Scalemodeldoc

Do you have a copy of the old constitution / bylaws that delineated the organization and reporting of the NCC and its components in the way you describe? I just ask as I haven't seen it explained so succinctly. The bylaws I saw basically said "the NCC makes the contest rules" and else "committees serve at the pleasure of the president". Pretty soft on details, lines of communication, veto power, committee size/structure, turnover... all those crucial details where the devil lives. Still my reading was the president had rather unambigous power (as distasteful as some felt that to be). From a relative neophyte, it felt like the eBoard was a combined legislative/executive branch that was voted in / out by membership, and the NCC was a supreme court who'd been appointed to life some decades ago, and did their own thing. One must admit, there are advantages to long tenures and institutional knowledge, but also a clear disconnect from the "membership at large" when any group is well isolated from elections and other public facing engagement. My own opinion is that this STRUCTURE drove a lot more of the "anger" from membership than the actual people or content involved. Classic us versus them psychology. Not saying all NCC members need to be voted into their positions on an annual basis, just that MORE communication / engagement improves things, from my viewpoint. I did see an updated ruleset posted for this year's contest, and some of the clarifications are excellent... exactly the sort of thing that keeps IPMS moving forward.

I frequently see this false allegation that GSB is some type of easier, or participation-based award. You could use GSB and make the difficulty-to-place so high that LESS awards are given out at Nats than currently are given. I think it is a philosophically / mathematically more fair approach. My own personal issues with I/2/3 aren't really derived around winning/losing, more: (1) Categories in Armor had as few as 3 and as many as 40+ entries in the past few years. 1/2/3 is a VERY different competition when categories are of very different sizes. GSB lets you avoid giving awards just for participating in a niche split, and if 40 people do enter a category and truly bring a half dozen amazing models, each could get the recognition they deserve. (2) A lot of people play the game of making models to fit a wife variety of categories, to maximize chance of grabbing an award. I would rather people bring their 3 best builds of the year; if they all happen to be WW2 Axis armor, so be it, they could (theoretically) get a Gold and two Silvers, instead of having just one model really "count". Neither of these are deal breakers, and I still participate in the current Nats 1/2/3 format. From a judging perspective, I dislike giving 1/2/3 to a category of 10 entries where, honestly, only one was of "national award winning caliber", and then go judge a second category of 10 entries where 5 are truly epic-level amazing, nearly-flawless. I'd rather award each entry on its merits. Just a philosophical thing. I do enjoy the reportedly "American" winning-based awards, so I personally would do a modified GSB where all the Golds within a category are looked at and a WINNER is also declared. Keeps both sides happy. Granted, I envision much larger categories where this WINNER award would be very very meaningful, eg armor might have such broad categories as "WW1", "WW2 axis", "WW2 allied", "Cold War US/NATO" Like Michael mentions above, I think the related "feedback" topic, which perhaps comes more naturally if you are looking at each model for G/S/B, may improve the average participants' reaction to the Nats. Clearly there isn't time for judges to pen an essay on each model, but the use of a scoring rubric or even writing down a couple "deductions" on each entry form would be valuable (IMHO). I've spoken to a LOT more people curious why one model of theirs did well, and others did nothing, than I've spoken to people actually being sore losers.

I did not join up at Nats. Joined through the usual online process. 🤷‍♂️

my IPMS number is 52392 i think I had one as a kid but had a good 15-20 year hiatus so this is the new one I do tire of the excuses “well that is a valid point, but unless it is brought up at the annual in person NCC meeting at 10:15am with this form in triplicate…”. Smacks of gate keeping. Step back and forget the current rules. in a utopian ideal contest, do we want judges barehanding models over their head with a flash light? I say no. The perception of IPMS is important, and the way the society responds to criticism IS important. A graceful response to this situation would be easy and a compromise that makes 99% of people happy would also be easy. regarding splits and putting models in the wrong category (I must have found open-top German WW2 scout cars in 5 damned categories this year! 😂) my own personal opinion would be to move to GSB and thus eliminate the need for so MANY categories. Simple groups like 1:35 Allied WW2. these groups would be big, but also cool. Still award the winners out of the group, so it’s GSB + big winner award. Obviously this a separate discussion and a big change, but the oddball categories, constant splits, moving models and numeric differences (categories of 5 versus 40 in armor) are significant disadvantages of 123 that pester me a bit.

