Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 3/9/2019 at 8:41 PM, Dakimbrell said:

I have heard lots of general talk about GSB over the years. To date, no one has offered a clear and precise description of what we would be getting. Yes, I get the general idea, but I would like the GSB proponents to address some details.

For example, I would be in favor of GSB if we used our current judging method, but I would not be in favor, if we went to a numerical scoring. Also, I really want to hear how it will be paid for...not some ephemeral "we'll work that out later".

I agree, in general, that being able to give multiple awards would be more equitable, but if the cost would jump dramatically people need to be aware before they start supporting or opposing a method. People also need to understand under the GSB there will be occasions where a category only has Bronze medals because of general poor quality work. Ans would we be required to give an award, at all?

Dak

Dave,

The way it was designed to work back when we TRIED to give a presentation at Phoenix 2004 (I was the chairman of that committee) was exactly like the judging we use now.

Models that don't "make the cut" would get nothing. Models that "make the cut" would get at least a Bronze. Some, of better quality would get a silver, and the best in the category would get a Gold. It might happen that all the one that would have been 1-2-3 end up getting gold, some or all 3 might only get a silver. It has also been suggested that we combine the two, still doing 1-2-3 and awarding medals to other the judges of that category felt worthy of recognition. And we wouldn't have to worry about sweeps/no-sweeps

As for the award costs, the price would actually go DOWN if a true GSB system (not a hybrid system) were adopted. Instead of placques/awards that can cost about $15 each (about $45 per category is the average I found on the last data in excel for total awards vs categories), the cost of challenge coin style medals drops to about $2 each, depending on the volume ordered. IPMS would also incur a one time tooling charge for a custom sculpted logo on the obverse if chosen. There would be more awards, enough to have every deserving model to get an award, Atlanta spent $19,125 on our awards. Given that some of the awards would remain the same, the big awards currently retail for $86 and $79 so we'd still have to spend about $1000 on those awards, that would leave a budget able to buy 9000 medals! Considering we've never again had more than 3000 entries, that is enough medals for three shows!! If we were to create a semi-hybrid system with GSB plus a single First Place (Platinum?) per category (194 per posted categories with splits at $70 each) would allow for 2000+ medals to be purchased for the same unadjusted budget from 14 years ago.

19,125     2005 amount

-1,000      big trophies

-13,580    first place awards

=$4,545 for medals, or 2272 medals @ $2 each (or fewer if we choose to spend more for nicer/bigger medals)

Of course, this is all a WAG based on partially outdated information, but it is an answer for what you asked

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 7:53 AM, PolishMikeD said:
  • Host Chapter will have a problem trying to figure out how many G,S & B awards they'll have to buy.

 

No so, if the challenge coin/medal style is approved

The E-board would buy medals in bulk for the economy of scale. The awards could be the same, year-after-year with an insert for that year's show.

The IPMS/USA logo on the obverse with the local host design on the reverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having been studying the various methods of awarding models, I note that the GSB system (as used by AMPS) basically says your model is only this good. Where as the 1-2-3 system (as used by IPMS) says your model is this good out of a specific group, on a specific day. In theory, the GSB system would render the same award regardless of when or where the contest occurred. The 1-2-3 system would allow the model to win better another time. Both systems have their merit.

However, if we change to a GSB, we will have to accept that it will create a change in how we view winning models and how we choose them. Presently, we choose the "winners" based against the others in a category. The GSB system will be telling the builder what judges think of a model rather than its standing within a group. I suspect this will truly upset some people considering some think we are to nit picky as it is now.

With the large numbers of models at a National, any system which relies on points will be too cumbersome, so the awards will have to be based on the opinion of the judges. Even if a point system can be made to work, I have my doubts we can easily agree how to award the points.

Still, I like the idea of more awards (far too many good models go unrewarded), but people will say we are setting standards and those which do not place are not up to those standards.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got the Journal with the announcement of this survey.  Trying to access the online survey is a Charlie foxtrot. It didn't recognize me, made me change my password and sent me into a labyrinth of pages. If I were to vote, it would be for GSB. But, I have serious doubts this will make a difference. Scanning through this felt like I was time ported back to Phoenix in 2004 when a group tried to raise this issue. We were given a small amount of time and a break out room  in which GSB proponents were basically told to go pound sand. We do 1-2-3 and that's it. That was among the most frustrating meetings I've ever been in. The representatives of the status quo were not going to look at any alternatives. Some of those people are still among the top hierarchy. I may try again to find the ballot. Or not. As Danny Glover said, I'm getting to old for this $#!%.

