This sums it up perfectly

[Bert]

The unanswered queation.....why? Because of complaints on the internet? It makes no sense to me. But what do I know? Plenty things now make no sense to me.

[Eric Aitala]

Oh, I figure plenty of emails and phone calls happened too..  But considering it was announced on the internet, why shouldn't people complain there?

And how does where the complaining takes place change any of the facts?

E

27 minutes ago, Bert said:

The unanswered queation.....why? Because of complaints on the internet? It makes no sense to me. But what do I know? Plenty things now make no sense to me.

 

[CaptainAhab]

51 minutes ago, Eric Aitala said:

Oh, I figure plenty of emails and phone calls happened too..  But considering it was announced on the internet, why shouldn't people complain there?

And how does where the complaining takes place change any of the facts?

E

I think it matters if the complaints came from IPMS Members or not, 13,000 people belong to the IPMS/USA Facebook page, yet we have less then 5000 members, so 7000+ non-members are complaining? And IPMS should change the society for them? With no indication they will join and help with the changes?

If there were plenty of emails and phone calls from members maybe the e-board could practice some of the transparency the NCC was accused of not having and prove how many, is it hundreds? Thousands? Less then a hundred? I doubt it was that many, compared to the membership, if it was then prove it.

[CaptainAhab]

I also wonder what happened to the two separate surveys that were sent to actual IPMS Members BEFORE San Marcos asking for feedback on IPMS and the Convention, I filled them out, there has been nothing about the results of those.

Could it be the results were not what was wanted? 

[Scalemodeldoc]

Looking at the old bylaws (2017 revision, on the IPMS website), I don't see anywhere in writing that the NCC was a wholly separate entity from the elected IPMS infrastructure, apparently internally appointed and omnipotent per decades of tradition?

 

I see the following relevant sections-->

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.
2. 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.

• Committees established for specific tasks as required shall be created for a set period of time by the President and the Executive Board.

 

Thats about it.  Being something of a rule-of-law guy, and also I self admitted relative newcomer to the IPMS Nats scene... I don't understand the drama about the "NCC being chased away" or "the NCC having its power taken away".  From the written bylaws, the NCC ALWAYS worked for the members of IPMS via the elected board.  And the check/balance would be the elected officials requesting / demanding meetings/committees to address topics of interest to the membership.  I understand being irritated if your previously unchecked power was being questioned, but it seems well within the long term written bylaws of the organization?

[Scalemodeldoc]

And because I love a good GSB vs. 123 debate.... 

I think IF we want to keep 123 because we want "winners" and not "participation awards" we need to do a much better job with category size and splits.

At the 2022 Nats, armor had categories as small as TWO entries (automatic 1/2... thats a hell of a national participation award!) and as big as FORTY SIX (good look placing there, even with a pristine model).  The average split/group had 18 entries.

I think strictly awarded GSB would actually NOT increase the total number of awards given, and lead to smaller categories just NOT having a gold awarded.  But if that is distasteful, I would suggest categories of <10 models SHOULDN'T get full 123 awards, and categories over 30 should actually award deeper (4th? honorable mention?). Just to keep some degree of statistical fairness...

 

[Guest JClark]

Look at 8D2.... in the 2017 version. You will see that the NCC was responsible for the rules and categories for the national contest and NO ONE, else. That edict handed down by the board was the first one in my 28 years in ipms and to my knowledge the first ever. That's because every board before this one knew the NCC was in charge of the rules and categories for the national contest. All  NCC members served at the pleasure of the President after being confirmed by the board when put forth by the NCC.But they never worked for them. They were never dictated to or ordered around.Never told to change the rules because we, the board want them changed.It doesn't work like that. At least it didn't until now where a board wants to side with and curry favor with social media ,many of who are not dues paying members.