Pat, if the judges were using the methods and technique as you describe, there would be no controversy! Careful moving for splits is clearly ok As you say: “On judging night there are gloves available should a model have to be handled and usually it is the team leader that handles the model ONLY, if necessary, and rarely” Thing is, without the picture, I heard over and over that IPMS judging is perfect and models are always handled in an optimal manner. My own eyes, and digital photography, have demonstrated we actually have opportunities for improvement on this front… I’ve seen judges lift models, tip them over, and cause figures to fall out. We can do better. What blows my mine is that it is apparently so difficult to come to the rational conclusion that this isn’t a vast conspiracy by a shadowy array of guerilla forces, but just a goof that can easily be rectified with some written guidelines and education, basically what you already wrote! -Splits will be done at head judges discretion, preferably in a closed room or with teams to minimize risk -If a model must be touched, gloves must be worn -during judging, gently sliding models on the table to allow better viewing is allowable, but should be done with best care (i love the idea of small slideable discs to place models on, allowing easy movement) -during judging, only the team lead may lift a model, and this should be a rare event clearly required for judging There is a way to do this that recognizes the pragmatic reality of judging and also respects the safety desires of model makers.

I was present for the taking of the photo. I might have taken it myself if I was faster at the draw with my iPhone. An experienced judge (not a blogger) took the photo. it was not an isolated single tank lifted and tilted with bare fingers. that judging group was lifting most entries, multiple over their heads, and tilting tanks placed on bases (with notes that said “careful not attached”) way off parallel to the point they were sliding on their bases. They were using iPhone flash lights (the room had good lighting). 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. one can argue the judge did nothing wrong, but having judged multiple Nats and other shows, and having first hand watched them lift things with my own eyes, it would NOT be my preferred method for moving and inspecting models. At least wear a glove. later, someone aside from the taker of the photo leaked the photo in response to general online discussion of the large number of broken models this year, and the back and forth discussion of “the judges are perfectly careful you can’t be any more careful” Vs “want a picture of a judge bare fingering a tank over his head?” it, as things do, blew up. my own opinion is it is too bad the judges face was visible as it’s not personally about HIM (or at least shouldn’t be!) it’s more a debate on the preferred ways we should systemically hand move and judge models within IPMS events.

And because I love a good GSB vs. 123 debate.... I think IF we want to keep 123 because we want "winners" and not "participation awards" we need to do a much better job with category size and splits. At the 2022 Nats, armor had categories as small as TWO entries (automatic 1/2... thats a hell of a national participation award!) and as big as FORTY SIX (good look placing there, even with a pristine model). The average split/group had 18 entries. I think strictly awarded GSB would actually NOT increase the total number of awards given, and lead to smaller categories just NOT having a gold awarded. But if that is distasteful, I would suggest categories of <10 models SHOULDN'T get full 123 awards, and categories over 30 should actually award deeper (4th? honorable mention?). Just to keep some degree of statistical fairness...

Looking at the old bylaws (2017 revision, on the IPMS website), I don't see anywhere in writing that the NCC was a wholly separate entity from the elected IPMS infrastructure, apparently internally appointed and omnipotent per decades of tradition? I see the following relevant sections--> The National Convention and Contest shall be conducted in compliance with the National Convention Operating Parameters set by the Executive Board and the National Contest Rules and Categories provided by the National Contest Committee. 7.,The National Convention and Contest shall be conducted under strict compliance with the National Parameters and Contest Rules and Categories provided to the Convention Committee by the National Executive Board. Committees established for specific tasks as required shall be created for a set period of time by the President and the Executive Board. Thats about it. Being something of a rule-of-law guy, and also I self admitted relative newcomer to the IPMS Nats scene... I don't understand the drama about the "NCC being chased away" or "the NCC having its power taken away". From the written bylaws, the NCC ALWAYS worked for the members of IPMS via the elected board. And the check/balance would be the elected officials requesting / demanding meetings/committees to address topics of interest to the membership. I understand being irritated if your previously unchecked power was being questioned, but it seems well within the long term written bylaws of the organization?

