Jump to content

ghodges

IPMS/USA Member
  • Posts

    7,557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    296

Everything posted by ghodges

  1. That's the thing Noel.... that tank in the picture suffered no damage at all.... The only thing damaged was that judge's reputation and IPMSUSA's image of how we judge. Gil
  2. Glad to hear that Chris! It's bad enough the pic was blown out of proportion without the armor judge being unfairly characterized too. He was not at fault in any way... merely taken advantage of! Gil
  3. The picture was NOT staged.... it is a an actual pic of the armor judging, taken by a "blogger" in the room and posted on his blog to begin with, where it was picked up and posted elsewhere including the IPMSUSA FB page. But it was not "randomly" taken.... It was was meant to make the IPMSUSA 1-2-3 judging system look bad and to make IPMS judges look like overly anal idiots. The armor judge in the photo has since quit IPMS and who can blame him? No one on the Eboard or the NCC came to his defense or even stepped up to give him any benefit of the doubt. Gil
  4. Having converted the old Lindberg kit 40yrs ago.... I'd recommend finding this FM kit or waiting, UNLESS you're used to doing some very heavy conversion/scratchbuilding work; which is what's needed not just to stretch the short Lindberg nose, but to also correct and detail that ancient kit! Gil
  5. Cameron said: "As far as the incident with the tank being held overhead, is that how you would want your entry being held?" And there-in lies the problem.... There was NOTHING WRONG in that picture. The problem was that no one on the Eboard, nor none of the NCC, nor any of the armor judges got on social media and FB to push back against the comments and say "it's NOT a problem". Some of we judges did... but no one in a position of authority did. And my answer is YES!, I have no problem with a judge carefully picking my model up, keeping it level instead of turning it upside down (much more dangerous), and using his phone light to get a better lit look instead of tilting it to try to get the ambient room light to hit where he's trying to see. Since I have decades (literally) as a national judge I know that SOMETIMES the judging gets that tight and tough at the Nats. I know, from experience, that a judge only does that when needed, and NOT to every model judged. AND, the rules clearly state that models are judged in ALL 3 DIMENSIONS. And yet people act astonished that models are picked up to view the bottoms.... The picture was posted IN ORDER to make you THINK that that's "the norm" and is done to every model, and that the judges do it in a "cavalier" way without regard to the model or its builder. Posting it could serve no other purpose, and was designed to create the fervor it did so the Eboard could issue their "absolutely no model handling" edict to the NCC; all the while knowing the NCC wouldn't stand for it. They precipitated the resignations of most of the NCC and now we are less than a year away from the Madison Nats without an experienced group of head judges and a BIG question mark as to how many of the judging corp (also made to look like fools in that pic) will be willing to work that show. Would YOU want to judge knowing someone may take a pic of you, post it, and make you look like a "judging rube"? Yes, the person who posted that pic did that much damage, and what's worse, isn't sorry he did it either. The picture also implies that model breakage is a problem at the Nats and it's not. Breakage is carefully tracked during the judging and it does occur, but in VERY small numbers, especially compared to the number of models being moved and handled over the entire 4 days of the show. In fact, as much or MORE breakage occurs from viewers with swinging badges on lanyards, dangling cameras, and careless leans trying to get better looks at the back rows. ALL breakage is regrettable and certainly important, especially to the builder whose model is damaged. But are you even AWARE of the judging rule that IF a builder puts a note saying "damaged in transit" then that damage isn't held against the model during judging? Funny how THAT never got mentioned in all of the outrage over the tank pic! And IF a judge does cause some damage, THAT is (of course) not held against the entry either. Does the "handling policy" need modification or change, especially considering the "outrage and concern" expressed on social media? PERHAPS.... but then I challenge YOU and every other person that thinks so to first go to a Nats, undergo the OJT judge training, actually judge AT THE NATS, see how it's actually done, and THEN step back and offer an experienced opinion; which lets out 95% of those commenting on the subject on social media. I agree with you in that IPMSUSA has a big decision to make: WHO do we want to appeal to, WHO do we wish to "target" our efforts to get to join us, and HOW do we need to change in order to appeal to that broader group of people? We should certainly listen when we ask non-members what can IPMSUSA do to make you possibly want to join? But, IPMSUSA has NO obligations to listen to or heed ignorant comments on Nats judging largely made by those who've never even tried to judge in that arena. Gil