Edited by ajlafleche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To vote on-line you have to officially vote on the IPMS/USA ballot.  The survey is at the bottom of the ballot.  I have yet to get my Journal yet, but I was told a card would be issue that you can mail in.  FWIW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my Journal and the card with the ballots for both the election and the survey is in it. I'll be sending mine off tomorrow!

 

GIL :smiley16:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my Journal the other day and have completed and mail my ballot.

Okay, I have been reading this thread and it has become rather interesting . I see that a few folks have there opinions on the two judging systems so I want to share a few comments.

I will say right off that I am in favor of the 1,2,3 judging system for the Nationals. After all this is the National Convention and Contest and the models are built by the best modelers in the world, which makes this competition completely different than a local contest or even a regional. When you reach the Nationals it is a whole different playing field. Competition is about doing you best to win but in all competition there will always be winners and losers.

On the GSB side, in the largest arena in the world that uses Gold, Silver & Bronze as awards - I am talking the Olympics here - the awards are for first, second and third place. They are not awarded to every person on just how well they did in the competition.

I am a certified judge in both systems but I find that in the 1,2,3 system there are judging teams that examine each entry and discuss the choices made as a team. Yes judges do have their person opinions where it comes to models but the team system help keep those opinions somewhat in check. But at the show where I judged that were GSB I was given my sheets and points scale for my area of expertise and then went out to judge on my own no team just rate the models and turn in the sheets on each model. Judging went on the from the beginning of the show until the cutoff for the judging. In this instance judges personal opinions are all that count.

This whole thing is a survey and not a decision on what will be happening at the National level. I like both systems but for the National Convention & Contest I fell the First, Second & Third is the best system for that one event. We are the International Plastic Modelers Society after all and this once-a-year competition is the cream of the crop and should be awarded as such. Not just another place to pick up some hardware.

Now my thoughts on challenge coins, we are modelers not the military. I have never been at beer and pizza night with my modeling friends and seen any one toss down their challenge coin.

Have a nice day,

David Von Almen, Gentleman Modeler

Edited by dvonalmen
grammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing that seems to be over looked in all this is DO WE WANT TO FUNDIMENTALLY WANT TO CHANGE HOW WE JUDGE OUR NATIONAL CONTEST? To change to the GSB system will probably mean a total re-do of our methodology. I do not like the AMPS judging methodology because I found it too regimented and generally was unpleasant for me. I much prefer the judging team method we use that allows the judges to feed off of each other and reach a common consensus.

The current AMPS method leaves the models off display until they are judged. I noticed this in June at SoonerCon in Oklahoma City. (This is a joint contest  done by SoonerAmps and IPMS Metro OKC.) Most of the armor models did not get seen until late in the day. Early on, you would have thought there were no tanks there what so ever. That's not going to work at a National and I feel it actually hurt SoonerCon because most visitors never got to see the armor models.

Another thing we must decide is whether a really poor model should get an award if it is the only entry in a category. (Perhaps SHOULD RESOLVE, would be a better term.) I am of two minds. On the one hand, everyone had a chance to enter any category, so the single model with crooked parts, glue globs, and seams gets 1st place just by showing up. On the other hand, this is the IPMS NATIONAL! We want the winning models to reflect the best we have. Giving both a 1st to the glue glob beast and the superb, super-scratch build Whatsit just doesn't seem right. By going to a GSB system without clearly understood rule changes, is going to really upset many people. If you have a category with one entry that receives no award, the entrant is going to feel cheated.

I think we should forgo the GSB and change to a SINGLE award system based on our current judging methods. By SINGLE award system, I speak about the current class/category and team judging we now use along with the same number of awards to give out. The BIG difference would be that none of them are a PLACE award. You win an award or you don't. There would be no standing within a category beyond that. The awards would be apportioned based on the number of entries. The more entries in a class, the more awards go to that class, but you could add more if there was a specific need.This is not a participation award or a challenge coin affair. It simply eliminates the need to quibble over fine points and not have to be so "nit-picky" as many complain we are.