  In regards to the handeling, the board could have had a meeting with the NCC to figure out a way to proceed because, as they admitted, models need to be moved, I and my teams moved close to 300 by Friday evening getting entries where they belong and splits made. The judging teams may have handled 20 or so. So the whole damaging models during judging is really small.There a greater chance a kid grabs one or a bag hits one or someone in a scooter or mom pushing a baby stroller hits a table.Seen all that happen just this past year so it's not about limiting damage, it's about wrestling control of the contest away from the NCC. Why do you think they rewrote the constitution to take that ability away from the NCC by changing 8D2?

  As for armor, you may have an exsisting category with a low turn out for that particular year, but all splits are now, ad hock so the top categories get split.In aircraft we had 9 splits, the top 9 most populated categories got split with an attempt to keep it at 20 or so. Your argument about 1 to 2 entries getting awarded happens less than 10 times out of 200. in 2021 it was 6 categories out of 200. Go GSB and you have according to one Podcaster,and I quote, 60 out of 65 getting awarded. That's the point, you want to "recognize" more, that's why you do it hence the reputation. One groups wants grades, one does not. A contests goal is to find the best model in the room.You can't do that in open because every gold medal model would have to be evaluated since they are all the same, gold. In a 1,2,3 your 1st in one category may not even be able to place in the another . The cream roses to the top.  In the open it's just a collection of graded models. That becomes an exposition. Entries evaluated and graded against some sort of supposed standard none have seen. 

 I have heard podcast reports where one Podcaster judged and said that 6 would have gotten gold. I was able to ask him according to what standard? his reply "I build models" ok so do I .So the only thing I can guess is they were using only their opinion which I guess is what the open proponents want. Grades based on opinions and not guidelines as set for in the judges handbook. 

  I also spoke with another judge who was judging with that same Podcaster. He asked why is it that the model in first place was awarded as such since it had glue in the canopy? The response was , "It's the best one" and that was it, so I guess glue in canopies qualifies for gold medals since I can only assume that the 1st place entry would have been one of the 6 he thought was worthy of gold... strange if ya ask me but that's why I'm not a proponent of the open system. How is an entrant supposed to know what a judge is going to look for when it's only going to be "I build models" so "I" know what I'm doing.

   Podcast Quotes, GSB is better because it just is.... I hate contests.... 1,2,3 is only about "I must beat you"... 

  Combine that with the actions of the board without consulting the NCC.

  Then they hand down edicts in direct violation as Gil and I have stated by quoting 8D2. 

  Then banning judges AFTER The board and NCC jointly agreed NOTHING HAPPENED... based on nothing more than accusations, no proof. Only to backstab the NCC by acquiescing to social media ,many of whom again are not members.

  You guys can have at it. I will not be re upping my membership after 28 continuous years. And I know of at least 10 people, plus others in other chapters not renewing next year.

  I warned the board this was going to happen. I told them there would be blow back from the judges but was asked "So you think you can't be replaced?"

  I and a friend of mine were also told by another board member that chapters will need to fall in line with national contest standards. My friend said " you're going to get chapters not wanting to be told how to run their shows" the response " we fully expect to loose chapters" 

  That's your board growing the society.

  Our chapter who has always followed the national rules for our local show is now bowing out. We make our own rules and will not be dictated to. If we loose the insurance then I guess that's the way it goes.We will have to find a way to fund our own. But I stand behind our local who has hosted 3 successful Nationals since 04. 

 Goodbye IPMS, it was fun while it lasted, all good things come to an end as they say. As another Podcaster told me. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Ok, seeya

Jim

[BWScholten]

19 hours ago, CaptainAhab said:

I think it matters if the complaints came from IPMS Members or not, 13,000 people belong to the IPMS/USA Facebook page, yet we have less then 5000 members, so 7000+ non-members are complaining? And IPMS should change the society for them? With no indication they will join and help with the changes?

If there were plenty of emails and phone calls from members maybe the e-board could practice some of the transparency the NCC was accused of not having and prove how many, is it hundreds? Thousands? Less then a hundred? I doubt it was that many, compared to the membership, if it was then prove it.

