Jump to content

SURVEY SAYS!!! GSB!!!


Rusty White

Recommended Posts

Ralph I would paraphrase a portion of what you said.  No, it's not about models or medals.  It is about people!  The models get nothing out of being put in a contest. 😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • 1 year later...

I would say that Jim summed up my attitude about contests in general and Nationals in particular in his final paragraph. I can't wait to see all you guys again and show off all the new models I built sine the last Nationals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of the outcome of the GSB/123 survey, you can bet that the non-respondents will be the first to complain when and if a change is made in Nationals judging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JClark said:

    My question is this, If a change is proposed then I would think it would have to go before the membership since it would require an amendment to the constitution. We would be changing from our annual Convention with a "Contest" to an exposition since the open system is NOT a contest.

That is a matter of opinion. The National Contest is whatever the NCC declares it to be.

The CBL says: (Article VIII.D)

1. The National Convention and Contest shall be conducted in compliance with the National Convention Operating Parameters set by the Executive Board and the National Contest Rules and Categories provided by the National Contest Committee,

7. The National Convention and Contest shall be conducted under strict compliance with the National Parameters and Contest Rules and Categories provided to the Convention Committee by the National Executive Board.

No amendment needed, but the support of the EB is essential, not to mention the membership.

Besides being somewhat redundant verbiage, it means the NCC could change the rules such that entire the entire contest could be boiled down to Popular Best of Show ballot and be done with the issue. At such point, the President or EB could, if he felt strongly enough, relieve the NCC (i.e., a titled position in a standing committee) of their duties.

I doubt such radical actions will ever be needed, but the mechanism is in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do remember somebody suggesting a split Contest at some point.

GSB for the "regular guys" and 1-2-3 for a voluntary "master" class.

I didn't think it'd be workable then, and still doubt it could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

contest [ noun kon-test; verb kuhn-test ]


noun
1. a race, conflict, or other competition between rivals, as for a prize.
2. struggle for victory or superiority.
 
******
 
In what way, specifically, does GSB not meet this most basic definition?  Are not prizes given? Is not a victory declared?
 
Also, Section 6 has nothing to do with the EB nor NCC, it places upon a host chapter the duty to include a "contest" in the National Convention, which Section 7 specifies the procedures to be followed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim is correct. As I have said many times discussing this topic, GSB or open judging is indeed not a contest. It is a demonstration of competencies. It is not a competition. While it removes the stress of competition for those who cannot manage it, it likewise removes the suspense and excitement for everyone! 
 

Further, it demands a uniformity in the application of our judging principles and standards by the entire judging cadre, and which would have to be utilized in evaluating many different genres of modeling. This would take years to achieve, if ever. 
 

Nick Filippone, Senior National Judge 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JClark said:

And no one has yet to answer my question about getting an award at a lower level local or regional event using said standard thus in reality automatically qualifying them to receive the same level award at a national. Walk in and collect your award....

The ONLY way to do what you suggest is to remove humans from the equation and replace them with AI. How many times have we seen a regional Best of Show not even get a first in its category at the Nats? Humans make choices.

Don't worry, time is the enemy of IPMS and this outcome will happen sooner rather than later as we are all OLD with few behind us.

As to come in and collect your award, the same could be said from 123:

If we truly honored a hierarchical judging system, once a model has won Best whatever at a regional, one should automatically recieve a first in their category and then only compete against the other regional Best Ofs for the National Best of. The same would be true of Reginal Best of Show. Show. Neither system is perfect as, once again, humans are involved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you provedmy point that don't run a hierarchical show system now, why would suppose that would change? Do you actually belive than in a GSB system that only "Best ofs" would compete for best of? After all, as you suggested, one gold winner would just have to show up and collect more gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ShutterAce said:

That said, I believe that AMPS allows for that same model to be modified and graded again. Therefore a Silver graded build could upgrade to Gold, or downgrade to Bronze, with modifications made to it.

 

AMPS allows the same model to be entered time and again, modified or not, but discourages it for the same reason any other sanctioning body should discourage it--go out and build something new!

How many times have you seen the same model trotted out, year after year, show after show?  It is the scale modeling equivalent of Al Bundy's career as a high school football player...