Dak, Renaissance Modeler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS ONLY A SURVEY.  Its only purpose is to find out which judging system the membership prefers and report our findings to the E-board.  I want to publicly thank the E-board because they have supported this survey so well from day one.

IF, IF, IF, it was decided by the E-board that IPMS/USA was going to change judging formats, that would only occur AFTER they determined the proposal was workable.  If anyone out there wants to propose a medal system of judging, now is the time to start.  Grab some folks who agree with you, put together a committee and get started.  I WOULD SUGGEST working with the E-board though.  If you can't sell them the proposal, you're wasting your time and I promise they will ask critical questions a proposal must answer.  Moreover, any proposal doesn't have to be similar to past GSB events as Dave pointed out.  If your proposal involves judging teams (or not) and non-numerical scoring (or not), and a different number of awards, so be it.  The E-board is always open to new ideas, which is why I suggest working with them.  Believe it or not, they want what's best for IPMS/USA and this survey provides information so they can make an informed decision.

Everyone knows how fast rumors start and spread on the Internet.  Put the proposal HERE on the Forum for transparency!  Once the word gets out a proposal is in the works, transparency is your only defense against the rumor mill.  Check out the number of views for the survey.  You will see it has collected 3,503 views so far!  That's by a healthy margin, the most views any subject has yet to collect.  My point being, the ideas are here.  The knowledgeable people who know our system are here.  Most of the E-board is here.  Not all suggestions are worth considering, but some sure will be.  So the forum is the place to iron out any potential wrinkles before submitting a proposal.  I promise you, IF, IF, IF, GSB wins the vote, someone out there will be putting together a proposal.

Enough gassing on.  I'll be at the nationals somewhere around the registration area with survey forms and copies of the survey for anyone not competing or somehow missed sending in your survey card.  If you don't vote, your preference will never be known.  I don't care what it is; VOTE!

See you there.  😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We post some comments, people respond, we start thinking about the stuff and post new comments. That's the point of forums and exchanging information.

My experience is that many who advocate a new idea don't really have an actual plan. I worry many will jump on the GSB wagon without having considered the full range of problems. I am not arguing for argument's sake, but out of concern that we get on the same page.

For example, has everyone considered that GSB actually rates the quality of your model, where as the 123 system we currently use only rates your model against others in a specific group on a specific day. You might be 3rd today and 1st next week. With GSB, you are permanently bronze regardless of the other models.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking at this from a different angle. Now this is just a hypothetical situation I am sugggesting for the purpose of making a point:

We have held a survey. Of c. 4000 members, 3500 members cast a ballot. Of that 3500, 3200 indicate that they want open judging at the Nationals - a clear and overwhelming majority of the membership. What would we do? Well, since this a democratic organization- you know, “By modelers, for modelers,” we would, as such an organization, be obligated to give the membership what it wants. We would have to do a lot of work, a lot of experimentation, trial and error, ( you know, like we did when we started out 50+ years ago at the first National) to give the dues paying members what they say they want!

Now, personally, I do not think that will happen. And in some ways, I hope it does not because of all the work that would need to be done. But there is an important principle at issue here: if IPMS is a democratic organization, then the membership informs the leadership what kind of contest it wants, not the other way around.

Power to the people, baby.

Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge, President, IPMS Northeast New York

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,

I have no problem with changing because the majority wish it. But I am curious how you (and others) envision implementing the GSB system on the level of a National convention.

Would we continue to use the current judging method merely giving more (potentially) awards, or would we use a system like AMPS, using a point system and where the models do not go on display until they have been judged. Or would it be a modified system where the individual judges look at each model on their own and rate it on a point system....what I call free range judging. For that manner, would we keep using the class and category system.....would we need to so? Can a point system be created that will work on all types of models? Will we need to tailor such a numeric systems to the individual classes.

If we are giving multiple awards in a category, allowing multiples to one person? Say a person has three entries in a single category, could they get two golds and a bronze while others get awards, too. Or will a person receive only one award per category regardless of the number of entries?

If we used a system with judges feedback, will these remarks be left where the public can see them; would we want to embarrass people with negative comments?

The current system has problems because there is always someone like me that enjoys looking a loopholes. But that same system does have  half a century of trial and error.

