Highlander
-
Posts
682 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Highlander
-
-
Extremely well done. Given the sculpt, the hair is convincing.
-
Several reactions to Mr. Cook's attached post:
1. This is mild, even polite, when compared to many other posts on the FB page.
2. I have read multiple posts in which the poster asserts that they have paid dues and that, therefore, IPMS owes them whatever it is that they think IPMS owes them. "Dues paying member" is usually cited as their particular status. I offer that IPMS owes them exactly what it owes all other PMS members. I won't go over everything, but it seems that IPMS members are principally owed the Journal and the ability to attend the Nats. I don't know that they are owed tit-for-tat interaction with an officer or judge or another member.
3. I have noticed that, in addition to being annoying (a word chosen rather than others I considered), on social media, there are those who demand that you engage with them. It goes like this: I make some nasty assertion or characterization or demand, nobody responds (the ultimate put down), and I go bonkers and demand that whomever I demeaned must respond so I can demean them again.
4. Another strain in this, and other, grievances is that IPMS stuff costs money. Whatever the amount of money, the complaint is that it is too much. A complaint I have heard many times is that Nats vendors should be required to offer significant discounts because it costs a lot of money to attend the Nats. Some vendors are selling something I want at, horrors!, MSRP. After all, I spend too much money to attend, so I entitled to a subsidy.
HST, I am again pondering who IPMS is beholden to. Does IPMS exist for IPMS members? Or does IPMS exist for anybody who has ever built, is building, or may build a model? I am reminded of an IPMS chapter of which I was once a member. It was routine for one non-member (because the general meetings were open) to show up and try to sell various items to the attendees. I complained. I was told that someone might sometime for some reason want to buy something he was offering, so the seller was of value to the chapter. I concluded that one mission of that chapter was to provide IPMS customers to any vendor from off the street.
So, again, what is the purpose of the IPMS FB page? To serve current IPMS members or to serve anybody who wants to be served?
-
4
-
-
As I look through the FB page, I note that the greatest portion seems to be various builds, final model products, and model research. I wonder how much of that is posted by IPMS members and how much is posted by non-members who want to show off their efforts. Over time, I've observed that, if you build a place that the general public can take advantage of, they will come.
It is great, I think, that lots of folks are in the hobby. I just don't know if it is one of the missions on IPMS to provide non-members a place for show and tell. After all, such folks could join and compete and attend contests and participate fully.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, CaptainAhab said:
... but there seems to be a group that thinks it’s a super urgent emergency and trashing everything and everybody who they perceive as in their way is OK
...listening to members, not Facebook drama...
To the first point, I agree. Ir does seem that way.
To the second, I think listening to members through IPMS channels ... not podcasts and other social media .. is important.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, jcorley said:
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.
So, if we purge non-IPMS members from an IPMS FB page, we are concerned about their disapproval of an IPMS action? And, where will they howl if they can no longer howl on the FB page and the IPMS Forum?
I ask again. Exactly who is the IPMS FB page for? I mean that seriously. Is it for the world at large (one extreme) or for IPMS members only (the other extreme) or something in between?
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Eric Aitala said:
There are currently 14000 members on the FB Group. ...
Hmmm.
14,000 members on the FB group. 4,600 members in IPMS ... per the IPMS website. Which means, at the least, 9,400 FB page members are not IPMS members .. thus, at least 67% of the FB page members are not IPMS members. It gets more interesting.
Not all of the 4.6K IPMS members are FB page members. I don't know how many. Which means that more than 9.4K FB page members are not IPMS members.
If we do the normal statistical estimate, we assume that half of the IPMS members are not FB page members. Which, if close, would mean that 10,700 FB page members are not IPMS members ... 76%.
Thus we can estimate, for planning purposes in the absence of hard data, that somewhere between 2/3 to 3/4 of the FB page members are not IPMS members.
This little exercise gives me insight into the many complaints by IPMS members about non-IPMS members active on the FB page -- voicing their opinions on IPMS matters and, by some, spreading vitriol in an IPMS space.
