Jump to content

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, EFGrune said:

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.   

In fairness, the AMPS method seems to be a particularly time-consuming variant of GSB because they use strict rubrics, points systems which requires them to do math and tabulation, place a little more emphasis on accuracy & references, offer written feedback, have four man judge teams but discard one of the scores, and judge every single entry rather than judging only an entrants best work in a category like at figure shows. I suspect that the number of man-hours per model could be reduced by not using rubrics and numerical scores, not offering written feedback, and awarding one medal per entrant per category instead of judging in detail every single model. Basically, work out the details in a way that works instead of just copying AMPS.

Edited by crimsyn1919

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

My name is Bill Dedig, I am currently President of Three Rivers IPMS ,Pittsburgh. I am a Senior Judge for IPMS Nationals and I have been involved with the Three Rivers Contest since its inception. at present I am the head judge for Aircraft for our show. Three Rivers has been using an Open Judging system for quite a few years and we are quite satisfied with our methodology and the feedback from those who have entered our contest. ( measured by Social Media postings  and personnel interactions)

To decrease the wording I will use some bullet points

  • Our show normally runs about 300 models on the table
  • We have numerous Category locators ,but only for ease of model placement and keeping like models together,( Example 1/48 Aircraft, Figures ,etc)
  • We do not judge with a numeric system ,but a simple subjective selection of Gold,Silver,Bronze,Nothing. ( Our judging process was described in detail and few posts ago by Mr. Morrissette from our website ). Numerics are involved at the computer operations for result summations.
  • We use three man teams and we try to ensure that we have a club member on each team to provide continuity.
  • We start judging at our show when we start to see numbers of models on the table. (Start time is usually around 11:00 Am) After Judges Meeting.
  • Models are awarded Gold- Silver- Bronze awards based on normal model finishing standards, Construction,Alignment,Finish, ETC
  • Category "IE Best Aircraft, Best Armor etc" are selected from the Gold Medal winners by the category judges.
  • Best of Show is selected from Category winners by the category Lead Judges. 
  • Pittsburgh has used Gold, Silver and Bronze award medals for quite a few years and the participants have given us Very Positive Feedback.
  • Pittsburgh normally has around 12/14 Sponsored awards from our club members that are judged by the sponsors and paid by the sponsors( I normally do Best USAF Aircraft)

Things we do not do

  • We do not wait for all models to be registered in order to start judging, as this is not necessary in the "Open Judging" system.
  • We do not provide written comments on each model. ( I have given feedback when asked about a particular model... Good & Bad)
  • We do not limit how many awards any individual may be awarded.
  • We do not announce every winner. We place Bronze and Silver awards just before we announce Golds and Specials.

Logistics

We have statistics from last 5 years and we purchased normally two years of awards based on the statistics. We have seen numbers move up or down but never drastically.

Sponsored awards and Best of Awards are purchased Annually.

 

Summation:
For those that ask for details I have responded, I have kept mostly to the facts as to how Pittsburgh" Open Judging" functions.

Finally here is my only opinion.."GSB" is nothing but an abbreviation for an award type, not a Judging Methodology  ( but I get it)

Best Regards

Bill D

 

Edited by wdedig
Forgot Awards information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having recently attended and judged at the AMPS Nationals in Buffalo this past May, I can put a little light on some things. The awards ceremony was done a bit different with what many feel was great success. For each skill level (Basic, Intermediate, Advanced, and Master), participants were called up alphabetically. As they were called up, their awards were announced and they were given a large manilla envelope. Inside were the judging sheets with comments and awards. So unless you showed them to someone, no one saw the comments but you. If you entered more than one model in a category and won say a gold and silver out of three entries (as an example), the awards were announced, but you only received the gold medal (saves $). If you were inclined to want the medals, it behooves you to enter separate categories...but that's similar to the IPMS events I've judged where the best of the three was what was actually judged and the lesser two not considered.

 

In the end, everyone was recognized, but in much less time as it would take to announce each category separately. Everyone I talked to (and I talked to many as I am reviews coordinator for AMPS) were pleased with how smoothly it went...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you guys for finally adding something solid to the discussion!

So, what we now KNOW is that the contests using a GSB system are much smaller than the National is envisioned.

SO, using a numeric score, lets say you have 2000 ( in 2018 there were 2367) entries at a National. All these will have to be judged individually and the scores tabulated. ADDITIONALLY, these would have to be double checked to ensure everyone got judged or someone will be screaming they were robbed! This would support the idea that numeric judging is not practical at a National.

It looks like it would be logistically impossible to keep the models off display until they are judged. Also, undesirable because people want to see the models.

Putting judges comments out in public might be undesirable.

It may be practical to go GSB if we continue to use the current judging system on Friday night. The team working on one category is logistically easier than random judges working alone, then turning in their results. Judging while the room is open to the public is not a good idea.

The number of awards needed would still need to be determined. Lets ay you plan on giving out 600 medals ant the National. They will still need to be apportioned, in some way.