18 hours ago, Dakimbrell said:

Another thing we must decide is whether a really poor model should get an award if it is the only entry in a category. (Perhaps SHOULD RESOLVE, would be a better term.) I am of two minds. On the one hand, everyone had a chance to enter any category, so the single model with crooked parts, glue globs, and seams gets 1st place just by showing up. On the other hand, this is the IPMS NATIONAL! We want the winning models to reflect the best we have. Giving both a 1st to the glue glob beast and the superb, super-scratch build Whatsit just doesn't seem right.

I would also like you thoughts on this element. I am just curious how others feel about it.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Nick that it most likely won't happen.  But without a survey taken say, every five years, how would we know just what the membership wants?

It would be up to the E-board to decide what action would be taken.  I.e. appoint or solicit a committee (or the NCC) to begin the process to create a potential open judging system.  While that is being done, solicit proposals/ideas and discussion here from the membership.  Chances are, ideas from all submissions could be collected into one solid, workable proposal.

All the questions DAK proposes should be answered by any committee who submits a proposal.  Attempting to answer them up-front without a complete proposal, would be virtually impossible.

This process (proposal and implementation) will take years to complete with careful planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rusty is right. The membership should be polled about every five years to assess any change in opinion.

The details about how to implement such a change are moot unless or until we know we are mandated by membership consensus to do it. I have my ideas as many have had and have expressed on this Forum. But we need not bother ourselves with them until we know we have to. Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not uncommon for people to develop a belief that a casual idea is what they believe and want without it actually being what they want; the rule of unintended consequences. So, if hypothetically a majority of members wants to go over to a GSB system, based on the current survey, many would be voting based on what they THINK the change would mean rather than telling people what the proposers actually mean.

3 hours ago, Nick Filippone said:

The details about how to implement such a change are moot unless or until we know we are mandated by membership consensus to do it.

Nonsense. If you are unable to clearly articulate your idea here, how can you expect to do it when the big moment actually comes? This implies there is no real plan, just a bunch of rhetoric to cause people to believe there is something better, if only they would vote for it with no details. It looks like to me all we would get is another fifty years of trial and errors with repeated mistakes ultimately to no advantage. A while back, Nick, you explained quite clearly why the GSB would not cost more. While I think you analysis was optimistic, it sounded logical. Perhaps I have exposed some problems you have not foreseen and wish to ignore.

I offered a plan with the Single ward system. I articulated it and believe it could be implemented within the current system. It offers flexibility and at the same time reduces conflict.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can clearly articulate any idea I want, whenever I want and, while doing so, displaying a considerably better grasp of grammar, syntax, vocabulary and spelling than many of the people who post on this forum- present company excepted of course.

I do not recall explaining cost matters. Please site the post, and I will stand corrected.

What is “ the Single ward system?” 

There is nothing casual about this idea. It has been discussed ad nauseum for years on this forum. It has also been implemented at many local and regional shows for years. GSB is nothing new as a concept. I did not dream it up casually. Whether the membership wants to now extend it to the National is the question the survey will  possibly answer. Nick

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nice thing about a forum is that you can kick ideas around and given time and effort (by a poster), those ideas can be fleshed out and then debated. However, I'd like to make a few comments based on long, hard experience (not hypothesis).

1) I've been a proponent for change in IPMS for decades. I support not only GSB, but also for ANY club to be able to use ANY format that they're comfortable with, no matter what the "policy" is of the Eboard (that "democracy" mentioned above). It has put me at odds with people on the forums and even caused animosity with people I'd never met OR even debated with on the forums (reputation as a boat-rocker). And, it was the reason I was fired as an RC....not being willing to knuckle under to the "company line" and putting my Regional club's concerns ahead of Eboard dictates. My point? Do NOT be fooled into thinking that IPMSUSA is willing to change from ANY discussion, poll, or "will of the people".

2) I was a part of a GSB committee over a decade ago that went "through channels" and made a GSB presentation. The NCC listened politely, thanked us, and promptly canned our idea. It was clear they NEVER intended to give it a fair consideration as those in charge preferred 1-2-3. As I've mentioned above, I understand their position: why "fix" what isn't broken (in their view)? Well, the "why" is because of how it makes IPMSUSA look to the uninitiated and non-member modeler. While 1-2-3 certainly works for contests, it is also a harsh environment for anyone who may not take the hobby as serious as others. My point? The NCC has NOT changed and those in charge STILL prefer 1-2-3 (and not without some good reasons); thus do NOT expect to "persuade" the NCC to adopt and implement change at the Nats.

