ghodges
-
Posts
7,568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
298
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ghodges
-
-
I talked to Bruno a couple of weeks ago and he yelled at me too! 😁😁😁
If we quit, they win! Besides... as I stated somewhere else.... at this point I'll stay in IPMS JUST to make them squirm with my every post! 😉
Thanks to you, and to anyone else willing to step up to at least try to help and/or work at bettering IPMS and to repair the damage done last summer!
Gil
-
4
-
-
Love the wood grain painting. Nice project, and you can enjoy watching the movie for reference!
Gil
-
Good looking work! Question: Did the engine logo and placards come in the kit, and if not, where did you get them?
Gil
-
The Eboard will try to move on..... and rather than just blather here, I tossed my name into the ring to be considered.
BUT..... IN MY APPLICATION I ALSO SAID I WOULD ACCEPT NO APPOINTMENT WITHOUT A SIGNED STATEMENT FROM THE EBOARD THAT THEY WOULD NOT "BOSS" THE NCC, AND LET IT REVERT TO WHERE THEY WORKED THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDGE, AS BEFORE.
As I said above... I'm willing to work towards making changes in IPMS and help if I can, but I will not work FOR them, like some lacky. We'll see who will step up to work for them if they don't loosen their hold on the NCC. While I believe there will be good people with good intentions, I don't see how any "new" NCC can have the experience needed for Madison. Hopefully, for IPMS's sake, I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, after all, I'm married! 😉
Gil
-
1
-
1
-
-
As of THIS date, AFTER the passing of the last batch of amendments last fall, the NCC (whoever that is or will be) DOES indeed WORK FOR the Eboard.
Ron is correct in that "technically" it has always been that way... BUT the Eboards of the past were SMART ENOUGH to take advantage of the NCCs experience and let them operate autonomously.
As it stands now, IF THIS CURRENT Eboard insists on directly managing/bossing the NCC, I know I will never be a part of the judging corp again under ANY system or in ANY capacity.
As the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Nats have ALL been successes and grown larger for the last 10+yrs, yet they see the need to try to "fix" it. They're wrong in their approach to both that and their relationship with the NCC as it now stands.
I consider that a separate issue from any perceived rules changes, contest changes, NCC make-up, or IPMS image changes; as the financial health and therefore IPMS's future depends largely on the Nats.
And for those of you who are for MORE control by the Eboard as compared to in the past.... I must disagree and stand against your ideas.
Gil
-
1
-
1
-
-
Perhaps I mis-used the word.... Askew maybe? Anyway I meant I like the way they seem to be posed in a position not straight and implying they'd just been shrugged off and dropped down into a "just used" position, instead of placed or draped on the seat like you see most of the time. Sorry for the confusion!
Gil
-
Cameron asked:
"Isn't it common for committees to answer to the e board? To be on the ncc right now they are looking for people that have been there for 10 years. Where is there room for new thoughts? "
Yes... and up til now the NCC CHIEF JUDGE (not the entire committee) "answered" to the Eboard, and he served at the "pleasure of the President". HOWEVER, the NCC as a whole also worked autonomously without direct control or interference in the running of the Nats contest by the Eboards in the past. The Eboard in office last summer changed that by taking over the NCC, issuing orders instead of suggesting new guidelines, and some Eboard members directly told Head Judges (face to face) "YOU WORK FOR US". Thus, instead of working WITH the NCC, and using the Chief Judge to affect change (fire him if he doesn't lead in the direction you want to go), they decided to arrogantly dominate the entire NCC and that caused most of it to resign.
As for the 10yrs of seniority and "new thoughts...
With the loss of nearly every Head Judge IPMS lost DECADES of contest administration experience. The people they're asking to step up have to know HOW to run a contest, not just how to judge. AND, with the Madison show growing ever nearer, there's NO TIME to recruit neophiles and inexperienced volunteers to fill positions that need experienced guidance.
There's room for new thoughts.... but there's a time and place also. Right now the Eboard and the interim Chief Judge have to put solving the Madison judging crisis as first priority. After that, perhaps starting with the NCC meeting on the Saturday after the judging there, THAT would be the place to start making suggestions and offering new ideas. Until then IPMS better rely on what's tried and true and has worked up til now.
But what about your suggestion in the judging room that was laughed down (and was this at the Nats, or a local/regional show)? My guess is that it was an idea that's been tried and didn't work (and therefore was considered "silly"), but I'd like to know why you got that reaction. Would you mind asking it here? If not, feel free to message me separately and maybe I can help figure out why it got such a reaction. I can certainly sympathize with being made like feeling your idea wasn't even "worthy" of a civil or polite reply; which is a shame, though I tend to doubt it was intentional.
Gil
-
1
-
-
That "good old boys" moniker, or the idea that there's a "special grouping" which takes some sort of ingratiating go-along mentality (and perhaps learning a secret handshake) in order to be a part of is a complete misnomer, and one perpetuated by outsiders looking in. It's common everywhere in all kinds of volunteer societies, where even some members view other members as somehow being more accepted or privileged.
And it's true.... BUT NOT in the way generally portrayed or thought of!