I belong to a handful of Military Groups on FakeBook.  Some groups have a public page and a second members only page, while the other groups are members only.

That could eliminate the non-member screams.

IPMS-USA also needs to add moderators to the page.  My understanding is we have a single admin/moderator for the page.  That's too much for a single person (FWIW, I am a mod on two FB pages).

Going back to the current debate.  I am going to Madison, and will volunteer to Judge.  I doubt I will volunteer for other areas as I want to enjoy the convention, and volunteering every day can be a killjoy.

[Eric Aitala]

Hi,

There are actually seven people who are group admins...

We could set up a non-public page however there is not, as far as I am aware, any real mechanism to ensure those members are valid members of IPMS/USA.  Doing it 'by hand' is not practical.

Eric

11 minutes ago, BWScholten said:

I belong to a handful of Military Groups on FakeBook.  Some groups have a public page and a second members only page, while the other groups are members only.

That could eliminate the non-member screams.

IPMS-USA also needs to add moderators to the page.  My understanding is we have a single admin/moderator for the page.  That's too much for a single person (FWIW, I am a mod on two FB pages).

Going back to the current debate.  I am going to Madison, and will volunteer to Judge.  I doubt I will volunteer for other areas as I want to enjoy the convention, and volunteering every day can be a killjoy.

 

[ghodges]

If I might suggest then...... simply make the IPMS FB NON-POLITICAL, PERIOD! Any non model building post is automatically deleted by any admin immediately with instructions that ALL IPMSUSA political debate be sent HERE.

HERE, all of the politics should be moved by admins to the THIRD, MEMBERS ONLY AREA (not deleted, but moved). This will insure that ONLY members are in on these discussions.

While non-members may yell about it being some sort of "non-transparency" tactic, they can yell elsewhere or JOIN and come here to participate. The model only policy is also very much in line with many other FB modeling page policies.

 

GIL 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2023 by ghodges

[Highlander]

15 hours ago, ShutterAce said:

I don't know why we are back to 123 vs GSB ...

You aren't aware of the clause in the IPMS Constituion that, if  you don't post about your opinion on 123 vs GSB at least 10 times a year,  you'll be banned from IPMS?  I don'l recall the number of the clause, but I know it's in there somewhere.

[Highlander]

8 minutes ago, ghodges said:

... make the IPMS FB NON-POLITICAL ... ! Any non model building post is ... deleted ... immediately with instructions that ALL IPMSUSA political debate be sent HERE.

HERE, ... the politics should be moved ... to the THIRD, MEMBERS ONLY AREA .... This will insure that ONLY members are in on these discussions.

...

I had to think on this a while.  The general concept has merit.

If you've even glanced at the FB page, it is apparent that the administrators would have an increased workload in moving and/or deleting political posts.  OTOH, if you banned 123 vs GSB posts, their workload would drop by half. 

OTOOH, it seems to me that the impact upon IPMS's image and the damage that uncontrolled political firestorms have caused might be severe enough that the EB should consider some such action.  OTOOOH, the FB page seems to be a tool where some advocate certain agendas and rouse the mob to storm the Winter Palace* -- they might not support such an EB action.

And speaking of the FB page, which I shamefully admit that I looked at again, a recent thread provides linkage to a podcast that continues to roil up the recent judging controversy -- and where one poster states that a former judge who defended himself is "...denying, obfuscating, and lying."  Talk about kicking someone when they are down ... all for the greater good, of course.

*I apologize, but just a little bit, on my references to the Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik ascendancy which led to Leninist Russia and the Soviet Union  That place and era was a study of mine and I see parallels in our current situation.

 

[CaptainAhab]

8 hours ago, Highlander said:

And speaking of the FB page, which I shamefully admit that I looked at again, a recent thread provides linkage to a podcast that continues to roil up the recent judging controversy -- and where one poster states that a former judge who defended himself is "...denying, obfuscating, and lying."  Talk about kicking someone when they are down ... all for the greater good, of course.