3) Just as there are several ways to skin the cat, there are several ways to run a GSB show...so which one is best? Here's where I say you fish or cut bait! If you think you can make it work, then do so! I know of several VERY successful and long running GSB shows (Pittsburg, Chattanooga, etc.) that are doing just that. We in the First Coast club have also switched to GSB and we think we have a way to make it work. We made it through the first year successfully (though not without a couple of real hiccups), and now we'll try to smooth those out and do it even better in 2020. My point? Stop debating and start looking at how the successful shows are actually making GSB work.

4) As suggested above, let the people speak! The survey is a good step as it may shed some light on the views of the membership. However, what will count is whether those same people support GSB by supporting and attending those shows. Despite whatever I might think, if the PEOPLE do not help GSB grow in popularity, then it doesn't deserve to be considered or implemented at the IPMSUSA Nats. My point? The Nats will only change after GSB has become the "norm" at most shows across the country, and after it has been proven it can work and be adapted to the largest and best attended shows.

I think that GSB offers many more advantages to the GROWTH of IPMSUSA compared to 1-2-3. However, it should be implemented by the groundswell of its success and adoption by most of the IPMS shows, and not due to some polls or votes.

GIL :smiley16:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry Nick, for some reason I thought it was your post on cost, but it was Gil who made the pitch on page one. Still, the cost area was well explained, if optimistic. 

I thought you would have read this. The Single award system....

On 7/13/2019 at 4:47 PM, Dakimbrell said:

I think we should forgo the GSB and change to a SINGLE award system based on our current judging methods. By SINGLE award system, I speak about the current class/category and team judging we now use along with the same number of awards to give out. The BIG difference would be that none of them are a PLACE award. You win an award or you don't. There would be no standing within a category beyond that. The awards would be apportioned based on the number of entries. The more entries in a class, the more awards go to that class, but you could add more if there was a specific need. This is not a participation award or a challenge coin affair. It simply eliminates the need to quibble over fine points and not have to be so "nit-picky" as many complain we are.

Where before a category only had three awards, it could now have more based on the number of entries. For the best of class, the judges will simply nominate what they think is the top model....a blatant judgement call. Most popular, and George Lee award would be awarded as they are now. The award could be customized for each convention as desired, since a generic IPMS award doesn't play well. Since we don't allow sweeps, the SINGLE award system would probably get awards to more people. No one would be first, and no one would be third.

 

44 minutes ago, Nick Filippone said:

There is nothing casual about this idea. It has been discussed ad nauseum for years on this forum.

That it has been discussed does not preclude the fact many have different concepts of what the change would be (hypothetically) if we chose to change things. I know several who assume we would simply adopt the AMPS system as is. They like the AMPS style and want it for IPMS. Others like the idea of multiple awards in a category, but not the point system used by AMPS. Details can be crucial to understanding.

What are your thoughts on the Glue Glob monster and super Whatsit question?

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ghodges said:

I know of several VERY successful and long running GSB shows (Pittsburg, Chattanooga, etc.) that are doing just that.

Gil, If you know these shows are so successful, then please post their methodology. This is my point, no one actually posts specifics. I have been attending and looking at contests for forty years. I don't like the current IPMS system because it its to ridged and does not award some models that should be awarded and awards others that should not. Still, I do not see the GSB as used by AMPS as a practical system for an IPMS National. The SINGLE AWARD system would be better than either of these systems.

Would you keep all the unjudged models off display? What if most people don't want the judges comments seen by the public? What would it say if your model is only a gold at one event and a gold at another show using the exact same method at another? Will sweeps be allowed? Or multiple metals to one person...like three silvers? How would you adapt AMPS rules for Si-fi models and Miscellaneous; to cars? Would creativity be considered in dioramas, or only the model quality? If we are judging the model as a stand alone, do we need class and categories? How would you choose best in class or the grand award?