  6. https://ipmsfirstcoast.com/jaxcon-2024.html ONE MONTH UNTIL JAXCON 2024! Vendors are sold out (again!). The usual H-U-G-E raffle is set with many deluxe kits and prizes! Aviation author/historian DANA BELL will be giving a seminar at 10:30 am on Saturday! Our JAXCON contest where EVERY entrant can win multiple awards based on their skills and not who else shows up! New dedicated Display Zones for Gundams and Legos! FREE PIZZA and a special raffle for FRIDAY NIGHT attendees! Food truck(s) on site Saturday for your convenience! Use the link above for more information and contest forms and COME JOIN US FOR THE FUN! GIL
  7. Cameron: Despite the tone of some of the commentary here (including mine), we are not trying to blow off or ignore non-members on FB and social media, and IPMSUSA allows them there with the hope that they WILL become interested in us and join (though most don't). The first problem with their commentary on our IPMS FB page is that many of them are offering opinions that are from the outside looking in and without any REAL knowledge of how things operate in IPMS or its contests. They're going on hearsay from others instead of commenting from their own experiences. Thus you have their ignorant comments, along with the comments from members and ex-members with IPMS experience adding to the overall volume of commentary, which at a glance makes any controversial topic look that much more controversial. The second and more important problem is that the current Eboard has for some reason in the last year suddenly decided that they needed to pay more heed to FB and social media commentary. Unfortunately, since you often don't know how much of the commentary is done by members or non-members, that means they're actually giving heed to a lot of non-member input when their first priority should be decerning what OUR membership wants and thinks, not outsiders. Can they have opinions as valid as ours? You betcha! However, what we've really been driving at in this and related discussions is the need for our Eboard to be SURE they're not over reacting to dustups on FB and social media (as they did after the Nats last summer), especially when so much of it was driven by ignorant, non-member posts. If you check other posts in related topics you'll also see discussions on what IPMSUSA needs to do to get those non-members more interested in joining us. So please be aware that we don't really want to control what non-members say or do on the internet, but we are concerned about their having any sway with those running IPMSUSA at this time instead of we, the members. Cheers! Gil
  8. DB is a newer company and the Grumman Tiger may be their first release, so we'll have to wait and see how good it is. However, my friend Jerry Wells took a LOT of pictures and measurements of the one at the Naval Museum in Pensacola for Tommy Thomason and them, and they've also ben in contact with Bert Kinsey of Detail and Scale while designing the kit; so it seems they're making an effort to put out a well detailed and accurate kit. I believe they plan to do it in 1/72 as well as 1/48. We'll have to wait and see. But, since the FM kit is out of production and tough to find, waiting at this point isn't a bad option! Gil
  9. THEY ARE! There are CAD renderings of a new 1/48 F11F Tiger coming from DB Models out on the internet now, due to be released sometime in a year or so! 🙂 Gil
  10. Finished my 1/48 Fonderie Miniatures F11F-1 Tiger today. This is my third long-nosed Tiger so I built it in Blue Angels colors to go with my recent BA Connie. I used the FM decals and they worked quite well, maintaining their brightness over the dark blue paint. This is a limited run kit that does require some experience and elbow grease, but not nearly as bad as some people have reported. The kit has a resin cockpit, exhaust/tail bottom, and wheel wells, metal gear, and some pe parts for the cockpit and the wing fences. Note that the wheel wells have been glued directly to their openings, ignoring the kit instructions to attach them to provided bulkheads. Note the sheet plastic shims (a vacuform kit technique) added to make up for the lack of locating pins. You can see plastic bits that have been added to the cockpit sidewalls for better detailing as well as the pattern sprayed onto the sheet plastic so I could make the main panel instruments to fit behind the pe main IP. The landing gear has been assembled, the vac canopy cut out and readied, and clear red/green plastic wingtip lights added. I decided to paint the yellow trim instead of trying to make the decals all fit together. The model, ready for decalling, The NMF on the wings is AK Extreme Metal Aluminum and the chrome on the intake edges was done with a chrome pen. Note that although Blue Angel planes have white wheel wells, the INSIDE of the gear doors are blue! On to the finished pics! Comments, critiques, and questions welcome as always! Gil