And one minor detail. As I pointed out earlier, an entrant can win a 1st place just by being the only one there. If we used categories, it is possible a category will have no winner.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading the last few comments, I have changed my thinking on using a point system and judging for an open judging system.  It would seem that a team of judges (as we have now) should make the "cut" (as we do now) and judge each model to determine what medal (if any) should be awarded.  This would be an excellent and much faster way to judge all deserving models.

This is how the forum should work and is why I suggest posting any proposal on the forum.  The knowledge base is here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I wanted to do is put things in perspective and discuss things that weren't getting said in all the RAH-RAH remarks. We finally got down to the meat of the issue.

Not everything scales up.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSB CAN be scaled up to the Nats....BUT you have to throw out the idea of trying to judge everything in just one night.

The reason we judge everything in one night under 1-2-3 is the need to wait until EVERY model has been entered so they can be judged one against another. There's no need for that with GSB. Each model is being judged against a standard, and it can be judged as soon as it hits the table, as long as their are judges available.

There's a couple of possible ways to do this, neither of which require scoring, points, or math on the part of the judges.

The first way, and the most familiar way is to retain our teams of 3 judges and they evaluate each model in their assigned area (for ex. 1/72 prop) and decide what award (if any) each model in that "category" deserves. BUT, the team has 2-3 DAYS to get it done. They can meet several times at their own convenience to judge their assigned area, moving on to what's arrived and hasn't been judged yet each time, and having to be done with all of them (like now), by 11pm on Friday evening. This WOULD require that the Head Judges organize, assemble, and assign their judging teams BEFORE the Nats starts. However, with the ease of modern communications that should present few problems, especially after the first year or two. After that, experience and even repetitive assigning would ease the job.

The second way is that each judge works independently, at their convenience on their assigned area. Again, they have 2-3 days to get them all judged; BUT, in this case they would need to hand in their work each time they took a break to a scorer. The scorer would be tracking the awards (if any) each judge thinks a model should get. Under this method you could have a "category" (and each model in it) actually judged by as many as 5 judges. In the end, the scorer simply looks at what the majority of the judges thought an entry should get and marks it down for that award. This method does require more "paperwork" by the staff, but it also allows easier organizing of the judging pool and for more opinions (and perhaps a fairer outcome) in the actual judging.

Keep in mind that the National Judges are the MOST experienced at their craft. They KNOW "excellent" from "very good" from "good" from "not good enough". Currently, they use that knowledge in comparison to other models beside each other. They can just as easily apply that knowledge to award a gold, silver, or bronze based on a written standard.

A team of 3 might operate this way: the FIRST thing they do when they look at a model is ask each other for an immediate opinion. If they all agree, BAM, they're done! They mark that award (or no award) down for that entry and move on to the next. Thus the BEST and the WORST entries will be done quite quickly. If there's a split in the thinking, then they discuss it (as they do now) and come to a consensus. This will happen with those entries that appear to be on the cusp....should it get a bronze or no award? Should it get a silver or a gold?

The key is to have the standard written so that it's easily understandable. As I said, the Nats judges already know what's right and wrong when they look at a model. All they need is guidance on where to draw lines for each award. The golds and "no awards" are easy.....it's the standard for the silver and bronze, where there ARE some problems on the models that require some thought and care.

If the Nats were to stop trying to judge everything in one night, and allow the judges (in teams or individually) to judge their assigned areas starting on Thursday morning; then 2500 models COULD be judged by 11pm on Friday evening. It can be done, but you have to let go of old habits and ideas to do so.

GIL :smiley16:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil,

I believe you grossly underestimate the problems of implementing a scaled up version of GSB vision. The IPMS/USA National is currently 4-5 times the size of the largest GSB contest noted here.

First, you assume an adequate number of people will be willing to take time out to act as judges from Thursday morning to Friday afternoon. Like many attendees, I see this as a vacation. I want to wander the model room and vendors; attend seminars, or maybe take tours. At Columbus, I spent the entire Wednesday at the Airforce museum and Thursday in seminars. To take several hours judging at a time inconvenient for me is not an appealing idea. HOW is this different from several hours on Friday night? By that time, the vendors are closed; the seminars and tours are done. To work for several hours then looking at models, is not a burden for me.

Judging the models as they come in, but before they go on display will require an, as yet, unknown amount of holding space. Also, there will be surges of entries arriving. So, you would need to adjust the number of judges to prevent back up. Potentially tying up a lot of people just sitting and waiting. People who might want to be other places like the vendor's room. Also, it was determined over thirty years ago that letting the judges leave before all the judging was done was a VERY bad idea. Such a bad idea, they wrote it into the rules.

Having the judges working while people are in the room is also a poor idea. Large numbers of models will be coming in, spectators roaming around, and then there are the lurkers....those folk who want to know about or influence the judging of their entry. Then there is the real risk of overlooking a model or judging a model multiple times by different teams. (I have seen this happen with totally different results for each team.) This sounds like a recipes for confusion.

Here you say....

11 hours ago, ghodges said:

There's a couple of possible ways to do this, neither of which require scoring, points, or math on the part of the judges.

then here....