Which leads me to ask .... exactly who is the IPMS FB page for?
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
I am a rare one who followed the rules and got a Hilton room. I calculate that I must have been the last or next to. There were clearly hundreds who followed the rules, but did not get a room. However, now, a conundrum presents itself.
If the Hilton is the location wherein various scofflaws, malefactors, bad actors, and such shall reside ... do I want to be associated with them? It is true that some who have reserved IPMS block rooms are key participants in the Nats and were vetted early into the room block. And it is true that some (well, a few) got lucky in getting one of the few rooms left after the miscreants had poached rooms in violation of the well advertised rules. However, it is also true that many IPMS Hilton block rooms will be occupied by reprobates who obtained their room duplicitously.
So ... while at the Nats ... if I am asked where I am staying, I would be hesitant in saying, "The Hilton". If my questioner know that I am not a Nats key participant they might conclude that I obtained my room underhandedly. It would not be unreasonable for them to come to that conclusion. After all this hoopla, I know that I will look askance at Hilton residing attendees ... especially if I see them hiding a luggage cart in their room. I ask myself whether I want to become suspect merely by staying in the Hilton.
It might be best to enter the Embassy Suites lottery. Assuming that even more reprehensibles do not find a way to scam themselves into that room block, I might luck out, get an ES room, cancel my Hilton room, and reside amongst the pure of heart.
It's a thought.
And, yes, I like playing with words.
-
57 minutes ago, jcorley said:
There are thousands of private pages on FB. These are hidden from public view.
...
I believe, but am not sure, that a FB moderator can remove members from a page. If I am correct, the page moderator, with a list of current IPMS members, could remove access to all not on that list.
-
It is common for non-IPMS members of a local club to join IPMS if they wish to attend a National Convention that is (relatively speaking) nearby. They pay for a one-year membership, attend the Nats, and then let the membership expire.
It is also common for local and regional IPMS contests to allow non-IPMS participants. Such participants may be charged a dollar or two more than IPMS members. The local/Regional could not pass fiscal muster without allowing anybody who wants to pay an entry fee to participate.
-
1
-
-
Sometimes it helps, I think, to step back and try to discern a big picture ... seeing the broad currents that are moving the IPMS boat. IMO, the big picture forecasts a period of both ongoing and near-term uncertainty and difficulty for IPMS. The currents, as I see them, are:
1. The ongoing disintegration of both the IPMS E-Board and NCC (if there still is one). With the many resignations associated with social media and internal IPMS snarking, it seems that the IPMS powers that be are resolutely hoping for the best while not actually preparing for the worst.
2. There is an ongoing revolution within IPMS to change the character of the National Contest and the NCC, the conduct of the National Convention, the operations of local chapters, internal decision making, punitive mechanisms for dealing with members deemed problematic, and moving out those who are seen as the old boys. Like most revolutions, actions are taken and the consequences reveal themselves later.
3. 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.
I may be detecting signs of calls for help as the scope and depth of the consequences reveal themselves. But I may be wrong.
-
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Hey, you opened the door.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, Chris Bucholtz said:
...I don't believe you can save something by removing yourself from it.
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?
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, RainingOil said:
I think this is what the NCC expected people to do when they announced they were resigning.
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
Quote10. Any blame for negative experiences will be laid at the feet of the former NCC.
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.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, ghodges said:
... make the IPMS FB NON-POLITICAL ... ! Any non model building post is ... deleted ... immediately with instructions that ALL IPMSUSA political debate be sent HERE.
HERE, ... the politics should be moved ... to the THIRD, MEMBERS ONLY AREA .... This will insure that ONLY members are in on these discussions.
...
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, ShutterAce said:
I don't know why we are back to 123 vs GSB ...
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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:
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Bert said:
Was it just stupidity with the eboard's decision making, or do they have a specific agenda? Does anyone really know?
I wouldn't use the word "stupidity", but both?
-
2
-
-
As a former military logistics planner, I salute you. Good planning. Good contingencies. Good awareness. Good communication.
Magua
in Figures
Posted
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.