I am willing to be convinced, but so far no one is saying anything but general rhetoric.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick reminder to those folks out there that thinks the NCC is an all powerful, password-to-get-in, secret handshake, ring, fez, and sash wearing organization.  The NCC works at the pleasure of the President of IPMS/USA, plain and simple.  Check the IPMS/USA Constitution by-laws.  It's there in black and white.  If the President asks the Chief Judge to implement GSB, open judging, 1,2,3,4,5, or a 1,2,3 system of judging, that is what will happen because creating the contest rules is the NCC's function.  The NCC's support or not doesn't seal the fate of any proposal.  Actually, it doesn't matter what the NCC thinks about it.  If anyone refuses to do so (anyone), they know where the door is.   Having said that, the E-board does rely on the NCC for advice concerning the contest.  I don't mean to sound heavy handed in my description of the process.  I'm just making a factual statement as clearly as I can.

DAK, please check out Chattanooga's web site for a very insightful look at how well an open judging platform can work in great detail.

Gil, I wish I was there to see the presentation you guys did.  I stand behind my statement that working with the E-board is imperative to get anything changed.   I lost count how many hours I spent with my survey crew getting that short little survey worded just right.  We started (paraphrasing) out with a very rough draft that I put together.  It then took some time to get all the exact wording that everyone in the group agreed on.  It was then passed on the the Chief judge where he consulted with the NCC and made their edits to the description.  It then went back to the survey crew where they abbreviated the NCC changes to keep everything in a consistent, abbreviated format, then the survey went to Ron Bell where he made some edits, it then came back to the survey crew again for final approval.  Once I got the okay from the survey crew, it went back to Ron again and was sent to the E-board for their approval.  THEN we finally got it back and we were ready to go.  Yeah, all that for that little survey!  🤣  Pain in the rump?  Maybe, and I still have to go the nationals next month to compile the forms and hand them over to the office manager. 

My opinion of all this?  IPMS/USA is like a stalactite.  Change doesn't come quickly, but done properly with the support of the E-board will produce results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Directly from the Tricon (Pittsburgh web site)

TRICON Judging - How it Works
If you've entered a model at one of the Three Rivers TRICON shows in the last 10 or so years you noticed that things were a little different as soon as you put your models on the contest tables. Instead of lots of small areas marked off for very specific scales and subjects (such as 1/48 Aircraft - Single Engine Prop), there are whole tables marked for broad categories like 1/48 and larger Aircraft. And when it came to awards time, things probably seemed even more different as modelers were given gold, silver and bronze medallions instead of the usual 1st, 2nd and 3rd place plaques.

Three Rivers is one of a few clubs using a system known as Chicago Rules or Open Judging. The big difference is that rather than pick the 3 best models from a small group of models, Open Judging scores every model into 4 tiers: gold, silver, bronze and no-award. All of the models scoring a gold receive a gold medallion, all of the models scored silver receive a silver medallion, and so on. If there are four really good 1/48 P-51s entered, all 4 can receive a gold medal and go on to compete for the Best Aircraft award. In a regular 1st-2nd-3rd sort of contest, the judges would have to sort out which of the four was the best, second best, third best and which went home empty handed. It helps eliminate the element of luck: under Open Judging a model's chance of earning an award no longer depends on what other models happened to show up that day.

So why doesn't everyone use Open Judging? Some of the reasons are practical. Since you don't know exactly how many models are going to win awards the club needs to buy a lot of extras. And since the judges look closely at every model, judging takes a little longer than at a 1-2-3 event. This is all true, but they are not impossible problems - as demonstrated by the number of big long-running shows using this system. Open Judging is used at a lot of big (non-IPMS) figure and model contests, including MFCA (figures), AMPS (armor), and Wonderfest (sci-fi). The club has refined this system over the years, and it's now a point of pride in the club that we've made it work when lots of experts said it couldn't be done.

How does it work? A lot like judging at a regular IPMS contest.

There are 3 man judging teams, made up of Three Rivers club members and outside volunteers.In this way we get diverse opinions and introduce more people to the open judging system. We also invite potential judges to accompany the teams to learn how our system works. If you are interested, please contact any club member at the show.

Each judging team works through the models in a category, looking closely at every model (the team puts a colored sticker on the model-entry form to keep track of which ones they've looked at so far).

The judges are looking for the same things, using the same criteria they would at a regular IPMS contest - all the basics listed in the IPMS Competition Handbook. After giving the model a good once over, each judge tells the other judges the good and the bad that they found.