11 hours ago, ghodges said:

 

The second way is that each judge works independently, at their convenience on their assigned area. Again, they have 2-3 days to get them all judged; BUT, in this case they would need to hand in their work each time they took a break to a scorer. The scorer would be tracking the awards (if any) each judge thinks a model should get.

….you start talking about scoring. No matter how you do it numeric scoring is going to require manpower. Not just judges. Each entry will need at least three scores and these will need to be checked by the head judges. Potentially, 6000 to 7500 sheets of paper (maybe more) which will need to be held until the contest is done. Compare this to the current 190-200 sheets.....only one for each category.

Standards... this is a dangerous word. Back in the late seventies, there was an attempt to set standards and it was disastrous...the Milwaukie National, I think.

IPMS/USA has had fifty years experimenting with contest rules. While it needs changes, and tweaks, it has a solid history to draw from. By shifting to an entirely new system without some trial and error work, would be potential disaster. Would you be will to bet all your local clubs money on an untried contest like a National?

I for one would like to see an awards system which allows more than three medals per category. I think with the growing number of entries, simply increasing categories is a dead end and we need to find a solution, but simply assuming we can just switch to a GSB without a sound understanding of what we can realistically do is a dangerous route.

Would it not be easier to increase the number of awards and apportion them based on the entries numbers in categories and use a non-ranking award, but use the current methodology? No 1st; no Gold, just an award. I. E.,  In 1/72nd single engine aircraft five awards were given out. In 1/35th Open Topped AFVs, seven were given out.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAK: Again...you're holding on to some old ideas and misunderstood  some of what I said.

The one thing that would have to be allowed for is judging while people are in the room. I've also done this at a 1-2-3 show and agree that it CAN be a problem. However, the answer is simple: demand good etiquette from the attendees! Judges will have to be avoided by those who are milling about. People placing models can do so in a quiet, polite manner, and then move off. If someone wants to hover, then the team leader nicely asks them to move along. If they fail to do so or start interfering in the judging (talking, questioning, etc.) the team leader gets the head judge and the attendee is put on notice of being disqualified. Failure to cooperate or repetitive hovering will result in disqualification and possible banning from future shows (this is already policy among the judges themselves!). It IS something new to be learned by attendees, but it is also easily explained and easy enough to police.

Judging time? As it is now, a judge (or team) donates at least 4-5hrs on Friday evening. If they arrive at the show knowing their assignment, and having communicated with each other ahead of time, then they should be able to get together for an hour or two 2-3 times over the two days. So perhaps they judge for one hour on Thursday afternoon to get started. Then they get together for 2 hours on Friday morning. and then perhaps they  use Friday evening to finish up for 1-2 hrs as needed. The judging team could even go out to dinner with wives or friends on a Friday night before showing up to finish up (something not possible now).  I agree that this will be something NEW, and it will require a team leader to communicate and coordinate with his two fellow judges so that each of them CAN attend seminars, do lunch, have free time to shop and admire models. However, once the new system is implemented, the teams should actually fall into a routine of sorts. AND, since many genres aren't as "populated" as the aircraft and armor areas, in fact, many of the genres may be pretty much done before Friday evening "judging" (the time used to be sure everything is done). Also, (as added insurance), if some judging had to be done on Saturday morning, it could be done then. While you doubt this could be coordinated (and I agree it could be tough to start if a Head Judge or team leader was lax), I (as a judge) would LOVE to know what I was assigned to do and to be able to get the jump on things!

The Nats is the one show that does have enough judges (100 or so on average), and the actual "pool" is even larger. It's also the most experienced group of judges compared to locals and regionals. An adequate number of teams could be assembled and assigned ahead of time, though I freely admit there could be a steep learning curve the first couple of years. If someone feels they need more time for other things at THAT show, then they simply don't volunteer to judge that year (the exact same as now).

Holding space? Judging models before they enter the room? Where did you come up with that? This is not Amps and I certainly never said or implied it. All models would be judged in place on the tables in the contest room, just like now. Missing a model? Judging a model more than once? Extremely doubtful, since the team would be able to mark the entrant's paperwork with the model AS judged. Also, the real plus with GSB is there's really NO reason to move a model since they only have to fit into the broadest of "categories" (unlike now). Anything can happen (of course), but you threw that in there without any real probable cause.

The 3 man team approach requires no more paperwork than now. The only difference is that instead of 3 lines on their sheet they'll have about 30 lines to record results on (and I don't propose having teams judge more than that at a time unless they HAVE EXTRA time). As it is now, a team will generally judge a category with 20-30 models in it, tops. The splits are designed to keep it at those numbers. The GSB "categories" or display zones (whatever you label them) can be designed the same way (much the same as now). Thus teams will still judge approximately the same number of models as they do now, but they won't have to wait and do it all in one night (unless they prefer to).

The other "individual" way does require more time and paperwork, but it's also spaced out over 3 days (including Saturday, which the recorders already work now). That's why I prefer the traditional 3 man team approach.

