Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was at a non IPMS style contact yesterday.....one I attend annually....and got into a discussion about judging methods. These guys are primarily figure painters and view models differently than most IPMS members.

My acquaintance remarked they were admonished not to be like IPMS when judging; "don't count rivets!". I told him we don't do that and I never have, nor have ever been at a contest where I have seen judges apply such stringent measures. However, he and other still believe this silly myth. They are firmly convinced IPMS are insane for accuracy and will throw out a beautiful work for some trivial point.

This is a public relation problem we need to address if we want to sustain or grow the membership. It is not something that can simply be ignored in this day and time with in the age of the world wide web. Like all those internet myths that keep making the rounds, it keeps building until it becomes an established truth in the mind of people who should no better.

We ignore it at our peril.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet again, when some low performing modeler berates one of our members with the painfully monotonous myth of IPMS rivet counters, our knee- jerk reaction is to rend our garments, beat our breasts, and fall on our xacto knives in shame. 

People will believe what they want to believe whether it is written on a bathroom stall wall or on the idiotnet. Nothing we can say or do will change that!

Nor should we change. All IPMS has done over the past 50 years is give credibility to a hobby that was not taken seriously, help plastic modelers increase their skills and enhance their enjoyment of the hobby, demand that kit manufacturers take this hobby as seriously as we do and organize competitions that are as scrupulously fair  as human integrity will permit! We have NOTHING to be ashamed of or apologize for. 

My personal experience of the people such as those whose uninformed comments you had to endure is that they are poor modelers whose work will not stand up under the most cursory of assessments.

What we should be ignoring is the whining of these cry-babies whose skill level is so low that they are simply not competitive when faced with the standards of excellence that IPMS encourages and rewards in it’s members.

Let’s all show a little more spine! Why should we seek an association with such narrow, hateful little minds? 

Regards, Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nick Filippone said:

And yet again, when some low performing modeler berates one of our members with the painfully monotonous myth of IPMS rivet counters

Nick,

You over step here. This particular model builder....a top level figure painter.....is DEFINITIVELY not a low performer. (I would post images of his stuff, if the stupid system allowed me to post more than 0.002mb.) Nor am I suggesting we apologize for anything. I simply think we need to address the misperceptions many seem to have about IPMS Judging instead of ignoring them. I blame a lot of this negativity on Bob Letterman of VLS , back in the nineties. VLS put out a lot of mediocre products and Letterman got very defensive and began making extremely negative statements about IPMS being too picky, etc.

I spend some time explaining we don't count rivets, or hang up on detail points. I still think our system needs simplification and modification, but I like it infinitely better than point systems used by some groups. Unfortunately, some chapters use their own system disregarding the National system. Many people perceive these to BE the IPMS system having never seen a National convention.

Dak, National Contest Judge 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Many people perceive these to BE the IPMS system having never seen a National convention."

It doesn't appear that it's OUR problem.  Nothing anyone can say or do will convince the unconvincible.  They have their minds made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Rusty said. Most have never been to a national contest and all they know about IPMS is second hand. I can think of no way to change such misperception except to have them attend a national, judge and see how we do it. Nothing else will change their minds. What sort of PR campaign could we have? Take out ads that say "we don't count rivets". There's just no way to convince them without first hand experience. I share your frustration, but I just don't see what we could do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto what Rusty and Ron said. Besides, if this guy is some great figure modeler, what the heck does he know or care about rivets! He would probably be the first to squawk if he saw some military figure with too many stripes on his shoulder insignia or some soft porn figure that is being passed off as an “artistic nude” with too few pimples on her derrière!”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy I was talking with was not some sour grapes loser. In fact, one of his group was a was a judges award winner at an IPMS National a few years ago. This is why I see it as a PR problem that needs to be addressed. I engaged him and pointed out we done judge on accuracy and gave him my general view of the Chicago school of judging. I don't think I changed his mind, but he had something to think about when we were done.

Part of the problem is style. Figure painters. car guys, track heads, etc, all see craftsmanship differently. I have been often criticized by aircraft guys for making my airplanes too dirty for their taste. But when I look at an F-15....for example.... with foot prints all over the upper services, I tend to think most airplane models are under weathered and thus poorly crafted. I also feel the majority of figures are over shaded. This doesn't mean they aren't pretty and well crafted, but just that they are done in a different style.