  11. Wow! That is one stellar camo job, and even more impressive in 1/72! Congrats, and thanks for sharing! Gil
  12. OUTSTANDING! So much detail to feast the eyes on, a colorful scheme, and the work all blended so seamlessly as to not know without you telling us how much work you did. Congrats on a stellar build that's going to turn heads wherever you take it! Gil
  13. Don makes many excellent points on our FB page, and social media in general. I've never had a problem with the dust-ups there, nor with the general "bashing" of IPMS on occasion. I also don't really worry about who's a current member or not. In fact, you can often tell by their posts whether they have any true knowledge of IPMS and our contests or judging as their ignorance is plain in their post. What bothers me is the idea that our Eboard THOUGHT they needed to respond to what was posted there. Don used the correct idea.... it's a "sounding board" and ONE thing to consider, It is NOT a consensus of all modelers opinions and certainly not of all IPMS MEMBER'S opinions. The number of "elected" members on this new Eboard isn't germane to the immediate crisis at hand. SOLVING OUR NCC AND POTENTIAL JUDGING PROBLEMS ARE WHERE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE. I've already made my suggestion of what they should do to get the ball rolling. Once those problems are solved THEN, perhaps starting with the business meeting at Madison, we can begin discussions on whether to hold a special election or muddle through to the next election with the Eboard as is. But for now, lets set our sights on the problems at hand and solve them, and hope that experienced people with the betterment of IPMSUSA, and not preserving the image and power of the Eboard and NCC, are willing to step up and work for that. Gil
  14. Hmmmm... much to ponder and a lot of good thoughts above.... and one not so good thought.... FACE BOOK AND SOCIAL MEDIA: establish 1 or 2 new PRIVATE pages; 1 for the Eboard/NCC/RCs and anyone else interested in the "nuts and bolts" of running IPMSUSA and have admins approve every member in order to join. Create a second private page for model posting where admins also must approve joiners but for MODEL posts/CONTEST updates only. ADVERTISE ONLY THE 2nd ONE! Keep them separate as far as content goes. Let the current FB page die if it cannot be deleted through FB administrators (tough to do in my experience without codes). That's the only way I can see to establish some "control" over what's posted in the future, and it doesn't involve deleting anyone already on the old page. Also, MOST IPMS members don't/won't go there anyway, so it's not like the admins will have to check all 4000 names to be sure they're members, AND they can delete/suspend people who prove to be uncivil. I read the 2030 Vision for IPMS proposal with very mixed feelings. Overall, I have to say it is NOT a vision I can support. While it does have some good basic ideas at heart I can support like softening IPMSUSA's approach to competition and focusing more on the ART of model building; I CANNOT get behind the idea of any kind of Ethics Committees nor even its proposal to give every member "periodic training on the Society’s brand, ethics, and vision". Most of the proposal seems to be the solidification of control and power through an expanded Eboard with Socialistic overtones. It would create MORE work and more duties at an executive level and require more volunteers in a hobby society already strapped for qualified leadership. I'm not even sure I can support its stated idea to expand IPMS to include ALL modeling types. In fact, I have to disagree with it. We are not train modelers, nor RC control modelers, nor paper modelers, nor wooden ship builders. We are PLASTIC modelers! I can understand redefining and expanding the definition of "plastic" and the various mediums used in building models, but it's all in order to build PLASTIC models, and not other types. I'm sure that's one of the reasons our membership is less than its potential among ALL model hobbyists... BUT in my mind our target members are PLASTIC model builders who thus far have shunned us, and not the entire world of model building enthusiasts. In trying to appeal to ALL, we'll bite off more than we need to and create more work and problems in the long run. There are things that can be looked at and perhaps done to improve the "value for your buck" in joining IPMSUSA without reinventing the wheel, expanding the Eboard, or trying to control our membership anymore than in the past. IPMSUSA can rehab their image and interests without radical change, although CHANGE is needed to give people a reason to look at us in a new light. Keep it simple, set concrete goals that are easy to comprehend, try to use the decades of experience already within our membership, and do it all in a series of small, manageable steps instead of trying to jump ahead all at one time and become something we were never intended to be. Gil