To note another change; the idea that you're going to take pics and show EVERY winner at the banquet has to be tossed. Since you'll be awarding so many more models, it just cannot be done. My proposal would be to simply list the bronze and silver winners in the Journal (their name, and the number of each they got), and then show pics of the Gold winners at the awards ceremony and in the Journal. Want your model up on the wall at the banquet? Up your game and win a gold! That will greatly reduce the stress of WHAT has to collated and coordinated for the awards ceremony at the Nats, while giving plenty of time to sort and record the bronze and silver winners for publication months later.

Standards? You are ENTIRELY wrong in citing that old IPMS story....THAT was a proposal to have a MINIMUM standard to ENTER at the Nats, and had NOTHING to do with judging standards during the contest. There IS a standard we use now in our Nats 1-2-3; the BASICS. GSB will use that SAME standard, but draw lines to say which award goes with what level of building and finishing basics (go back and read the Pittsburg GSB standard in the post above by DM). Anyone who thinks there is no "standard" to be met in order to win in 1-2-3 or GSB, or that having one is "dangerous", is beyond help from any of us!

Am I seeing pie in the sky, or painting a really rosy scenario? Perhaps....but I did so at YOUR request to "flesh out how" GSB could actually work and be scaled up. In reality (not just theory), we're doing this at Jaxcon. We were able to do it (hiccups and all) last year with over 600 models, and did so over 4-5 hours in one day (we're a 1 day show). The idea is to streamline and improve our system so that we handle all those models and more in an even easier manner with time to spare. We'll see....

This is why I say that GSB has to be PROVED at the local and regional level first. It has to be fine tuned so that we do it as normally as we now do 1-2-3. If that CAN be done, then it CAN be used at the Nats. If it IS pie in the sky, then it'll die its own death of natural causes and shows will revert to 1-2-3. Writing, proposing, and debating GSB will do nothing. Actual trial and error is what's needed to make the switch to GSB.

GIL :smiley16:

Edited by ghodges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil,

I don't buy it. I agree GSB works on a small scale, but there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea it can be scaled up. Nothing you have posted has convinced me you have a good grasp on what it would take. You talk about fine tuning the GSB to fit the National, but again you offer not proof or clear description of your fine tuning. When you put together a show with 2000 plus models going on for four days and have praises for it, I'll believe it can be done.

1 hour ago, ghodges said:

Standards? You are ENTIRELY wrong in citing that old IPMS story....THAT was a proposal to have a MINIMUM standard to ENTER at the Nats, and had NOTHING to do with judging standards during the contest.

No, the event I was referring to was when some awards were not presented because "the models did not measure up to IPMS standards". I fully understand the "standards" as you mean them, but the wording still cause some to shudder.

I do not believe you can get the needed manpower to do the judging as you describe. I know I would not be interested in giving up my vacation time to do it your way. I like judging on Friday night because it fits my schedule and I believe others would feel the same way when actually confronted with it. I learned a long time ago not to put faith in the promises of good intentions. This would be something to put to actual judges at the National; see how many would prefer it to the traditional Friday night event. Maybe a questionnaire handed out on Friday night.

Also, many people do not like judging with public in the room. Many would not like being photographed while judging a model. Yes, you can demand etiquette, but again, we are talking about a larger group. My experience says it would not be good and I suspect it would cause many experienced judges to drop out. And if judges can go about the work over several days, what will be done with the judging sheets? Certainly, you do not plan on leaving them with the model, until all are done.

Hmmm... taking pictures using the Single award system...... Early on you said the awards would be about the same number we use now thus costs would not increase much so, if the overall numbers stay the same, those at the awards ceremony would stay about the same. Any change to the system requires adjustment. I remember the days when there were no pictures at the banquet and only B&W pictures came out in the Update. Things have adjusted.

Why do we need a system that ranks the models? The Single award system would provide basically what you want with far less work and disruption. How is GSB superior to what I proposed?

No, Gil, the more I read your posts, I believe the GSB, as you present it, would not work for the numbers we get, or expect to get, at a national. That you offer a couple different ways to do something says you have not fully developed your plan and that is its weakness. For example, show me what sort of judging sheet you would use, if not a single sheet for each judge per model. (Perhaps, you can create a mock up to illustrate your vision.) If three judges use the same sheet, that would still be a judging sheet for each model. 2018 had more than 2300 entries, so you would need that many, correct? Currently, there are only about 200 judging sheets.

Dak

 

 

Edited by Dakimbrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AND A FEW MORE THOUGHTS....

On 7/16/2019 at 5:23 PM, ghodges said:

Judging time? As it is now, a judge (or team) donates at least 4-5hrs on Friday evening. If they arrive at the show knowing their assignment, and having communicated with each other ahead of time, then they should be able to get together for an hour or two 2-3 times over the two days. So perhaps they judge for one hour on Thursday afternoon to get started. Then they get together for 2 hours on Friday morning. and then perhaps they  use Friday evening to finish up for 1-2 hrs as needed. The judging team could even go out to dinner with wives or friends on a Friday night before showing up to finish up (something not possible now).  I agree that this will be something NEW, and it will require a team leader to communicate and coordinate with his two fellow judges so that each of them CAN attend seminars, do lunch, have free time to shop and admire models. However, once the new system is implemented, the teams should actually fall into a routine of sorts. AND, since many genres aren't as "populated" as the aircraft and armor areas, in fact, many of the genres may be pretty much done before Friday evening "judging" (the time used to be sure everything is done). Also, (as added insurance), if some judging had to be done on Saturday morning, it could be done then. While you doubt this could be coordinated (and I agree it could be tough to start if a Head Judge or team leader was lax), I (as a judge) would LOVE to know what I was assigned to do and to be able to get the jump on things!