I like open judging, but frankly, I'd rather see a different change.  Make "Display Only" a recognized class within the rules structure and standardize how they are to be tracked at the Convention.  Use the same forms, with an added line or box for the modeler to indicate that the model is not to be judged.  Up until now, I have seen it done several different ways.  Chattanooga was on the right track with formal Display Only forms, it just needs to go that one step further and make it a standard recognized class in the rules.  It shouldn't take a whole lot of work to make the change.

If one of the mods wants to split this out into a new thread, go for it.

Cheers!
Ralph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JClark said:

Add in the vote there was only 1 more in favor of the open system.

The purpose of the survey was to take the membership's "temperature" regarding the popularity of GSB vs 1,2,3.  The survey has no ramifications whatsoever, and there are no plans (known to me anyway) that any changes are forthcoming or being considered by anyone.  Hopefully, the E-board will take another survey in 3 or 4 years just to keep an eye on the popularity of the two systems among the membership.

In short, I wouldn't lose any sleep worrying about any big changes to the current contest structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ah, the refreshing GSB thread ... which arises, Phoenix-like, at least once a year.  Much like the omnipresent OOTB thread.

Interesting discussion, but I think it has pretty much gone over the same territory as in the past.  My main interest is the statistics and the interpretation of the statistics by various readers.  I have a firmly held belief -- nobody should be allowed outside until successfully completing Econ 101 and 102 and Statistics 101.

A core element of inferential statistics is the definition of the population.  In our case,  two populations have been discussed -- the population of those who responded to the survey and the population of those who did not respond to the survey.  Others have pointed this out.  We had not randomly sampled the population of all IPMS members and, thus, cannot conclude that the result of the survey reflects a characteristic of all IPMS members.  We face the issue of all polls which rely upon self-selected respondents -- the respondents are motivated to respond in a way that the non-respondents aren't.  The poll tells us nothing about why this is ... we can only speculate.  Which we do.  A lot.

Now, let me see if I can find the latest OOTB thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The core of any science is its ability to predict behavior or events.  Thus the various laws of physics.  Statistics is divided into two main branches.  Descriptive statistics define the characteristics of a population at the moment of measurement with a 100% sample.  Thus we can explicitly define the mean, median, and mode of the height of the students of Lincoln Middle School ... because we measure the height of each student.

Inferential statistics define the characteristics of a population at the moment of measurement with less than a 100% sample .. with a defined level of uncertainty as to how accurate the sample reflects the entire population.  Often, this sort of statistical measurement is called a poll.   And, as you hear in the media, polling data is usually accompanied by a "margin of error" number ... indicating, with some level of uncertainty, what the actual characteristic of the entire population is .... probably.  The size of the sample is very important ... the larger the sample, the less the degree of uncertainty.  But there is always uncertainty.

In our case, we can define with certainty the population that responded to the GSB poll ... what percentage prefers GSB and what percentage prefers 1-2-3.  But we can say nothing about the population that did not respond to the poll -- because there was no sampling of non-responders.  And we certainly can say little about the population of IPMS members, responders and non-responders.  Which is why polling is such an inexact methodology.  And why speculation about what the results might mean is rampant.

I personally would be interested in some large scale poll which asked whether a member cared, one way or another, what judging system was used.  Because, I speculate, the average IPMS member of the population that shows up for Nats will show up regardless of the judging system.     Based upon past experience as a club officer,  I speculate that most members don't really care.  They just like the Nats.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, Jim,

FWIW, and I have mentioned this before; the entire membership was surveyed.  The survey went out in The Journal to the entire membership, was posted on the web site (to the entire membership), and was posted on the forum as well as at the Nationals that year for walk-up voters.  IMHO, no one could have been overlooked.  If some chose not to answer the survey then IMHO, they fall directly into the "I don't care" category you mention in your post.  Either way, the folks who "do care" are the folks we should be interested in because they are the ones (those who vote represent "the baby") who dictate the direction of the Society.  I would suggest to all those "I don't care" non-voters out there, that if they don't like the way the Society is being run by "the baby", join "the baby" and vote.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

123 or GSB?   That is the question!