I recently left/stopped following two FB pages, the drama dropped by 85%, unfortunately the remainder is from the IPMS/USA page, and for me it may go too. 
 

It may be too late to put the genie back in the bottle with the IPMS/USA page, I don’t know, and Eric is right, manually checking member numbers would be too much, there may be an automated way, but IPMS wouldn’t pay what it probably cost. And besides, the current e-board is using the non-members to their advantage, so I would doubt anything would happen until they are gone. 
 

And that is the rub, any changes the current board makes can be reversed and/or changed by the next one, and if IPMS survives there will be a next one, and one after that. Apparently history is not their strong point.

[Eric Aitala]

It would not be a matter of money but of Facebook, well, being Facebook. Getting anything to work with them is a nightmare which is why the IPMS/USA Facebook page (not the group) no longer gets news, events, and review updates automatically.

E

18 minutes ago, CaptainAhab said:

... and Eric is right, manually checking member numbers would be too much, there may be an automated way, but IPMS wouldn’t pay what it probably cost.

 

[CaptainAhab]

22 hours ago, ghodges said:

If I might suggest then...... simply make the IPMS FB NON-POLITICAL, PERIOD! Any non model building post is automatically deleted by any admin immediately with instructions that ALL IPMSUSA political debate be sent HERE.

HERE, all of the politics should be moved by admins to the THIRD, MEMBERS ONLY AREA (not deleted, but moved). This will insure that ONLY members are in on these discussions.

While non-members may yell about it being some sort of "non-transparency" tactic, they can yell elsewhere or JOIN and come here to participate. The model only policy is also very much in line with many other FB modeling page policies. GIL 

These are excellent ideas! If it’s not directly model related then don’t approve it. I would also suggest for announcements don’t allow comments, if a member wants to comment they can do so here, on the member forum.

[Doogs]

On 10/6/2023 at 10:41 AM, ghodges said:

If I might suggest then...... simply make the IPMS FB NON-POLITICAL, PERIOD! Any non model building post is automatically deleted by any admin immediately with instructions that ALL IPMSUSA political debate be sent HERE.

HERE, all of the politics should be moved by admins to the THIRD, MEMBERS ONLY AREA (not deleted, but moved). This will insure that ONLY members are in on these discussions.

While non-members may yell about it being some sort of "non-transparency" tactic, they can yell elsewhere or JOIN and come here to participate. The model only policy is also very much in line with many other FB modeling page policies.

 

GIL 

 

 

From my perspective, this is unwise for a number of reasons. 

1 - The conversation is going to happen regardless. Talking about IPMS on the IPMS group makes sense. Where else should it happen? Dictating that people have to go somewhere other than where they already (and become paying members if they aren't) just means they won't engage, or they'll engage in other groups, or hear about it via other pages and podcasts and youtube channels and blogs. This is the internet. You can't have smoke-filled backroom conversations. 

2 - There seems to be an operating assumption that everything would just go away if it wasn't for non-members on Facebook. This is straight up untrue. Most of the people I see involved in conversations are members. A great many of them I've met at Nats. 13K members doesn't mean squat. Again...it's the internet. 90% of those never engage, comment, or even like a post. 9% comment, and along that same distribution curve. And then you have 1% driving almost all of the activity. And I'll guarantee that the most active are also mostly members. 

3 - For all the talk of growing the hobby and making IPMS more inclusive and welcoming, this is slamming the door on that intention. You don't win hearts and minds with members only signs and locked doors.

4 - Respectfully, the problem is not the where. A controversy arises that people are understandably upset about. And instead of any official voice saying "eesh, yeah, that looks bad, and I understand why you'd be upset, but that picture isn't telling the whole story" it's instant defensiveness and dismissal. It's ad hominem attacks. It puts a sour taste in people's mouths. So does attacking whistleblowers. Pitchforks are raised because people are pissed, and at every turn they've been given reason to be. And when you have the (now former) head of the NCC calling what from the outside reads like an extremely thorough, level-headed report "that McLain bull&#33;", well...yeah that's just another thing that's going to keep the era of bad feelings rolling. 

