Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sharkinman44 said:

Does this have a chance of happening before Texas?

There never was a "this".  I have stated many times that the survey was just that.  A survey.   I noticed that the last survey was taken five years ago, and I figured it was time to take another so the E-board would know the current membership feeling on the matter.  If I'm still around come 2024, I'll request another survey be done.

If anything is in the works, I haven't heard anything about it.  Like DAK says, any change to the judging at the national would take years and I doubt that any previously selected event would be required to use any new system.  I have made it no secret that I personally support moving to open judging.  Having said all that, an accurate survey showing a majority of the membership in favor of open judging would be the first step in the process of getting it done.

I have yet to even hear what the results of the survey are.  I can only assume it will be published along with official results of the election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rusty White said:

There is, and never was a "this".  I have stated many times that the survey was just that.  A survey.   I noticed that the last survey was taken five years ago, and I figured it was time to take another so the E-board would know the current membership feeling on the matter.  If I'm still around  2024, I'll request another survey be done.

If anything is in the works, I haven't heard anything about it.  Like DAK says, any change to the judging at the national would take years and I doubt that any previously selected event would be required to use any new system.  I have made it no secret that I personally support moving to open judging.  Having said all that, an accurate survey showing a majority of the membership in favor of open judging would be the first step in the process of getting it done.

I have yet to even hear what the results of the survey are.  I can only assume it will be published along with official winners of the election.

I realize that, and stated something about that in the first part of my post. Just seems like a lot of the folks from the "inside" here have their minds made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sharkinman44 said:

 

It’s not that the minds are made up, but that many have been dealing with the same questions for forty years. 

Dak

Share this post


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

" C'mon, you know some guys who really want to win will just enter down below their skill level. "

Obviously, some sort of record would need to kept, but it would be simple to do.  I.e. once one has placed "first" a set number of times at each level, a mandatory upgrade to the next level would be required until they reached the master level.  It would be easy to police as judges and modelers are a close group.  Someone will eventually expose anyone violating the rule.

Tracking one's experience growth becomes a levy on the eBoard.   And unless you are doing away with the various classes you will need to track not just one level, but levels in 7 classes.   One may be a novice in, say ships, but be intermediate in armor, and master in aircraft.   We tried an honor system  for novice entries/winners about 20 years ago, the Premier Award.  It was confusing and ineffective.  It lasted but one year.

A set of experience levels, per class, would need to be added to the membership database.    This database would need to be referenced for each modeler/entry at the contest to ensure that the modeler was entering in the correct level.    Add that to the lines at registration.

At the competition committee meeting in Chattanooga proponents of various judging methods spoke.   About the only consistent message was that any change at the National level would likely take 10 years to implement.   The NCC impressed upon them the need to have the ability to judge and record the results for upwards of 3000 models done in a timely manner.   The Nats are 3 to 5 times the size of other shows and contests.   What do you propose about classes and categories?  Are you going to have feed-back comments supplied to the builder?   How will you track 9000 pieces of paper?    What to you do about awards; generic, inexpensive coins that can be used for multiple years or the custom awards given now?  What is your expected award rate, how many of each color will you buy?  What about the awards presentation slideshow and journal?

Any qualified proposal for an alternative judging method must address these concerns among others.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The skill level contest design I have proposed addresses almost all of the issues noted above. 

There would be no need to track winners any more than we do now. 

Dak

Share this post


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

At the competition committee meeting in Chattanooga proponents of various judging methods spoke.   About the only consistent message was that any change at the National level would likely take 10 years to implement.   The NCC impressed upon them the need to have the ability to judge and record the results for upwards of 3000 models done in a timely manner.   The Nats are 3 to 5 times the size of other shows and contests.   What do you propose about classes and categories?  Are you going to have feed-back comments supplied to the builder?   How will you track 9000 pieces of paper?    What to you do about awards; generic, inexpensive coins that can be used for multiple years or the custom awards given now?  What is your expected award rate, how many of each color will you buy?  What about the awards presentation slideshow and journal?

Any qualified proposal for an alternative judging method must address these concerns among others.   

 

Thing is, a survey on preference is far from the detailed proposal stage, and none of these questions are dealbreakers. I think rather than agonizing over easily worked out details like "what does the judge's sheet look like," and then saying that it can't be done instead of putting in an honest effort to make it workable (which it has been proven to be at some local and regional shows), the focus should be on what systems one prefers in broad strokes.

I like GSB because I feel that it can be easy in this hobby for competition to make people lose focus on what it is all about. I feel like competition should be about learning and self-improvement. If you are competing in order to express your dominance as the lord of styrene, that can very easily lead you down into a road of toxic attitudes. Also, I think that GSB contributes to a more positive atmosphere, because seeing your friend do well isn't bittersweet because 

Some people like 123 because they want that old-fashioned American competitiveness, or they simply like the way things are done now and don't want to change. That's okay. All systems have strengths and weaknesses, and everyone has their own preference.