123. With a first in each category it is easier for the judges to choose an eventual National Champion.

GSB. How would a National Champion he chosen it there are numerous golds awarded in each category? I can see this being a logistical nightmare for the judging panel. Unless of course the new aim is for competitors to achieve gold by achieving a certain set number of points, and scrapping the National Champion award altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The survey question was poorly written.  The NCC position was edited.   I believe it was Nardone who said at the Chattanooga (might have been Phoenix) NCC meeting that it was similar to asking your kids what they wanted for dinner; hot dogs or something else.   It could be pizza. It could be liver.   
The ‘something else’ needs to be completely defined.  What, how, when, and consideration of all downstream affects: Award counts,  Best-ofs, Journal, personnel, etc. included.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have judged at Telford for a number of years.

The first thing I look for is how the model is put together. i.e. 'The basics'  Proper assembly, line up, mould marks filled and rubbed down smooth, good joints etc. etc. This quickly sorts out the also rans.

Painting and weathering often regarded as the 'fun stuff' but is very unforgiving when the basics are not observed and can never be used as a cover up for skimped workmanship.

Any job is only as good as the preparation. Finesse in my book is getting the model right from the basics through to final finishing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, noelsmith said:

"How would a National Champion he chosen..."

There is no requirement to crown a "National Champion" written anywhere--the highest award available at the IPMS/USA National Convention is Judges' Best of Show, but it is far from being a "National Championship".  There is no "ladder system" requiring models entered in the National Contest to have won before at (first) the local and (then) the Regional levels.

The only requirement is to hold a "National Contest".  It is an open contest--any member in good standing can enter as many models as they please.  They can be previous local and Regional winners, or models recently completed.  

The folly of "healthy competition"... 

Ralph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ralph, Telford is an open contest, the only requirement being that contestants are current IPMS members.

National Champion....or..Best of Show!

Same thing.     Just different terminology as far as I can see at SMW Telford and IPMS USA Convention level

The point I was making was how would that be determined under a GSB system?

Incidentally, IPMS UK dropped the ladder contest as you named it by branch (chapter) qualifiers well over 20 years ago. Why you brought this up I do not know as there was no reference to it in my posts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is why that "survey" was doomed from the start.  The status quo crowd knew exactly what was on the table.  The open judging crowd couldn't define (as in "were not allowed to") what they wanted to do.  Yes, it was my statement about asking a kid what they wanted for dinner, pizza or something else.  The something else could be liver, it could be ice cream and cake.  I was happy to see that half of those who did take the survey opted for the "something else", but I suspect the other half voted for what they knew.  Or thought they knew--as I discovered in June, I would wager 98% of modelers who put a model on a contest table (any contest table, not just IPMS) never bother to read the rules in the first place.  But that's another story for another time.

And I referenced the ladder system as something familiar to most Americans--to be a "National Champion" at most endeavors in the States, it is generally understood that that team had demonstrated that they are consistent winners at the division and conference level before they get to the playoffs, and they have to win in the playoffs before they can get to the "Big Game".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JClark said:

 I would wager 98% of modelers who put a model on a contest table (any contest table, not just IPMS) never bother to read the rules in the first place.  

 

Brother, you and I will agree on that one!

 

Jim

I wouldn't guess on the percentage of uninformed contestants ... but, based upon judging at local, regional, and national level, I speculate that the percentage is at least half.

Having judged at local and regional level, I would also speculate that, at those levels, at least half the judges are not informed on the rules.  I do understand how difficult it is to dredge up judges -- so the Head Judge has to go with what he can get.  But, after my last several experiences with fellow judges and Class head judges at the lower levels, I no longer judge at them.

Several notable incidents come to mind, but I will not present them.  Let me just say that, if citing the rules, it was like herding cats, some of which had a lack of ability to focus and whose main objective was to start hunting mice in the vendor room as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/14/2021 at 7:09 PM, Rusty White said:

...the entire membership was surveyed.  ...

I respectfully disagree.  With the realization that I have been unsuccessful in communicating the meaning of the basic statistical term -- "population".

The entire membership (the population of current IPMS members at the time of the survey) was given access to a survey.  Not all responded to the survey.  Therefore, the entire population of IPMS members was not surveyed; if there was one nonrespondent, then the population of IPMS members was not surveyed.  (Granted, one nonrespondent from a large population would have a negligible impact on the results of the survery -- or "poll".)

You could read about sampling techniques ... which took an entire upper division college course for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...