Nick's last comment is exactly the kind of silly comment that puts many off, rather than engaging in dialogue which can find common ground. It also implies he has no understating of how the figure judging works.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think on an individual basis, the best you can do is point towards the official judging handbook, which emphasizes that it's about craftsmanship, not accuracy, and then encourage them to volunteer to judge and get some insight as to how the proverbial sausage is made.

However, in a larger sense, I suspect that it is easy for people to get this mistaken impression. Sometimes, the way individuals and clubs conduct themselves, both in person an online, can give the impression that they are a bunch of obsessive, miserable people who argue over the correct number of rivets on the glacis plate of the mid-war model and take this hobby way too seriously, or that you need to be at a certain skill level to be welcomed and appreciated, or that people who build mostly less traditional subjects like fantasy figures and gundams aren't welcome. While that hasn't been my experience, I do think there is a negative stereotype about IPMS and modelling clubs in general that it would be nice if it could be corrected. Personally, I try to do my part to explain things to gundam guys and the like.

Also, Dak has a good point about style. Different sub-genres have adopted different styles, and often different judging systems at their own shows. Some of this can result in misconceptions or frustration where what does well at one show doesn't do well at others and people aren't sure why. For example, I know that my style is very different from what is common at gundam competitions, so how I place can be a bit of a crapshoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments were no more silly or ignorant than your friend’s. They were intentionally, purposefully and equivalently rude! When he and his ilk are ready to encounter IPMS members with the respect that Mr. Kimbrell feels we are obligated to afford them, then perhaps my comments will be less silly and ignorant- although probably no less sarcastic! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we do not “done judge” (sic) on accuracy in IPMS competitions.  We judge on craftsmanship. No wonder you couldn’t change his mind. Good grief! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick,

Why do you feel the need to just be rude? Do you just sit at the computer looking for some way to be mean nasty to people? No wonder people get down on IPMS. I posted here to discuss what is a problem I feel we need to address, yet you immediately start calling people names and insulting them. Your remark was silly and bigoted, because you automatically put this person into the lackwitted I hate IPMS group, and he is not. He was simply repeating a silly myth.

The individual I was talking to is familiar with IPMS. He is also a top level figure painter. What I was trying to point out was that there is still adherents to the stupid rivet counter myth among top quality, experienced model artists. No, I don't give a negative clank about what the sour grapes wannabes. They do nothing but sit and whine rather than try to get better. But this man was not like that and has plenty of experience, probably as much as you.

I agree we judge on craftmanship, but as I noted, what is good craftmanship depends a lot on what you consider the proper style. I have learned there are numerous styles and can judge models based on the style of the workmanship. Some cannot. To me, a un-weathered model is poorly done. I also feel the same about a model without a figure with it. Super clean models are boring to me and come across as amateurish, but some feel differently which is fine.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I can see where this is going guys.  Nick, DAK has a point in that purposeful insults does not further or contribute to the discussion.  Let's keep on an even keel with common courtesy and consideration for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you, as an IPMS member are happy with how IPMS is (like Nick), and you don't care how the rest of the modeling world views us; then as mentioned above YOUR mind is made up and YOU'RE not going to change.  However, DAK is absolutely correct: we have a real PR problem with too many modelers.

As the saying goes....perception IS reality! You may tout the PR problem as springing from mere myth, but remember that myths usually have a truth they spring from. The idea that IPMSers are rivet counters and color Nazis springs directly from our hair-splitting competition. Sure, we can amply justify the hair-splitting. We can explain that the hairs were split over basics and not accuracy; but all that outsiders see is that we got VERY nit-picky! And even we judges KNOW of several quite famous times when the WRONG hairs were split and deserving work went by the wayside.

The base of the problem has NOTHING to do with the Nats. This almost all stems from local and regional shows, as well as club meetings. That's where the non-members are in as great or greater numbers than the IPMSers.That's where the opinionated local members are who don't actually belong to IPMSUSA.That's also where the least trained and experienced judges are, which leads to questionable results which in turn leads to those horror stories about how IPMS is counting rivets and condemning wrongly painted models to a pantheon of shame. And MOST of the time, the judges making those mistakes are NOT IPMS members! And MOST of the time the attendees or local club members who are making snide know-it-all comments about models are not IPMS members (nor judges). However, since it happens under the umbrella of an "IPMS show or meeting", WE are responsible and WE get labeled. It may be wrong, and perhaps even unfair, but THAT is the reality of the PR problem. We have a label hung around our necks that cause many others to take one look at us and quickly run for cover.