Each judge then privately assigns a score to the model - either Gold, Silver, Bronze or No Award - according to these guidelines:

Bronze: The model has no glaring flaws in finish or construction as seen from a casual viewing distance. At closer range a number of minor flaws may be noticeable but are not concentrated in one area and do not indicate a lack of basic skills (for example, one decal, but not all, may be silvered). This level of quality indicates the modeler is doing the right things but needs to be more consistent in execution. Basic craftsmanship is good, but realism or attention to details may be lacking.

Silver: Compared to Bronze, the model has a higher level of craftsmanship in all areas: very few flaws, finishes are realistic, stance and ride height are correct, basic techniques have been used to add detail and improve appearance (exposed edges are realistically thinned, gun barrels or exhaust stacks are drilled out, etc).

Gold: In general, a Gold award indicates an exceptional level of craftsmanship - practically no flaws or omissions of basic techniques should be present. Current best practices for assembly and finishing are used throughout and are executed correctly. Often the difference between a Silver and a Gold award comes down to how challenging the build was; a more elaborate or highly detailed model is likely to demonstrate a level of craftsmanship that offsets minor mistakes. An out-of-the-box model can receive a Gold award, but it must exhibit the highest standards.

After the judging team scores a model, the individual score sheets are handed in to a scorekeeper who totals the 3 scores in much the same way that school grades are averaged to compute a GPA. In general, in order to receive a Gold award, at least 2 judges must score the model as a Gold, and similarly for Silver and Bronze. Experience has shown that individual judges usually agree quite closely; the scorekeepers watch for disparaties and in the rare case they find one will ask the team to re-evaluate the model.

Hopefully that gives you an idea of what to expect at our show. If you have any questions, or if you've tried our show and have comments about the judging we'd love to hear what you think - please drop us an email or grab a judge at the show.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, dmorrissette said:

If you have any questions,

Dave, how many entries do you get at the Tricon?

I looked at the Chattanooga site and it still deals with numeric scoring. This is the part that I question. It is time consuming, perhaps too time consuming for at National event. Also, I think having the judges work as a team is superior to having them work independently. I noticed years ago that working alone, judges often miss important details where as the feedback from others helps make a better decision. Normally, I no longer participate in contests using the AMPS judging and when I did this year, the judges missed what I saw as the biggest problem and focused criticism on a point I had well documented. So, I do not believe numeric scoring is truly superior.

My other concern is the obsession on ranking. The judges pick multiple winners of the same rank, but still requires ranking them. This point seems to be a very upsetting thing for those who say we are only about contests.

While it is helpful to read the methods used at various shows, It doesn't answer my questions about how those supporting a change see the GSB system integrated into the National. All the remarks, so far, lead me to believe it has not been thought out and fully explained to the anyone. The first thing anyone one does is post stuff like Dave just did, but doesn't discus HOW to make it work for the expected numbers at a National.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to say this: What a great day it would be in IPMS/USA if "3500" votes were cast for any National election!

Have a nice day and go build a model.

David Von Almen, Gentleman Modeler (now building in Hawaii)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

13 hours ago, Dakimbrell said:

Gil, If you know these shows are so successful, then please post their methodology. This is my point, no one actually posts specifics. I have been attending and looking at contests for forty years. I don't like the current IPMS system because it its to ridged and does not award some models that should be awarded and awards others that should not. Still, I do not see the GSB as used by AMPS as a practical system for an IPMS National. The SINGLE AWARD system would be better than either of these systems.

Would you keep all the unjudged models off display? What if most people don't want the judges comments seen by the public? What would it say if your model is only a gold at one event and a gold at another show using the exact same method at another? Will sweeps be allowed? Or multiple metals to one person...like three silvers? How would you adapt AMPS rules for Si-fi models and Miscellaneous; to cars? Would creativity be considered in dioramas, or only the model quality? If we are judging the model as a stand alone, do we need class and categories? How would you choose best in class or the grand award?

I am willing to be convinced, but so far no one is saying anything but general rhetoric.