Some people like the idea of segregating competition by skill level, some don't. That's fine.

But I think it is better to at least be honest about it instead of nitpicking on details.

For example, I strongly disagree with Richard's post on the previous page about the importance of having winners and losers. However, I can at least see where he is coming from so I respect his opinion, and we can have a good discussion about whether it is necessary or even desirable to have this sort of cutthroat competition be the focus of the premier North American event. I feel like this is what the discussion should be, but this thread keeps getting sidetracked in details. Saying "we can't do GSB because (insert easily resolved detail here)" or because it hasn't been done at this scale before (thank god that attitude wasn't prevalent during the Apollo program!) seems to be more nitpicking because one doesn't want change than actually contributing to the discussion about what is the best way to do a competition. Agonizing over details like what the entry sheet looks like is putting the cart before the horse. What is really needed is a broader, more philosophical discussion about why we compete, what the goals of our competitions are, what people's preferences are, what would encourage more people to show up and bring models, etc. If people feel that it is important to have clearly defined winners and losers and that the current system is fine, then discussing details is a moot point. If people generally agree with the premise of the open system that it is better to compete against an objective standard and for competitions to be about self-improvement, then once a general opinion is reached, then that's the time to work out the details.

Anyways, if we want to go down that rabbit hole of details, my thoughts:

1 hour ago, EFGrune said:

What do you propose about classes and categories?

GSB doesn't need the same level of granularity in categories to have like compete against like and to manage the number of entries per category. Ergo, you can just have the basic 8-10 or so -- aircraft, automotive, armour, figures, ships, sci-fi, etc. As someone who is involved in planning a 123 show, figuring out categories for GSB is in fact way, way, WAY less of a headache than trying to figure out the dozens of categories required for that sort of show, how many splits you need in popular categories like 1/48 single prop aircraft, making sure they are all mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all possibilities, and figuring out what to do when someone brings in an entry that falls in between the cracks (for example, if a show splits 1/48 "Axis" and "Allied" and someone enters a Swiss or Swedish WW2 era plane that is neither axis nor allied, or if someone does some oddball prototype that is neither fish nor fowl).

1 hour ago, EFGrune said:

Are you going to have feed-back comments supplied to the builder? 

No. AMPS does it that way, but that isn't necessary.

1 hour ago, EFGrune said:

How will you track 9000 pieces of paper?.   

You don't need to, and I'm not sure where this number is coming from. Judges could work in teams as they do now. All they need to record is the model information (entry no, name, etc) and which award they have agreed to give it (G,S,B, or no award). They can be given a form with the category name on top, four columns (entry no, modeller's name, model name, and award) and as many rows as can fit on each sheet. With one row per model, assuming you can fit about 30 rows per sheet, if you have about 3000 models, you only need about 100 judging sheets.

1 hour ago, EFGrune said:

What to you do about awards; generic, inexpensive coins that can be used for multiple years or the custom awards given now?

Generic, inexpensive coins for GSB, and nicer custom awards for special awards like themes and "best of" is probably the best way to go.

1 hour ago, EFGrune said:

What is your expected award rate, how many of each color will you buy?

Depends on if you want to award each individual model, or a modeller's work within a category as a whole. The latter makes reduces the cost of awards, but you would have to require modellers to group all of their entries in a category together (again, this is a preference thing -- either way can work, and it would be worthwhile to have that discussion if there is appetite for GSB). Either way, you can make a decent estimate for either by looking at previous attendance and entry records. As for the award rate, you would probably want to use generic re-usable coins for the first couple years and be a little liberal with your order quantities; once you start figuring out that, say, you are awarding 10% Gold, 30% Silver, 40% Bronze, and 20% participation ribbons, you can be more precise in your estimates and not have to have a huge inventory.

1 hour ago, EFGrune said:

What about the awards presentation slideshow and journal?

That may have to be changed, sure, but there are a number of different ways to do it, depending on your space and time constrains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr on my post above:

I think instead of trying to prove that anything other the way we currently do it is impossible because of small details, we can have a much better and more informative discussion by starting with the assumption that both GSB and 123 are possible and doable.

With that assumption in place (for the moment, at least), now let's talk about which one we prefer and why. Do we like the good old-fashioned American-style competition with each other, or do we want a focus on self-improvement against objective standards over direct competition? Do we like a system where everyone can win if they work hard enough, or is that too much of a namby-pamby participation trophy thing?