I share Ron's frustration in that there's no easy answer or silver bullet. This is not a problem that can be solved in a year with any sort of ad campaign or new slogan. However, I do differ in that I do believe that if we ARE willing to change and adapt, then we CAN overcome our bad press over time; and by time, I mean a decade or two.

How? We need to take competition at our shows down a notch or two. We need to dial back the  hair-splitting by allowing more good models to be recognized. This is why I keep touting the need for IPMS to start embracing GSB at their shows. It allows us to keep the requirements of good basics and solid building and finishing. It allows us to set standards where you have to EARN an award. BUT, it also allows us to award one model without eliminating any other one in order to do so. That elimination of so many deserving models is what makes IPMSUSA look like a dog-eat-dog "winning is all that matters" group of modelers.  It will not keep us from ever needing to split hairs...but when we do split them, it will only affect the model in question, and no others! And this MUST be done from the BOTTOM up. As I said before, our PR problem stems from the local and regional shows, not the Nats. It's the local and regional shows that will need to finely hone GSB to the point that the Nats will finally adopt it as the "norm" and to conform to the rest of the country.

What else? Nick had a good point....stop trying to apologize and trying to get absolutely everyone to like us! IPMS is for modelers who do like to compete! While I think we need to dial it back, I do NOT think we should try to be a display only society. What I'm for is making some changes and then proudly putting those changes out there for everyone to see. Tell people they are welcome no matter what they build (unlike many other genre-oriented clubs), but if and when you compete, we're going to demand that you meet certain standards in order to be awarded; feelings be damned.

I freely admit this may or may not actually succeed. It will take years to accomplish. GSB, or some sort of less cut-throat competition will need to become the norm and the non-IPMS members who attend those shows will need to see us be less cut-throat and more rewarding over a substantial period of time. That way when the "myth" of rivet counting arises, the new comment will be: "no, that's they way they were; but since they dialed back their contests, they're not that way anymore". At least that's my hope!

 

GIL :cool:

 

Edited by ghodges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will end my participation in this pointless and exasperatingly familiar conversation where it started. They insult IPMS and we say: ‘Thank you sir, may I please have another?’ I am heartily sick and tired of our members apologizing for the largest, oldest, most successful plastic modeling organization in America-an organization that, I might add, has always welcomed figure modelers.  Nor need we waste anymore time explaining our judging system that has been wrought over years of trial, error, and careful and exhaustive assessment and reassessment- a system that is, additionally, plainly posted for anyone to see, read and understand.

This enduring obsession with our need to be different, to change, to beg people who can’t stand IPMS to be our buddies to “grow the organization” does us no credit. We owe them no explanations. 

Consider this: sadly we lose several faithful, life- long members annually. Yet, our membership numbers have been steady and even slowly growing. This is because we have a quality product for sale to anyone intelligent and perceptive enough to recognize it’s value.

IPMS is an organization whose honour and reputation is valuable enough to stand up for- if we have the R.O.’s to do so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets make something clear, I was not apologetic in my conversation with my acquaintance. I told him we never did judge like he suggested and never had. His remark was based on what he was told by a head judge where he was judging. I have been continually telling lackwits who insist we are rivet counters that they are full of it enough to make their eyes brown.

The big thing is different groups look at different points as to what is good craftmanship. This in turn makes some think other groups are too picky, or not picky enough. One thing that would help is stressing to contestants that they should NEVER assume the judges KNOW EVERYTHING about the subject being judged and note things like deliberate gaps, seams crooked markings, etc. I have lost count of the times I saw something that did not look correct and found nothing in the remarks box. A simple comment like....the marking on the left side is deliberately crooked....would help. Many do excellent work, but based on craftmanship, it looks bad. This in turn would make it easier for the judge to make better decisions.+

But in the end, any award is based on the opinion of the judges and that is still only an opinion of a small group, a mere handful of people.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long has IPMS been going? After over 50 years there are still people out there who think that the society is just for aircraft modellers!  So maybe the society does have a problem about how we are perceived!