Dak

In fairness, there are a lot of details about the current style that vary from show to show. How many categories and what they are, how willing they are to split or merge categories, whether sweeps are allowed or not, whether they close the display room while judging or not, etc. I would avoid getting too hung up on details, as there is no reason to think that they are an insurmountable obstacle that can't be sorted out in the transition -- we have ample evidence that both GSB and 123 are workable systems. Also, getting hung up on the details prevents change -- after all, if we currently used GSB and were talking about going to 123, then we could just as easily avoid making a decision and stick with the status quo because we are stuck on "should we allow sweeps or not"

Here is an example of a show that uses a GSB system that I have been to: https://swordandbrush.ca/painting-expo/

As for specifics, I have some opinions, but they are simply opinions:

1. Don't keep the unjudged models off display.

2. Written judge's comments aren't necessary; I would rather just not bother with them and encourage competitors to talk to judges and fellow competitors for feedback (after all, you don't even need to go to a competition to get feedback)

3. If a model wins a Gold at one event and a Silver at another, that will just imply that certain competitions are a little more elite and have higher standards than others. And, that isn't necessarily any different than what we have now -- it's one thing to win first in your category at a small local competition, it's another to win first in your category at a national competition.

4. "Sweeps" aren't really a thing in a GSB system, so no need to worry about them.

5. You could do either multiple medals per person or simply judge a person's best work in a category. I like only one medal per person because it is cheaper, it reduces the work of the judges (if I enter six busts, they only have to judge the best one in detail), and because, let's face it, a lot of us don't need lots and lots of fancy plaques collecting dust. The only thing is, you would have to instruct entrants to group all their entries to make the judging easier -- for example, if I enter three aircraft, I put them all next to each other so it is easier for the judges to see which ones are mine instead of one at each end of the table and one in the middle.

6. I don't like strict rubrics and points systems like AMPS and GBWC, but I think a lot of the criteria would be similar to the criteria we have now for the various categories. Are the seam lines filled, are there any glue marks on the canopy, etc. It would simply be a matter of deciding on base standards, so I can see Gold being a model with very few or no visible errors, silver being a model that is well done but has some mistakes that do not detract too much from the model as a whole, and Bronze being something that is competently built, but still has some mistakes and whatnot that do detract from the overall model.

7. Composition is and should be an important part of dioramas, as the whole point of a diorama is to portray a scene, not just a random collection of multiple models.

8. One of the advantages of the GSB system is that you don't need to have as many categories. In fact, you strictly don't need to have categories at all, but I think basic categories are useful both to recognize people who are skilled in multiple domains (like aircraft and figures), to group all the like models together, to enable awards like "Best Aircraft," to help get judges who have expertise in the thing they are judging, and to allow for the creation of a junior category. I would suggest that you could just have a few categories - Aircraft, Armour, Automotive, Figures, Ships, etc. - instead of the dozens and dozens of categories that a 123 system entails.

9. Best in class would be relatively simple -- once you are done judging all the entrants, take a look at those who won Gold (or, if no Gold medals were awarded, look at the Silvers) and make a call between them in the same way that it is done now with category winners. Then for best in show, make a call between those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To follow up on DAK's comments and try to put some numbers to the logistical effort that GSB might bring.

First of all, we need to acknowledge that all of this is moot if there is no support for GSB.   If and when the membership's initial desire for a GSB system is approved,   committees will be formed to to come up with the actual procedures and criteria for awards.   These procedures and criteria will be presented to the NCC and EBoard for their comment/approval and finally to the membership for their consideration.  Only then will things proceed toward implementation.

Now to the numbers.   AMPS in their website identifies that they have on the order of 500 entries at their national convention.   They also say that a four person judging team is able to score 8 to 10 entries an hour.   After the judging sheets are turned in there is still additional work done by the chief judges and their assistants to validate the scores.

The IPMS Nats is four to five times larger than AMPS with regularly over 2000 model entries.   Using the AMPS judge rate, it will take a minimum of 200 to 250 team-hours to judge our contest.   To complete judging within the five hours of 7pm to midnight on Friday night as we now do, we will need 40 to 50+ four-person judging teams (160 to 200+ people).   After the completion of the judging there is still more work to be done by the head judges and the administrative staff.   Eileen Persichetti and her team regularly spend most of Saturday tabulating the results.

So what is the approach?  Continue with Friday judging?  Judge the models as they are entered,  perhaps impounding them until they are scored?  Daily judging while the contest room is open,   Nightly judging after the room is closed?   These are all processes which will be considered,  but it is not just a simple proposition.   The human capital impact needs to be considered.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...