These are the important questions that need to be discussed before we start going into the weeds on details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, crimsyn1919 said:

Some people like the idea of segregating competition by skill level, some don't. That's fine.

Lets be clear, the skill level format is totally based on what level the entrant wants to do. The Idea is to allow newbies to enter without having to compete with the super builders. There is no restriction on them from doing so, if they wish. There are many extremely talented first time contest entrants.

(Am I the only one who has noticed as the number of entries goes up and the categories stay the same, the percentage of winners goes down? Last year, it was 1 in 4; this year 1in 5.)

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dakimbrell said:

Lets be clear, the skill level format is totally based on what level the entrant wants to do. The Idea is to allow newbies to enter without having to compete with the super builders. There is no restriction on them from doing so, if they wish. There are many extremely talented first time contest entrants.

(Am I the only one who has noticed as the number of entries goes up and the categories stay the same, the percentage of winners goes down? Last year, it was 1 in 4; this year 1in 5.)

Dak

 

That is fair. Personally, I don't like the skill level format because I end up agonizing over what skill level I am at. I end up being not sure if I'm ready to swim with the sharks, but also don't want to just be a big fish in a little pond forever. It can be especially tricky for these talented first time contest entrants to know what category is most appropriate for them in advance.

I think that question is a little moot in the world of GSB though as it is more focused on self-improvement and objective standards than going head to head with people -- those who are at lower skill levels can simply manage their expectations and shoot for Bronze one year then once they achieve that, shoot for Silver the next and so on.

Regarding percentage of winners... that is a good point, and to be honest, I think this is a bit of a fundamental issue with the 123 system. A lot of the time, it feels we say we want a 123 system because we want to have that hardcore competition and don't want to just give out participation trophies. But then when it comes time to actually name a small number of winners and a large number of losers, it feels like we balk at that and end up splitting categories down finer and finer so that more people have a shot at taking home a trophy.

I mean, I've seen people push for splits mainly because they feel there are too many models in a particular category and they need a split so more people have a chance (not to mention drama over accusations of judges splitting categories to give more awards to their friends, or people wanting a split so they can take home a little trophy). To illustrate a point, Richard posted above that he likes the 123 system because he sees the IPMS nationals as like the Olympics of our hobby. However, if want to have that level of hardcore Olympic-style competitiveness... well, the Olympics doesn't go "geeze, there are a lot of entrants in the 100 metre dash this year. Let's do a split between runners who are wearing Nikes and Reeboks so we can keep a reasonable ratio of entrants to winners and give out more gold medals"

Basically, with all the splits and ever more granular categories, it feels like we have started out with a system that is competitive and not about participation trophies or everyone winning, but then watered it down once people realized that no participation trophies means that often they are going home empty-handed.

Edited by crimsyn1919

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am constantly amazed with the number of people who have no confidence in their abilities. I have no problem going head to head with the top builders. Granted, I prefer not to compete against a master scratch builder, but beyond that, I’ll play with the masters.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dakimbrell said:

I am constantly amazed with the number of people who have no confidence in their abilities. I have no problem going head to head with the top builders. Granted, I prefer not to compete against a master scratch builder, but beyond that, I’ll play with the masters.

Personally, my preference for GSB isn't based on a lack of confidence in my abilities or any other personal failing (of which I have many!). While I do occasionally have that self-hating artist streak, I will gladly enter into both 123 and GSB local and regional contests. And, not to brag too much, I do have a decent collection of hardware from both, so I would say that I can at least hold my own in my area of expertise. For me, the crux of the matter is that I believe GSB promotes and encourages a much healthier attitude towards competition and towards the hobby in general than 123.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crimsyn1919 said:

tl;dr on my post above:

I think instead of trying to prove that anything other the way we currently do it is impossible because of small details, we can have a much better and more informative discussion by starting with the assumption that both GSB and 123 are possible and doable.

With that assumption in place (for the moment, at least), now let's talk about which one we prefer and why. Do we like the good old-fashioned American-style competition with each other, or do we want a focus on self-improvement against objective standards over direct competition? Do we like a system where everyone can win if they work hard enough, or is that too much of a namby-pamby participation trophy thing?

These are the important questions that need to be discussed before we start going into the weeds on details.

To your point, good.

Ralph Nardone noted at the NCC meeting that the original question was poorly asked.   He said it was like asking your kid what he wants for dinner, a hot dog or something else.   

The kid knows what a hot dog is.   He doesn't know what something else is.   It may be pizza, it may be liver and onions.