  15. Ron (and all): You can read Jeff Herne's reply here on the DF ..... he didn't give any EXACT numbers but expressed his extreme frustration at people who put pressure on him and his committee to give them early room reservations at the Hilton specifically. He implied this tied up about 20 rooms or so before reservations ever went "public". He never named names, but implied it was people who claimed they had "essential business" or "official IPMS" reasons/status as to why they should be given the preferential treatment. They may or may not have had legitimate reasons to ask for early reservations. However, Jeff certainly feels he and his committee were INSULTED in the manner in which it was done, and he's stated he will be quitting IPMSUSA after he's done making sure Madison is a success. As I've stated elsewhere on other matters..... HOW something is done IS important, and the end does not justify the means. Gil
  16. It'll be interesting to see how you salvage that.... and I'm tucking that tattered "look" away as it would be perfect for a boneyard stored plane! Gil
  17. Wow.... Very cool! Yet another I've never seen before. They more resemble sci-fi space ships than "drones". What are they meant to be decoys for or from? Gil
  18. Good start... and I like the "askance" positioning of the belts. Gil
  19. That is some very crisp detail painting on those interior bulkheads! Looking good! Gil
  20. Noel: Here in IPMSUSA the only requirement is to have 5 IPMSUSA members, and that the Chapter Contact be a current member. Most clubs have far more non-members than members of IPMS, and many have struggled with having the 5 so that they can continue to be "IPMS clubs". Over here, being an official IPMS club gives each club access to FREE insurance for their meetings, as well as for any model show they hold. That's why we title our clubs as "IPMS such and such".... it serves notice not only who we're a part of, but that we're also under the umbrella of IPMSUSA. I've been a member since '77.... and there's only been a couple of times that the Eboard has tried to extend their reach into the local clubs. They've failed because of our very basic "American" nature of wanting less government and supervision, let alone their lack of any good reason for it. Non-members are generally the backbone of most local clubs. The local clubs as a whole are the backbone of IPMSUSA. The fact that only a minority of even our own IPMS members step up to serve in any capacity is just a part of human nature (as in every organization) and if you can't deal with that, then you shouldn't step up if you plan to complain about it. Gil
  21. To begin, I want to thank Rob Booth for stepping in here to explain why he resigned and for stating his sincere beliefs. I also believe, as he says, that HIS goals for IPMSUSA and his feel for the need for change does coincide with much of the membership. I also can sympathize with him to a degree about his frustrations in fighting for change with a seemingly entrenched bureaucracy. If you dig around these forums you'll find my fights against the NCC and the Eboard as well as more than a decade of trying to point out the benefits of GSB. Where I part from Rob is the idea that the end justifies the means. It does not, no matter how much you believe in something. HOW change is instituted is important, especially when it only involves a hobby, and not anything truly momentous, important, or personally life altering. "Revolution" may be needed for political change in a country, but not in a hobby organization where FUN should be the focus. The posting of the tank picture was step over the line as it cannot be taken as anything but an attempt to belittle IPMS judging. The failure of the Eboard to push back against the ignorant posts on social media, and their almost immediate caving to perceived pressure (much of it from non-members there) by issuing edicts to the NCC is what precipitated ALL of this. The amendments they pushed also did harm by their getting the ability to take over the NCC "legally". How could anyone on the outside, or on the NCC look at the combination of the two as nothing more