Gil,

Open judging over the course of the convention could work if, instead of doing it during the day, it was done in the late evening on Wednesday, Thursday, and of course Friday. After the vendors and seminars are over and the contest room is closed to the public. It would allow the judges to clear the latest entries and deal with problems in an organized, but far less stressful environment.

I still feel a three person team is the best way to judge. One person, working alone can miss things; team work allows judges to share information which is important when working with diverse subjects.

Judging with the public in the room is an EXTREMELY BAD IDEA. The current system has the head judges check the work done by the teams and has them explain their decisions and this is an excellent check and balance developed over the past fifty years. Working in the evenings as a group would allow this to be done while all the judges are together and don't have to be run to ground in the vendor's room. Using the open system in this manner will still take a lot of paper work ….2000+ judging sheets verses the current 200 or so used now.

I still feel a Single Award System (SAS) would be superior.

Dak

Edited by Dakimbrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right.....all of us who tout GSB are really just aiming to undermine IPMSUSA and ruin the Nats. It can't possibly work (because it's never been done). And of course you, like the NCC, want a fully written and detailed proposal to be examined and parsed (and then dismissed) because it doesn't look plausible on paper (to you). That can never be done, so people who want complete assurance that it'll work with no problems or adjustments will never be comfortable with any "proposal". As I said before, I'm not saying you're wrong, but GSB proponents are making it work NOW.

But, since you think you have a better idea, exactly where are YOU implementing your SWS? Where are you putting your ideas on the line to be tried? If we agree that the 1-2-3 system (although it does work) is the least beneficial to IPMSUSA for future growth of our Society, then start working towards making a change where you are. You may indeed have a better way, but I guarantee that even if you crossed all your T's and dotted your I's in a "proposal"; it would be dismissed by IPMSUSA and the NCC just as quickly as GSB (or simply put out in a "survey"). Show them how good your idea is by making it work at a successful local and/or regional show.

As for our show, Jaxcon, we're looking to keep growing our show so that we HAVE to "scale up" our GSB system. We're already 1/3 the size of the Nats and hope to hit 1/2 (1000+ models) in the next 5yrs. We currently judge those 600+ models in 4-5hrs with only 20 or so judges. So yes, I DO think that 4 to 5 times that number of judges over 2-3 days could judge 2000-2500 models. Until that's actually put to the test, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

Part of this debate and discussion has a LOT to do with breaking "traditions". As I stated above, IPMSUSA does NOT like to do that, and thus not only do you have to prove a new system will work, you have to overcome people's wanting to poke holes in new ideas and their loathing of change. Best of luck, whichever side you end up on, I've covered everything I can think of. Y'all can have at it the rest of the way!

 

GIL :smiley16:

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil,

I completely agree with everything you said (or simply put out in a "survey").  Believe me, I sympathize.  After about a year of work, my MAP program was hybridized into the program we have now with others recognized for it.  However, the first rung of the ladder that MUST be scaled is; "does the membership prefer open judging above 1,2,3?"  Until we have that statistic to back us up, the E-board is never going to support change.  I hope Jaxcon reaches 1000 models next year which will only encourage the E-board to support change. 

I hope it happens soon.  😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of experience with groups getting all fired up over concepts, then having the end result not being what anyone expected. My concern has been that the survey asks too simple a question. Some think you are wanting to implement the AMPS system. Others think it will be that used by MMSI. Others like you say it will be something else. If the majority vote for the GSB, then the fun starts as they try to implement it. I just like to know what I buying before we get all wrapped up in the enthusiasm.

If you actually knew me, you would know I was advocating GSB in the early eighties. However, the version I promoted was basically the current system with more awards. I became very disillusioned after participating in the AMPS and MMSI judging and came to understand the problems with making it work for IPMS on the needed scale.

When I say the SAS is superior, I base that on your remarks made here. I question WHY we must have awards that rank the winning models. I like winning, but I see no reason to require the contest to rank each model. I am still waiting for you to explain why it won't work or why you must have a ranking award system. It is simple, and can be applied to the current system with virtually no disruption. Isn't getting more awards to more models your objective? One of the reasons we implemented  no-sweeps was to get more awards to more people.

As you have described you system, it looks like it will require a complete overhaul and restructuring of the current system, perhaps scrapping it entirely. (Please correct me if I am incorrect) People are comfortable with the current system because they have had fifty years to get use to them. Sometimes that is good, and sometimes bad.

Also, in some support of your idea, I suggested....

5 hours ago, Dakimbrell said:

Open judging over the course of the convention could work if, instead of doing it during the day, it was done in the late evening on Wednesday, Thursday, and of course Friday. After the vendors and seminars are over and the contest room is closed to the public. It would allow the judges to clear the latest entries and deal with problems in an organized, but far less stressful environment.

yet, you have not remarked on it.