People who volunteer to SERVE as officers at the local and national level, by their service, duties, and the interactions created in doing so become a separate group apart from the majority of those who do not serve. The volunteer officers and other appointed "officials" usually don't look askance at those who sit on the sidelines (well, there was that one "freeloader" comment....), BUT they do have something in common with each other that the rest cannot relate to because the majority are not "in" on those interactive dealings and the inner workings of the organization. That is why TRANSPARENCY and TRUST are so important for those who DO step up to do the work. It minimizes the bad perceptions created by the gap between those who serve and those who don't; and from those "in the know" and those who can only look on and hope their best interests are being taken care of. Those who serve are not better, or special, or more privileged, but they are (especially over time) a separate group within the group and can be viewed as good old boys who seemingly all know each other. And that group of good old boys is NOT a bad thing!
The most famous "old boys club" is the CONTEST WINNERS! And those SAME PEOPLE always seem to keep winning.... Well then (from anyone who can't seem to win) it MUST be because the judges KNOW them! They're a part of the good old boys contest club and have an inside edge to begin with. It couldn't be they win because they have years of experience at their craft that gives them a leg up..... or that they're experienced judges themselves and learned the problems the judges look for (and thus the problems to avoid) and therefore make fewer mistakes..... or that they hold themselves to a higher standard than the vast majority of builders and thus build at a higher quality level... or that they consistently win because of all of the above. NO.... it HAS to be because they've wormed their way into the good graces of their judging friends and no one else outside of that good old boys club has a chance as an "outsider". It's easy to take on that attitude unless you're truly interested in an honest appraisal of your own building abilities and results. I challenge anyone inclined to think that way to come to the Nats and become a judge. It'll open your eyes as to why models win and especially as to how they're eliminated from the competition. And you'll find that the only "club" is those who've learned how to build at a higher level with fewer mistakes, and that it doesn't matter who you know.
The "good old boys" club IS a perception problem that IPMSUSA will have to overcome at least to some degree in order to grow. That's why I've touted GSB over 1-2-3 as it allows for more people to be rewarded for excellent model building and could help lessen the idea of having to be "in" in order to win in IPMS. However, it's a problem of perception, and NOT a real problem. ANYONE can be a "good old boy" by stepping up to serve or to judge, making themselves less of an outsider and increasing their chances of being a contest winner.
Gil
-
1
-
2
-
-
Personally, if I hadn't read what you wrote before looking at the pics I'd have guessed the kit came with a real wood prop... it looks that good to me! As for that tip... it comes across to me as "stress fractures" that you might indeed see at the end of a used wooden blade, especially in the lower lit second picture. If it bothers you.... fix it.... but I'd dirty the entire prop up a bit (IF you are weathering the model in the end) and treat it as evidence of "use".
Gil
-
1
-
-
James: The ridiculously long number, I believe, is one that makes it immediately evident that THAT member joined AT the Nats and is assigned that number when they join there as an identifier. It is indeed a legitimate membership number, but one that the office uses to more easily track members who renew there as opposed to others who renew through the regular process or at a time other than the Nats.
ALL: While we can argue over the idea of what the handling policy was, is, and should be; THAT was not and IS not the immediate problem.... the PROBLEM is that in response to the controversy over the pic (whether THAT was contrived or just bad luck) the Eboard issued an ORDER/EDICT to the NCC DICTATING a new policy for the Nats contest, and they did so BEFORE the amendments passed giving them any "right" to do so.
Whether or not you agree or disagree with their idea of the handling policy, the PROBLEM is two-fold: First- they displayed an attitude of unwillingness to consider working WITH the NCC (and take advantage of their decades of practical experience), and instead adopted an immediate policy of telling them that the NCC works FOR them; something that had never been true (and still at that time wasn't). Second: The Eboard decided to double down on their totalitarian stance of being the "boss" of the NCC and precipitated the resignation of almost all of the Head Judges. It also caused the incoming Chief Judge to step back, and as of this date (and according to the Dec. Eboard meeting minutes) HE has declined to work for them too. Whatever you think of the NCC (and I've been their detractor more than a supporter) the LOSS of that much contest experience hurts IPMSUSA, and more importantly shows extreme short-sightedness on the Eboard.
That leaves IPMSUSA without a group of experienced Nats contest leaders and administrators, and also calls into question how many of the judging corp will be willing to work in Madison UNLESS this Eboard takes immediate, positive, TRUSTWORTHY steps towards solving THAT problem (and I've already listed what steps I think they should take).
The handling problem (perceived or real) and the percentage of "elected" Eboard members as well as how IPMS should tackle those problems (and others) in order to move forward with sure footing for the future are of lesser concern and priority at this time.
Even with all of the "goodwill" that can be engendered from volunteer IPMS members and judges who go to Madison, IF the Eboard is counting on that alone to save the day and put their changes into place; I'm concerned they're banking on something that will come up very short.
I'm STILL waiting after 5 pages of discussion for the President or another Eboard member to come here (or in the 3rd members only section below) and show me how my concerns are wrong or overblown.
Gil
-
3
-
2
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
5
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
3
-
-
Wow! That is one stellar camo job, and even more impressive in 1/72! Congrats, and thanks for sharing!
Gil
-
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
-
1
-
-
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
-
2
-
-
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
-
2
-
Revell 1/48 A-26B Invader – Maggie’s Drawers
in Builds
Posted
Good looking sheet! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.... I'll have to keep an eye peeled for that sheet!
Gil