A question for the 2015 Columbus Ship Judges...

[LRandel]

Rusty--just a thought but perhaps the abbreviation in parentheses was a way to address his comment to Whiskey Tango Foxtrot up above rather than the expression usually associated with those three letters. I did not take his comment as a forum transgression when I read it.

[Rusty White]

Rusty - I think those parenthesized letters are referring to James Kelley's screen name...

 

It never occured to me (duh!). Comment deleted with appolgies all round.

[millard]

^{I Would like to hear from a couple of the judges to see what they saw from the winners and also the ships that didn't place. For me this would help in my future builds.As I said before I thought the Bluenose was outstanding,and also Ian's ship plus there was anouther ship in the back that looked good that was on the same scale as Ian's}

^Rod

[Roktman]

"We have a saying in our club "Bigger is better",...)

 

When I was a HCJ, I told all the judges exactly the opposite! Bigger is not better! Bigger often means more mistakes, but one must always consider the overal model and the effort that went into constructing it.

 

Agreed Rusty. I build aviation and chose 1:72 to be my standard scale because a) I don't have too much shelf space, and b) if I built in 1:32, I'd feel obligated to add in more detail and hence more times for me to screw it up.

 

BTW, the ship is one good looking model. It would be interesting if we ever found out what the judges saw didn't see in it.

 

There was a time, at a PHX Nats IIRC, that they had a few judges set up at a table in a sort of seminar style, and ppl would bring their models to be critiqued. I don't mind constructive criticism and would love to see this feature be a permanent feature at the Nats. From what I read too many ppl go home miffed not knowing why their model was not chosen... Sorry don't want to hijack this thread.

[jcorley]

Perhaps it was Nick's Pamir that I was remembering.

This just illustrates what we remember a week afterwards.

 

It is really difficult to remember EVERYTHING we see on the tables during judging.

If you can post some photos from bow, stern and side I can try to remember what we saw. It is very difficult to judge from photos, too, so I cannot guarantee anything even a week further out.


This is why I like the UK judging sheets. The judges score the model in several categories and make notes. The builder can even get the sheets, IIRC, to see what the judges had to say. I know we aren't supposed to award "points" to models, but the UK 3-man teams tend to balance out if one guy is extra generous with points, there is a likely chance another is stingy. One man's 8 can be another's 5, but they balance out in the average score at the end. It works great when your contest only has 500 models, but when the contest is usually 2500+ it might seem to be a bit tricky but the enormous amount of extra judges would help lessen the trickery.

[ghodges]

I hate point systems...BUT, making comments is a form of feedback, and that's a good thing. I know that I recorded our team's comments on the back of the two category sheets we judged. It wasn't so much to provide feedback as to keep it all straight in out minds when we got through going from one end of the category to the other. The plus to that now is IF someone was to have a question about what we thought about an entry, there would probably be some note on it available for reference, providing someone could decipher my chicken scratching!

 

GIL

[Highlander]

Hmmm. Another interesting IPMS unwritten rule. I don't know anywhere in the rules where the size of a model is to be a consideration. Just the quality of the build.

 

But I wouldn't be surprised.

[Nick Filippone]

Come, come now! Of course, there is no rule-written or unwritten- that favours are larger entry over a smaller. When I made that comment, I was referring to the understandable human tendency to be impressed by size and equate it with effort and, therefore, quality. While this is more likely to take place at a local level show, where, in my experience, ship judging can be spotty, it is unlikely to occur at the Nationals where there are always sufficient numbers of knowledgeable and experienced judges. Having said that, it can still be a struggle for a small entry to compete with a large entry- ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL! Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

[Roktman]

Perhaps it was Nick's Pamir that I was remembering.

This just illustrates what we remember a week afterwards.

 

It is really difficult to remember EVERYTHING we see on the tables during judging.

If you can post some photos from bow, stern and side I can try to remember what we saw. It is very difficult to judge from photos, too, so I cannot guarantee anything even a week further out.

 

 

This is why I like the UK judging sheets. The judges score the model in several categories and make notes. The builder can even get the sheets, IIRC, to see what the judges had to say. I know we aren't supposed to award "points" to models, but the UK 3-man teams tend to balance out if one guy is extra generous with points, there is a likely chance another is stingy. One man's 8 can be another's 5, but they balance out in the average score at the end. It works great when your contest only has 500 models, but when the contest is usually 2500+ it might seem to be a bit tricky but the enormous amount of extra judges would help lessen the trickery.

 

 

I remember a local in NJ last year where the judges filled out critique sheets as they went along. If the modeller wanted to see what they said, you could ask for the sheet. Sadly the event was *very* poorly attended, so they had time to do it. Too many times times after a Con, there's grumbling how the model was "Great" but didn't place. I wouldn't know how you could do it on a National or even large Regional level. But I personally would love to see it happen.