I too look forward to seeing the results of JAXCON. Costs of awards, number of entries, days operating, etc.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil, I found your last post most enlightening and interesting. Your experience with your show reveals that such numbers of entries can be handled with open judging. More importantly, it shows we can do anything we set our minds to if we need to do it. And that brings us to Rusty’s equally sensible and relevant post- do we need to do it all? That is the first and most important question.  Intelligent comments both. Nick

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ghodges said:

As for our show, Jaxcon, we're looking to keep growing our show so that we HAVE to "scale up" our GSB system. We're already 1/3 the size of the Nats and hope to hit 1/2 (1000+ models) in the next 5yrs. We currently judge those 600+ models in 4-5hrs with only 20 or so judges. So yes, I DO think that 4 to 5 times that number of judges over 2-3 days could judge 2000-2500 models. Until that's actually put to the test, you and I will just have to agree to disagree.

While it suggests it might scale up, there is still the question of days running. Is JAXCON a one day affair? How many judging sheets were used? Were the results left out for the public to see? How many awards were given out? How were the categories set up? Were the judges results checked by head judges? My math shows 600 to be closer to 1/4th rather than 1/3rd, based on the 2018 numbers. (2367 divided by 600= 3.945) (This sort of math is what I mean by wishful enthusiasm) The National is not just a contest so there are other factors which effect how people will act. For example, if there is a big tour of a major museum during the day, many might prefer doing that rather than spend several hours judging. Of course, working in the evening over three nights would eliminate this problem.

If it continues to grow and experiences large popular support, then it would be worth trying to change the IPMS National.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The objective of going to a GSB system is to get more awards to more people than the current methods allow, correct?  Also, the objective of GSB is also to rank models showing the level of skill, correct. We want to do this while at the same time maintain the contest as a competition and not turn everything into participation awards. I like that; here are many categories where excellent models get nothing and other categories where poor work gets rewarded. Simply making more categories or splits, will ultimately reach a point of impracticality, so we do need to start planning for a replacement system before we are forced to do so by events.

Gil, as you describe your vision, there would be no reason for categories beyond organizational. You only put all the 1/72nd aircraft together to help the judges find them, correct? And the awards would not reflect in what category you won, correct? (I.E. you won a bronze for your 1/72nd Me-109G/10R.) Showing pictures of all the winners at the awards ceremony will ultimately become impractical regardless of what system we use.

The main problem I see facing the judges of 2000-3000 models is accountability. This would also included tracking which judges judge which models as the current system does.There will be someone...probably several... who will come in towards the end of registration and worry their models did not get judged. Without question, someone will claim they did not get a fair shake. This is why judging on Friday night has such an advantage. The registration is complete; all the models are there and all the judges are together. This does not mean other methods cannot work, just that it will require more accountability than is need for a one day event. I am concerned those advocating strongly for GSB have not given enough thought to the logistics of total revision of the system.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rusty White said:

After about a year of work, my MAP program was hybridized into the program we have now with others recognized for it. 

Where is this current MAP?  Last I looked, IPMS/USA didn't have one, because the re-worked version that was presented in 2005 was basically ignored by the E-Board before it was dismissed as "unworkable" six months later.  They preferred the Adult Building Course which is nothing close to the MAP you wrote OR the re-worked version (which, to be fair, wasn't that much different than the one you wrote).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My largest misgiving on this whole survey is that it put the cart before the horse.  I stated such when work began, I said so when the questions were being written, and I'm saying it now.

The first question that needed to be asked is "What does IPMS/USA envision the purpose of it's National Model Contest to be?"

Does IPMS/USA want to simply pick the best models presented at that show on that day?  (OR--Does IPMS/USA want to recognize well-built models and more or less ignore the rest?)  If that's the goal, they already have it in the 1-2-3, comparative/triage judging currently in use.

Does IPMS/USA want to aid modelers in their efforts to become better modelers?  (OR--Does IPMS want to offer structured feedback and advice to the modeler in an effort to help them help themselves?)  If this is where the aim is, look to the AMPS system.

Does IPMS/USA want to recognize a modeler's body of work entered in a given show on a given day?  (OR--Does IPMS/USA want to reward a modeler for their effort on that day?)  If this is what they're looking for, check out the MMSI Chicago System.

(As an aside, I note that several of the IPMS Open Judging systems in use on the local level--Jaxcon, Chattanooga, etc.--are a hybrid of all three.)

Those questions needed to be asked before the survey questions were issued.  They needed to be asked before the questions were written.

Next, a rudimentary structure for said Open Judging system needed to be developed before the survey was released.  Why?  We now have four (maybe five by now) pages in this thread of "why".

The way the survey is worded is akin to asking your kid if he wants baked chicken for dinner, or "something else".  When the kid asks, "What's the something else?", the only answer you have for him is "I don't know, and I can't tell you until you choose it--it hasn't been defined."  So, the kid either goes with chicken, something he knows and kinda likes, or--if he's adventurous--takes a stab at the pig in a poke, which could be pizza.  It could be liver.