I have read the differing views on this thread, and passionate though they may be does not alter how IPMS is perceived by many outside the society, whether correct or not. So guys, let's not get into too much heated debate over one issue when there are much wider problems that the society has to address such as how the hobby is headed on a global scale in order to sustain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have participated in three types of judging methods in the past two weeks. In one, Oklahoma's SoonerCon, I was also a judge. One thing I noted as a judge was the reticence of many entrants to fill out any notes on their model, even when the model exhibits out of the ordinary features like duel national markings. This always puts the judges in a difficult position....if the model is well done, but grossly incorrect in a big way.....the judges must decide how that effects craftsmanship. If they ignore the faux pas, then many will think the judges are no-nothing idiots. If they figure it in as a demerit, then the builder says they were elitist and rivet counters. While I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to some areas and subjects, certain outrages are too far out. Things like Tiger II tanks at El Alamein, A6M5 in Russian markings at Stalingrad. I have no problem with weird stuff, but there are categories for that.

Encouraging contest entrants to let the judges know what they are looking at and what the builder was trying to do, would go a long way towards helping the judges make better decisions.

Another thing I noted was that the non-IPMS groups often take into account skill level. When everyone starts talking about GSB vs 123, they don't seem to mention skill level. I am positive this effects some people. A newbie who enters for the first time and gets thrown in the deep end with the old hands can feel really worked over when they don't place. (Sometimes they win big, which is even worse.)

So, perhaps rather than try to change our awards system, we should look at modifying it to take into account skill level. Novice, advanced, and master, for example. Less ridged judging for the newbies and tighter for the masters.

Thoughts?

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the things you noted in the first part of your post has been addressed in the Modeler's Guide to Contests:

Accuracy.  Absolute accuracy is a noble, but probably unattainable, goal. Despite the fact that no scale model is ever 100% accurate, some people urge that models be judged principally on their accuracy. This is a real minefield. While gross inaccuracy is easy to spot in some instances, the situation quickly becomes murky past obvious things and can lead to unfairness in judging. For example, suppose one of the aircraft judges spent the better part of twenty years as the crew chief of a particular aircraft. That judge will probably be able to find inaccuracies of one sort or another on every model of that type of aircraft entered in a category. But, there's a real risk he will unfairly penalize those who entered those models if he judges solely on the basis of accuracy as he can readily spot their flaws while he may miss inaccuracies in other aircraft types with which he does not have the same level of expertise. Along the same lines, modelers who know the minute aspects of a subject often mistakenly believe judges also have similar detailed knowledge. This may or may not be true. It's simply not possible for all IPMS judges to match the expertise developed by our disparate and incredibly knowledgeable membership. The Chief Judge and Class Head Judges take pains every year to remind the judges to be aware of these problems and to be fair to all on this issue. You can also help yourself by not assuming the judges know all the details you know. Help them and yourself by putting such information on the entry sheet or any other display material you put with your model. Judges are instructed read that stuff and it could make the difference for you. Lest we get too wrapped up in the accuracy debate, remember that IPMS/USA judges concentrate first on the modeling aspects. A model with every component built absolutely accurately probably still won't win if seams between the components aren't filled properly. Conversely, a superbly built model containing an inaccuracy could win if it is, in all other respects, the best model in the category.

Dual national insignia, King Tigers in North Africa--those are all accuracy issues, not craftsmanship issues (modeling aspects).

The problem, as it has always existed, is that people don't bother to read the rules--even when doing so could greatly improve their chances.

Cheers!

R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding accuracy and reference material, since we are explicitly not judging based on accuracy, then while it can be interesting, the only time that extensive documentation of historical material would really matter would be if you are intentionally trying to do something that is accurate but which could be mistaken for poor craftsmanship such as markings that were hastily applied in the field, surface detail that happens to resemble mold lines, etc. Rather, I think it is more important to include details of the build on the entry form. As both a judge and an passer-by, I find details info such as which parts were scratchbuilt or modified, how you achieved certain effects, etc. to be more informative and interesting than proof that this specific tank with this specific serial number had this specific marking on this specific date. Also, "showing your work" helps with judging scope of effort.

This then brings up the question of, if we are not judging for accuracy, does it really matter whether something is a "what if" or not? And do we really need to have separate categories for this sort of thing? If I did a Mig 29 in the colours of the air force of Tannu Tuva, would it make more sense for it to be compared to other modern jets of the same scale, or to a biplane in the colours of a fictional country from Tintin? Of course, this, and the issue of skill level that was raised, could be both addressed by going to GSB, but that's a whole other topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ralph Nardone said:

The problem, as it has always existed, is that people don't bother to read the rules--even when doing so could greatly improve their chances.

