hotel." The organizers responded to the first claim of being disabled and announced that they were working to get that person a room at the Con rate. I wonder if they have opened Pandora's Box. Later: And another disability appeal. "I need a room at (the Con hotel)...." By one who admitted to attending without disability in the past. Even later: So now I eat crow. With the other Con, cited above, the Con organizers proclaimed that no room block rooms would be available until the very minute or release. However, folks are now bragging about calling in early on the morning that the Con room were released and getting a block room. And posting about their special need to be in the Con hotel .. like I'm bringing my child and therefore have to be in the Con hotel because it is convenient for us. And then recommending that route to others. For the special people, that is. I wonder how many of the 100 rooms were gone -- thus resulting in the remainder being sold out within a minute. The lesson being taught is to do whatever you can to grab a room in the room black and damn the rules and those that follow them. Ah, modern Americans. And, modern Boomers.

Çok, çok güzel, efendim. Umarım daha fazlasını görürüz. I never could conjugate Turkish verbs. I lived on the Marmara Denizi many years ago, not very far from Gölcük I miss Turkish food and çay. Please let us see your diorama as you continue to build it.

More "Wow"s.

Lots of "Wow"s. You gotta enter this at Nats.

Scratch? Wow. Really impressive.

Really nice. I agree with your read of the wash; I'll keep it in my stolen experience tool kit.

Don't know how well done the figure is as the photos' lighting is superb. I suspect the painting had to be really good for the photos to turn out so well.

Extremely well done. Given the sculpt, the hair is convincing.

Mr Bell: With an imperfect memory, I believe I read it in a post by the Madison Nats Chairman .... as he was explaining the circumstances for the annual rooms fiasco. Again with an imperfect memory, I recall that the room block was about 200 rooms and that about 20 were reserved for the Nats staff and various other potentates. I don't recall now many rooms were purloined before the room block was released ... or even if it was possible to determine how many.