(1) Your 2019 method looks exemplary. Check judge found category results wanting. Bumped to class head judge who agreed. 3rd party team of judges brought in (I assume unbiased) to re-judge. Initial team not punished, instead educated. I think this is a good system! So codify it in the rules. That way it doesn’t seem class head / chief judges are randomly ruling by fiat; they are following the strict and fair pre-determined “this category has questionable judging” pathway. (2) Not sure what is wrong with a committee; the NCC is a committee? If the EBoard didn’t create committees to address issues, they’d be acting like oligarchs/dictators and I suspect you (and I) would have bigger issues with that. Of course, one can have too many committees…. Doesn’t make all of them default useless. (3) Not sure what GSB open system has to do with our discussion; I saw poor builds get 1/2/3s in San Marcos in categories with very few entries… those are true participation awards.

Why should we have a code of ethics and a concise, delineated framework of how judging results are internally appealed and revised by check/head/chief judges? Seems rather self-evident to me. Also, this would have prevented the “social media uproar” that appears to have bothered you. At worst, it’s a waste of a few hours. At best, it makes the national contest appear more rigorous and eliminates any hint of impropriety. I can’t speak to the fact that all contests have been perfect prior to the past couple years when I attended them; I also don’t know anything about the various revised charters you mention. I would add that.. we are speaking on social media currently, and it’s really the only way for IPMS members to discuss the Nats 360 days out of the year! It’s not like we have monthly national meetings we can all phone into and discuss things. We have elected representatives, and we have various forums to discuss amongst ourselves. I do agree that the tyranny of the crowds must be resisted, but we need to balance that with the thoughts/opinions of dozens if not hundreds of members.

Stepping away from the decision to suspend judges around the specific incident described, I’m not sure how setting up a committee to delineate a code of ethics is a bad thing? As well they identified significant ambiguity in the proper process when a check judge overrules an already signed judging sheet— to what degree should the class head judge and/or the chief judge be involved? Should the entire category be judged anew? Apparently the rules as written don’t have a clean process for this. I think we can ALL agree overturning ANY judging decision is a powder keg, even if everything is above board— why not have a detailed process to ensure the sanctity of results is maintained? To a relative outsider these look like reasonable and balanced responses to situations that, at the least, looked bad and gave the organization a bit of a PR black eye. I’m not sure why experienced judges would want to resign because of these recommendations? (I refer to the following sections from the EBoard letter, copied above)— “Absent any specific vehicle or language for guidance in the matter in the IPMS/USA Constitution and By-Laws, the Executive Board, and others in leadership positions acted to resolve this matter in a fair, appropriate, and just manner. That absence of language and guidance is the first problem identified here that needs to be addressed, and with your help, we will.” “The Executive Board is drafting a charter for the Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. This committee will be charged with updating the current judging rules to prevent future incidents such as this and any conflict of interest without obvious malicious intent. A viable contest will be held within the existing format and structure, albeit with appropriate rules and procedural revisions noted above. Those of you who have submitted other judging concerns to the Executive Board and the NCC, please know that they will be presented to this committee for action and follow-up” ”Additionally, the judging rules, procedures, and protocols for administration of the National Contest will be reviewed by a newly formed Judging Rules and Protocols Review Committee. The goal of this temporary committee is to identify and recommend rule updates to prevent this issue from happening again. We are currently identifying committee members. The committee will be established on November 1, and will serve for as long as necessary for the updated rules to be issued to the membership by January 15. We will also consider drafting a charter for an Ethics and Standards Committee to recommend language and procedures to guide an inquiry into incidents such as this in the future.”