Absolutely true, but there is a difference between putting something in the rules which a large number of people NEVER read and say posting a sign at the registration desk telling people to note out of the ordinary stuff, or the judges may consider it a mistake. This needs to be a deliberate public campaign within IPMS, not just a note in the rules.That is my point.

6 hours ago, Ralph Nardone said:

Dual national insignia, King Tigers in North Africa--those are all accuracy issues, not craftsmanship issues (modeling aspects).

This all depends on your point of view. I have always viewed such things as part of craftmanship because we....IPMS.... are predominately historical in our subject matter. Even the Sci-Fi types will have fits if you mix Star Trek and Star Wars. If you are going to allow anything anywhere, then why consider "craftmanship" at all. Go ahead, let the builder do crude, hand painted markings....maybe the ground crew was in a hurry and didn't have time to do it properly; maybe the stencils were blown up in an air raid. Maybe some other pilots painted a finger print on the canopy as a joke and the builder is just duplicating that effect. What if an extraneous decal got place in an odd spot.....like a RAF tail flash slipping to the horizontal stabilizer? Is that something to give the benefit of the doubt? I have a picture of a real drop tank with the FWD arrow pointing to the rear. If I saw this on a model, as a judge, I would like to know if this was deliberate or not. A good friend of mine recently put some fuel tanks on his Mig-21 backwards. He did a smash up job and they looked very nice. Do we just ignore things like that?

Many things are to strange to be believed, but nothing is too strange to have happened. It is not just quality of the application of parts and markings, but getting them in the right place going the right direction, which is good craftmanship.

 

 

4 hours ago, crimsyn1919 said:

Rather, I think it is more important to include details of the build on the entry form.

Sure, I want to know what was scratch or modified, but I have found many seem to believe giving a rivet by bolt account of the construction is helpful, which I don't find the least bit helpful. If someone is doing a Type 21 Zero in Defense of the Luftwaffe markings, I'd like to know the origin of the markings. Particularly, if it is up against a perfect Fw-190D in the same markings.
 

4 hours ago, crimsyn1919 said:

the issue of skill level that was raised, could be both addressed by going to GSB, but that's a whole other topic.

It could be done within the current system; there is no reason to go to a GSB system to address skill level. 

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the skill level idea. I remember my very first contest of ANY kind...which just happened to be the 1978 IPMS Nationals in Atlanta. To say I was in over my head was an understatement!

The skill level idea does open up other cans of worms.....

1) The first "gut" reaction would be that we need to triple the categories.... needing one each for the levels of "novice", "intermediate", and "master". That's not really true of course, since you could design the novice AND master cats to be more general on the theory that those two will have the least amount of people in them by comparison.

2) "The awards costs would be too much"....true, if you simply tripled the standard Nats awards....but why do we have to do that? IF (and I say IF) we were to go to 3 levels of competition, then you have 3 levels of awards: Certificates for the novices, ribbons for the intermediates, and medals/plaques/trophies (whatever) for the masters. This saves money AND also gives an incentive to move up in the rankings.

3) "There'll be a resentment to being "ranked" by your building ability within IPMS"....could be....but then isn't there an un-official ranking among IPMSers now? Don't we all KNOW who the honchos are? And based on our own personalities, don't we either admire or resent their "celebrity" and ability to repeatedly win? And if IPMSUSA was to allow you to select the ranking you compete in to BEGIN with (until you rise by dent of winning), then how could you complain about having to compete on the level you chose?

4) "Creating  a MASTER CLASS of builders will create resentment among the lesser members"...sort of a caveat to the above...and I think it's disproved by the many other societies that DO have "master modelers". They're generally admired and the desire to join THEIR ranks is the general reaction to being in their club, competition, and company.

I'm not sure it could be done at this late date, but I do think the idea has some merit. If YOU think back on your decision to join your local club and IPMSUSA, I'm betting there was some intimidation you had to overcome. "I can't join them...THOSE guys are good and know what they're doing"! It's the same when it comes to contests....you have to overcome the intimidation of going up against "honchos" and learning to swim in the deep end as things are designed now. Adding skill levels lowers the level of intimidation, allowing newer members to start in the shallow end if they feel the need to build their confidence before stroking for deeper competitive waters.