Or, the kid could spend the next day speculating as to what "something else" is and go hungry.

The smart kid goes with the chicken.

What infuriates me is the President's Column in the July/August Journal, where Ron Bell stated that, and I quote, "We just thought it was time to get this issue settled once and for all and put it behind us, one way or another.(Emphasis is mine)

What this tells me is that the E-Board has a closed mind and has no vision of growing and changing the Society with the times per the membership's wishes.  This attitude, I believe, has caused people to leave IPMS/USA and go to AMPS and to other organizations (even forming other organizations--look to the South Carolina Modelers Association as an example), never to look back.  I personally know at least a dozen former IPMS/USA members who left and won't come back.  One (a former E-Board member, no less) once told me that he tried to change the system, but was met with, as he called it, "the IPMS/USA Good Old Boy's Stone Wall."  When I asked why a stone wall, he stated that "it is cold, deaf, uncaring, and unyielding."

Couple that to the IPMS/USA Chief Judge's attempts to color the current system as "The Best. Judging. System. Ever.!",  and paint Open Judging as an effort to see that "everyone wins a trophy", and it indicates that the E-Board is using this survey merely as an attempt to look like they are listening to the membership without intending to change a thing.  The motion will fail, then they will say "We've done that, it failed, end of story" the next time this same issue is brought up.  In this thread alone, there's already an IPMS/USA Past President doing that very thing, looking back to a failed effort in 2004--as if nothing changes over time.

I am a proponent for Open Judging, believing that a well developed, uniform system could yield good results over time.  A well-defined, thought-out system CAN work--but it will require several things to happen.  Most importantly, it requires a buy-in from the majority of the membership.  If the membership doesn't believe in it, it won't matter what system is used--it will fail.  It will take time and a lot of effort to change--it won't happen overnight, and will probably require a years-long phase in.  Start at the local level, iron out the bugs, take it to the Regional level, work out the new bugs, then move it to the National level--where, undoubtedly, more issues will come to the fore and will need to be dealt with.  Rome wasn't built in one day, nor will any sort of new-to-the-organization judging system.

My vision for an Open Judging system extends to more than the Nationals--it needs to be a UNIVERSAL system, required to be used by ALL IPMS/USA Chapters at ALL IPMS/USA sanctioned contests, whether they be local, Regional, or National.  Judges will need to have formal training and periodic re-training.  Whatever system used needs to be applied consistently and reviewed periodically, updating it as needed.  Without these things, all you will wind up with is an Open Judging version of what we have now.  The current system is only required to be used at the Nationals--local contests can simply say they will hand out medals to every fifth pink model that comes through the door and call it an IPMS contest, if that's what the host Chapter wants to do.  The word, and I've used it many, many times before, is Standardization.  Have a standard, uniform, universal system that is required throughout IPMS/USA.  "But, how can you require us to do anything?"  Easy--it comes with the deal.  You wanna be an IPMS/USA Chapter?  You agree to the terms set out by IPMS/USA.  Period.  Don't like it?  Don't play.

But that probably won't happen.  If we talk about the Chicago System, some see it as "limiting the number of models on the table"--when, actually, nothing is limited EXCEPT the fact that the entrant, if the scored model in their group scores enough points, takes home ONE award for their body of work.  

AMPS, likewise, encourages the entrant to self-asses their work and only enter one model per category.  Why?  Because they will only take home the award for their model that scores the highest in any given category, so even by entering eight M4 Shermans into Allied Armor, WWII will only yield ONE medal.  "But I want the feedback!"  Usually, as the models are judged, the same faults are found on all the models entered by that person.  How many times do you need to read "Watch the floating tracks" before you realize that you need to do just that?

The examples above also serve a purpose--it eases the burden on the judges.  They don't have to judge 500+ (or 1000+, or 10,000+) models, the judging goes quickly, and the end result is the same.

This is why "Display Only" has been a standard category for AMPS for as long as I've been a member.  Submit your best work for evaluation, put the rest in Display Only.  The goal of the show isn't about "winning" or "losing", it is about showing off your work.

But I am not optimistic that any of what I just wrote will come to pass.  IPMS/USA has slowly evolved their contests into bloodsport--the winner take all, "I'm the GOD OF STYRENE!" attitude has eroded any semblance of friendly competition.  Even the survey says it--Advantage #2 of the 1-2-3 system is stated as "models vie head-to-head for awards, creating a healthy (really?--me) spirit of competitiveness amongst (sic) our members."  

And why do we feel the need to compete, anyway?  I get it--'Murica and all that.  But a very vocal minority has taken an enjoyable pastime and twisted it into yet another way they can climb to the top of the pile, beat their chests, and wail at the moon...

I will now go back to my position of a few years ago--Exhibition only, no contest, no awards.  Make it about the models, NOT the medals.  After all, everyone says they enter shows to show off their work, right?  So, by their own admission, the awards don't matter--and following that logic, that means the method used to determine the awards likewise doesn't matter, but some will NEVER enter a contest judged by a system they don't like.  Funny, that...