than a power grab in order to FORCE change? And THAT has been the problem... not the desire for needed change but the forceful implementation of it. I agree that the NCC has been much too entrenched in its views against change in the past. I've fought against that and their lack of transparency. That said, as I've posted above, I understand their VERY good reasons for being that way. There's a LOT on the line IF you try to make radical changes to the Nats, and the financial consequences could be far reaching; to the point that money for the Journal printing and mailing could become restrained, let alone having any sort of financial safety net for IPMS and the ability to keep holding Nats of the same size and scope. The Eboard should be looking to PROTECT that investment and be very careful of anything that might start it on a downward spiral, especially when it's been successfully growing as is. So you want change? what SHOULD have been done? The Chief Judge was already retiring.... so the Eboard should have looked for a new person who was more amenable to change over time, and who could lead the NCC in that direction in a series of steps; not all at once. Someone who understands the need to protect what works so well while also understanding the need for better communication with the membership and that eventually the contest may need to move away from being so cut-throat. I don't know that they can still do that, as many very qualified people are now leery about working for them, since they're now the "bosses" of the NCC, something NO previous Eboard ever sought to be. This may be whistling in the wind, but if the Eboard wants to solve this problem and go to Madison with some confidence, here's what I think they should do: 1) Issue a written apology in the Journal to the NCC and the judging corp for their mishandling of the tank picture issue on social media. 2) Pledge that although they support change, they realize that they HAVE to rely on the DECADES of experience and dedication to IPMSUSA that those on the NCC represent, and that they will work WITH the NCC for change as opposed to handing down edicts for change. 3) Immediately withdraw ALL previous edicts and also suspend the start/enforcement of the recently passed amendment that gives them any control OVER the NCC 4) Find and appoint a new NCC Chief Judge with experience with the Nats AND other judging systems with the express purpose of leading the NCC towards change in measured steps while protecting the success of the Nats. 5) Have that Chief Judge ask the Head Judges who have resigned to return to their old jobs with the understanding they are NOT "working for the Eboard" so that we can have confidence in the ability to get the judging done in Madison. Once the NCC has been reconstituted, then THEY must reach out to the judging corp as a whole to be sure they know they can expect to have experienced leadership in Madison. Yes.... this involves the current Eboard swallowing its pride a bit, and also (to a degree) perhaps throwing the old 2023 Eboard under the bus somewhat. But I think the Eboard needs to take 1-2 GIANT steps backward in order to be able to rectify this situation. Then it can prioritize problems, identify needed changes and move forward once more, but this time trying to use everyone's experience and dedication to IPMS to make changes instead of tossing aside people they feel are in the way of it. Gil
  22. Ron (and all): I think you and I are actually discussing two distinctly different things without doing a good job of defining them.... The first is the current situation which was created by THIS Eboard, and not by any of the past ones. By that, I mean their knee jerk reactions to the social media fuss over the tank picture where they failed to support our judges, and by that failure made IPMS judging look like a fiasco; and then pointed the finger at the NCC and handed down edicts to them instead of trying to work with them. They also are the ONLY Eboard who pushed through a dozen amendments to the IPMS Constitution in a single vote, the sum of them all being they now "legally" control the NCC and Nats contest, something never sought nor needed by any previous Eboard. That, when combined with the judging fiasco, caused the resignation of most of the 2023 NCC (and yes, the NCC failed in their judging investigation of the Sci-Fi genre). ALL of those items have left the judging corp in a shambles and cast some doubt as to how the Madison show will go. I happen to agree with you that "honorable men and women will step up"; but that is the ONLY way it will be a success unless this current Eboard starts showing us some concrete progress and plans on who comprises the new NCC and how the new rules (like their "no model handling" edict) will be implemented. And.... I also firmly believe that the