 

Gil :smiley16:

Edited by ghodges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all know that people won't read the rules.  So, that's on US?  No, it should be put on THEM.  They don't "win" and want to grouse?  "Hey, read the rules.  If you had read the rules, you would know how we evaluate models."  Done often enough, the point will be made. 

As for the "sloppy insignia" and the like, YES, that's why you should document EVERYTHING on your model.  Here's the deal--if it comes down to two models for the top spot, the one with sloppy markings gets relegated to Second in my book UNLESS the person who built the model tells me it is supposed to be like that.  If they don't, sloppy paint is one of the evaluation criteria, no?

Could we do skill levels as the system is now?  Sure, but it needs to be developed and thought out better than the "Premiere" awards from several years back.  If ever a system was devised to give "participation awards", that was it.

I have already addressed the awards at the National level--let IPMS/USA develop a "field award" (medals are cheap--I pay about $3 each on an order of 300, and that can serve two shows), and use it from show to show.  Buy in bulk and save, as it were.  When you buy in quantity, you have a reserve for one show, and (since they're not dated or otherwise tied to any one particular show) you can use the surplus for the next show.  Yeah, I know--"I got the same crappy award last time!"  THAT right there is why IPMS needs to re-evaluate the system.  It isn't--or shouldn't be--about the awards.  It should be all about the models.

A Master level shouldn't create animosity.  Done properly, it should act as an incentive to build better models.  But HOW one achieves Master must be examined carefully if IPMS wants to go that way.

Whatever system IPMS chooses to use, they need to involve the membership, and have the membership buy into it.   

 

Share this post


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

"There'll be a resentment to being "ranked" by your building ability within IPMS"..

Actually, any ranking would be by the individual entrant. It would be a personal choice same as in other groups. There may need to be a provision for those that need to be move to a high skill level, but like winning in the shallows. 

 

18 hours ago, ghodges said:

"Creating  a MASTER CLASS of builders will create resentment among the lesser members"

Why? If the choice is a personal one, why would you resent others who whish to play in deeper water. The real problem will be those who think they are grand masters when they are actually dilettantes. Those will be the types the most resentful.

 

18 hours ago, ghodges said:

"The awards costs would be too much"....true, if you simply tripled the standard Nats awards.

I have always said the OOB stuff is outmoded and should be eliminated. This would absorb some of the cost, if any. OOB would no longer be needed because there would be a place for those to enter without having to swim with the big fish.

 

7 hours ago, Ralph Nardone said:

We all know that people won't read the rules.  So, that's on US?  No, it should be put on THEM.  They don't "win" and want to grouse?  "Hey, read the rules.  If you had read the rules, you would know how we evaluate models."  Done often enough, the point will be made. 

While I agree with the basic premise, I have found in application it doesn't hurt to remind people to do things. Like making sure the breaker is tagged out before working on a system. Some people always need that reminder. If putting up a sign at a show, or a paragraph in the newsletter, helps reduce the unhappiness of those that enter the contest, it is a cost effective why to go.

Dak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see how much debate goes onto the IPMS USA forum about PR, judging and contest rules etc in different threads.

Certainly do not see this amount of debate on the UK website!  Maybe us Brits are a bit  too laid  back to bother about lengthy debates on our forum. It would certainly be a bit more live!y if there was. I do not think we are any less passionate about our modelling however. But maybe our psyche is just a bit different from our American friends.

Edited by noelsmith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noel: I believe Brits are every bit as passionate about their modeling as we are. However, I believe the difference is Americans are FAR more competitive by comparison, and unfortunately in IPMSUSA, that's bled over into our convention and show contests. Thus, we're always questioning and debating rules, judging, and how IPMSUSA is looked upon because of the way we do things here in the states because it may determine who may get an edge on someone else.

In case you're not aware, we're expecting around 3000+ models in Chattanooga for the CONTEST! While Telford may have more models by comparison because of all of the club displays, our "display only" area is quite small and almost all models brought to the convention are competing for awards. Part of this is due to the impracticality of club displays due to the large distances we have to travel compared to modelers in the UK; but it's also how we're raised.....we compete in almost all areas of life; for better or worse!

 

GIL :smiley16:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...