Multiple something elses have been put forward here;  AMPS-like (with all its baggage),  MMSI-like (with all its baggage),  Modelpalooza,  NNL, Orlando,  Pittsburgh,  single award, etc.  There is no leading/single defined alternative.  I expect that should the question be approved committee(s) will be formed to come up with defining the approach and criteria.  Until any of alternative proposals can coherently answer the questions and concerns which the NCC has raised and can present proposal(s) to the membership defining what the benefits and impact will be for them the debate will continue.

 Only when a proposal is made and accepted by the membership will steps be made toward implementing the  approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dakimbrell said:

I am constantly amazed with the number of people who have no confidence in their abilities. I have no problem going head to head with the top builders. Granted, I prefer not to compete against a master scratch builder, but beyond that, I’ll play with the masters.

Dak

Could be a little humility....

 

  I will say this, a show under the GSB format is not a competition.

Edited by sharkinman44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, sharkinman44 said:

Could be a little humility...

LOL

19 minutes ago, sharkinman44 said:

I will say this, a show under the GSB format is not a competition.

Obviously, you've never competed under such a system. In fact, I have found both the AMPS and MMSI systems to be tougher than the IPMS system. In the IPMS system, all you have to be is better than the other  stuff on the table. With the others, you have to be good, period.

Yes, I agree the original question was not phrased well. Too many people have a different concept of what the GSB system would entail. Much more detail is needed to get an accurate response.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dakimbrell said:

LOL

Obviously, you've never competed under such a system. In fact, I have found both the AMPS and MMSI systems to be tougher than the IPMS system. In the IPMS system, all you have to be is better than the other  stuff on the table. With the others, you have to be good, period.

Yes, I agree the original question was not phrased well. Too many people have a different concept of what the GSB system would entail. Much more detail is needed to get an accurate response.

Dak

Nope I have not, and would not. My idea of a competition is going to compete against others, not turning my build in for a grade. I can see the merits in such a format, though.  It is simply not what I would pack my models up, jump on a plane, fly across the country, and spend hundreds of dollars to do if my build could be "graded" on that same standard  at a regional or local show.  Gold, silver or bronze at a regional has exactly the same meaning as that of one at the Nationals. Maybe the medals would be a little fancier. At the Nats under 1,2,3 your competing against the best in the country, and it is not something you can get at a regional.

Edited by sharkinman44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, sharkinman44 said:

At the Nats under 1,2,3 your competing against the best in the country, and it is not something you can get at a regional.

Not always the case. Some are very good, and some are also rans. And the opinion of the judges is just that, an opinion and you will find disagreement on some winners every year. And just because the model won in one contest, doesn't mean it would win in another.

Did you compete this year?

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dakimbrell said:

Not always the case. Some are very good, and some are also rans. And the opinion of the judges is just that, an opinion and you will find disagreement on some winners every year. And just because the model won in one contest, doesn't mean it would win in another.

Did you compete this year?

Dak

Nope, bad timing. Nats and my nieces leave from West Point this summer were at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you been a National judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dakimbrell said:

Have you been a National judge?

No. Is this only of interest to judges? Does that affect the way you might view my opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does put things in context. The whole thing should be of interest to all members. 

However, having not done judging at a National limits your perspective. 

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dakimbrell said:

It does put things in context. The whole thing should be of interest to all members. 

However, having not done judging at a National limits your perspective. 

Dak

Perhaps, but a vast majority of the membership, I imagine, have not been judges at the National level. So if this is the attitude going forward how does our opinion not take a back seat to those who have done judging or are on the board perhaps that are more in the know than us who go once a year to compete. We are the consumers here in the end.

Edited by sharkinman44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, guys!  Let's dial it back a bit.  This is supposed to be a rational, civil discussion about a very complex subject.  If y'all aren't careful, it'll go off the rails and then there'll be no discussion at all.  Chill, for pete's sake.

Edited by ipmsusa2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ipmsusa2 said:

Whoa, guys!  Let's dial it back a bit.  This is supposed to be a rational, civil discussion about a very complex subject.  If y'all aren't careful, it'll go off the rails and then there'll be no discussion at all.  Chill, for pete's sake.

Whoa, I dont have any issues. I dont see any name calling or the like. Just having a discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ipmsusa2 said:

Whoa, guys!  Let's dial it back a bit.  This is supposed to be a rational, civil discussion about a very complex subject.  If y'all aren't careful, it'll go off the rails and then there'll be no discussion at all.  Chill, for pete's sake.

Don't worry.  I'm watchin'.  And yes, before this gets hotter I suggest everyone think carefully (and read the rules) before posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sharkinman44 said:

Whoa, I dont have any issues. I dont see any name calling or the like. Just having a discussion.

True, but it is getting a little heated.  Since it'll take around ten years to implement any major changes on the Nationals level, we have plenty of time for everyone to have a say, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...