creation of ANY sort of ethics committees is simply an attempt at another level of control they want to exert over the membership and yet another example of an area that no Eboard before them ever needed. That is why I believe the "bag" they're currently holding is one they've filled themselves. The second thing we're debating is the general future of IPMS... and that is where I can agree with you more, to a degree. I agree that the Eboard (and the new NCC, whoever that will be) needs to be VERY transparent. The listing of the voting in the minutes was great step in that direction, although I was NOT happy that 2 of the members voted against free speech for the editor. I agree with your assessment that most past Eboards have "kicked the can" of problems and needed changes down the road and that in the long term, they're now a part of this Eboard's problems, though not as high as a priority as those I listed above. I'm going to agree AND disagree with you on the subject of change in IPMSUSA being up to the membership in general.... Where the NATS CONTEST is concerned, I believe change there should be driven only by the attendees, and not the general membership, since MOST members never attend the Nats. The FACT is that the Nats has consistently grown and thrived under its current 1-2-3 format; like that or not (and I'm a GSB guy myself). ANY Eboard who wants to play around and mess with that winning formula/money maker for IPMSUSA and the clubs that host it is NOT serving IPMSUSA's best interest; and THAT is exactly what THIS Eboard has done. Any changes there should be tweaks and not wholesale overhauls, as it's something that has worked well and grown MORE successful over the last 20yrs. Is there room to experiment within the current contest format? Yes.... I believe so.... but again... IPMSUSA has a first obligation to protect what has worked before committing to anything unproven in wholesale fashion. Overall, since the majority of IPMS members have no interest in the Nats, the NCC, or its contest; I think they should have little to say in how it's run and leave that up to those who attend and participate in the Nats and those directly involved with its administration and running it. As for other areas.... Local and Regional contest formats in general should be up to the membership and the clubs and NOT to the Eboard. If any other format (GSB, AMPS style, NNL style) should ever become SO popular that it becomes the norm and 1-2-3 passe, then IPMSUSA can look at changing formats at the Nats to conform and "fit in". But let popular demand determine that, and not some Eboard driven edict of change. Overall I believe IPMSUSA needs to change its image so that (as you rightly point out) we are more interesting and palatable to more modelers in general. I believe that we should try to emphasize the artistic side of the hobby and de-emphasize the competitive side, which is where most of the criticism of IPMS stems from. I also agree with your idea of offering the Journal in digital format, at least to some if not all, IF it's affordable. In the past it didn't offer any financial advantage, but with the progress of technology perhaps it can do so now. I believe those two things MIGHT offer growth past our seeming ceiling of 4000+- membership numbers. We both have the hope to see IPMS grow and thrive, even if we differ somewhat on our views of the current situation and the exact paths we need take to get there, and that's the light at the end of the tunnel! Now if we only knew where our current Eboard stands on these things and EXACTLY how they plan to tackle them. Gil
  23. Thanks for taking the time to come and fill us in Len! Sorry it didn't work out for you, as I'm sure we'd have been better off with you than without. Hope the model bench can take your mind off of your troubles and make for a much happier and healthier 2024. God bless! Gil
  24. Sounds good Eric, though when you start mentioning rules, besides the common sense idea of civility, I get leery. Also, IF whoever gets the job thinks they'll be able to limit or control trash talking IPMS on any social media, I believe they'll resign in frustration. Although it does seem obvious, when the President mentions filling this position in his statement while at the same time trying to fill the more current urgent needs, it makes me wonder where the true priorities reside. And no.... I have not seen evidence this Eboard can multi-task with any success. Thanks very much for stepping up to give some solid, sensible answers to my concerns! Gil
  25. Why Eric? Please explain why it's needed, and what "problems" this person is supposed to solve? I understand the idea of IPMSUSA wanting to be able to say they have "someone on the job".... but to do what exactly? Monitor? Try to control? Censor posts? Gil
×
×
  • Create New...