Club stands, SIG stands, vendors, food, and friendship.  Hang out with a bunch of like-minded people and enjoy the show by looking at, talking about, and sharing techniques for scale models.  Screw the contest, screw the judges, and screw the awards...

Ralph

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts related to Ralph's remarks, I agree with most of what he says.

I left IPMS in the 80s because the aircraft guys were making rules about armor and dioramas clearly without consulting any of those genres. Even today, I still can't understand why we can't have a diorama group in the triathlon. But I came back because all the other groups were only interested in one subject and I have many interests which I satisfy with IPMS. However, that miss-action by the powers created many of the non-aircraft groups.

5 hours ago, Ralph Nardone said:

And why do we feel the need to compete, anyway?  I get it--'Murica and all that.  But a very vocal minority has taken an enjoyable pastime and twisted it into yet another way they can climb to the top of the pile, beat their chests, and wail at the moon...

I've been in four different clubs. The only one that has models show up at each meeting is the Oklahoma Historical Modelers Society. Often, many MODEL clubs have meetings with no models. ( Has anyone else experienced this?) Why is OHMS different? We do a model of the month contest. It is a simple popular vote deal, but it seems to inspire members to bring stuff in and talk about it. Competition is ubiquitous in virtually every element of society. It doesn't matter it if is bowling, golf (model building is a lot like golf), fishing, or surfing. Personally, I think competition has given us better models and more variety. So, I see competition as a good thing.

What I do like about the National today is there is a generally well run event. I remember one in the early eighties which had truly poor management. Part was the local group and part IPMS. I came close to punching one of the contest officials. If we want to change to a new system, then let's do it right and make sure it works with what we have to work with. Lots of people will say they will help out on stuff, then have plenty of reasons to back out at the last minute. I don't offer to do much because I can only attend intermittently.

I have found many who dislike IPMS are those who don't want to improve. They resent being told the glob of glue hurts the model; hence our reputation as too picky.

6 hours ago, Ralph Nardone said:

I will now go back to my position of a few years ago--Exhibition only, no contest, no awards.  Make it about the models, NOT the medals.  After all, everyone says they enter shows to show off their work, right?  So, by their own admission, the awards don't matter--and following that logic, that means the method used to determine the awards likewise doesn't matter, but some will NEVER enter a contest judged by a system they don't like.  Funny, that...

Club stands, SIG stands, vendors, food, and friendship.  Hang out with a bunch of like-minded people and enjoy the show by looking at, talking about, and sharing techniques for scale models.  Screw the contest, screw the judges, and screw the awards...

I do all of this and I enter to show off my work and win awards. One does not exclude the other. The competition is important to me, but I use it as motivation to do better if I win nothing. ( I am often motivated) I do think we can do a better show, and the E-board needs to be more flexible. Like in all things, you can use the experience in different ways. Some good and some bad.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen AMPS and Jaxcon mentioned a number of times in this thread.    What are they?

Guess they are big Stateside modelling events. Please relieve this Old Englander of his ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, noelsmith said:

Seen AMPS and Jaxcon mentioned a number of times in this thread.    What are they?

Guess they are big Stateside modelling events. Please relieve this Old Englander of his ignorance.

AMPS is the Armor Modeling and Preservation Society.  They are a modeling group dedicated to armor with chapters worldwide.  https://www.amps-armor.org/SiteMain/Main.aspx

Jaxcon is the annual contest hosted by IPMS/First Coast in Jacksonville, Florida.  http://ipmsfirstcoast.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph, thanks for explaining AMPS and Jaxcon for me.

In the UK the AMPS equivalent is the MAFVA (Miniature Armoured Fighting Vehicle Association) that is just about modelling AFV's and not full size vehicle preservation.

Naturally MAFVA members would also be interested in the preservation of full size vehicles and have many contacts within museums and AFV preservation groups although not directly involved with preservation as an association.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! this has been such fun. Reading all the things - wanting change in the National Convention & Contest, reading how folks have left the Society over the years for one thing or another, and realizing that everyone has an opinion - or at least the 18 to 20 members that have taken the time to get involved in the conversation on this thread. It all comes down to one thing - get involved, period. It is the only way change can be done. If you look at the ballot in the May/June 2019 issue (not the July/August 2019 issue as printed on the cover of the latest issue) you will find that each office being elected is unopposed! Why is that? Because we all want our ideas used but we don't want to get involved we want someone else to make the decision so we can complain!

You want to change the system? Then do something about it - run for National Office. No I have never been an elected officer at the National level but I did served on the IPMS/USA Executive Board for almost 17 years. And, things have not changed in the years since I left my position on the E-Board.

Have a nice day and build a model.

David Von Almen, Gentleman Modeler (now in the islands)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said David!  👍  Some time ago I tried my shot at running for President, but lost.  😭  You're right.  The only way things will change is to have an E-board that shares common goals.  My (losing) strategy at the time was to have two folks run with me to hopefully get elected.  Unfortunately, the membership seems to be happy with the "If the house isn't on fire, and the Journals get to us on time, let's keep the status quo."  Hopefully a group of like minded folks with similar goals will run and affect real change.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...