Scalemodeldoc

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.”