[Eric Aitala]

Honestly, I'd rather remove myself as an admin than try to spend time moderating every post and every comment...   

Eric

[ghodges]

Which is why the only PRACTICAL solution (if you want to keep the FB open to the public) is to restrict it to modeling related posts only. That way NO admin has to try to keep up with ANY non-modeling post.

If others want to rant about IPMS "politics" elsewhere, let them. In fact, there are Eboard members and other IPMS members with their own podcasts where that can easily be done.

I disagree that ANY non-member should have a say as to how WE run IPMS. If they want to have a say, then JOIN and become a PART OF THE PROCESS.

I disagree that the vocalism of the non-members hasn't made a difference. In fact, it's their obviously inexperienced and ignorant statements about IPMS judging (especially concerning handling the models) that has caused the Eboard to react in its knee-jerk methods.

Take the non-members out of the POLITICAL equation, but allow them to continue to post model builds and related posts on the FB page. Save the politics for HERE, and for members only!

 

Gil 

[Bert]

I noticed one post directing all to a podcast has been removed from the FB page. IMHO, it should never have been posted to begin with as it put IPMS/USA judging in very bad place.

-Bert

[Chris Bucholtz]

The IPMS social media pages need to be run like any organization's pages. Coke doesn't allow some jag-off from Pepsi to come on their page and talk smack about them or their customers. GM has no compunction about deleting posts from the guy who insists his 1968 Camaro is haunted and it's GM's fault. Stauffers immediately deletes posts from that one person who posts about his exceptionally intimate relationship with stuffing. We are under no obligation to accommodate everyone on our own social media page, especially when the sole intent is to cause controversy and make the organization look bad. 

[RainingOil]

7 hours ago, Bert said:

I noticed one post directing all to a podcast has been removed from the FB page. IMHO, it should never have been posted to begin with as it put IPMS/USA judging in very bad place.

-Bert

Nope. It’s still there.

[CaptainAhab]

23 hours ago, Doogs said:

From my perspective, this is unwise for a number of reasons. 

1 - The conversation is going to happen regardless. Talking about IPMS on the IPMS group makes sense. Where else should it happen? Dictating that people have to go somewhere other than where they already (and become paying members if they aren't) just means they won't engage, or they'll engage in other groups, or hear about it via other pages and podcasts and youtube channels and blogs. This is the internet. You can't have smoke-filled backroom conversations. 

2 - There seems to be an operating assumption that everything would just go away if it wasn't for non-members on Facebook. This is straight up untrue. Most of the people I see involved in conversations are members. A great many of them I've met at Nats. 13K members doesn't mean squat. Again...it's the internet. 90% of those never engage, comment, or even like a post. 9% comment, and along that same distribution curve. And then you have 1% driving almost all of the activity. And I'll guarantee that the most active are also mostly members. 

3 - For all the talk of growing the hobby and making IPMS more inclusive and welcoming, this is slamming the door on that intention. You don't win hearts and minds with members only signs and locked doors.

4 - Respectfully, the problem is not the where. A controversy arises that people are understandably upset about. And instead of any official voice saying "eesh, yeah, that looks bad, and I understand why you'd be upset, but that picture isn't telling the whole story" it's instant defensiveness and dismissal. It's ad hominem attacks. It puts a sour taste in people's mouths. So does attacking whistleblowers. Pitchforks are raised because people are pissed, and at every turn they've been given reason to be. And when you have the (now former) head of the NCC calling what from the outside reads like an extremely thorough, level-headed report "that McLain bull&#33;", well...yeah that's just another thing that's going to keep the era of bad feelings rolling. 

 

I appreciate Doug joining the conversation here, although I see it differently.

1- The problem I see is there has not been constructive conversation on Facebook about these issues, something is posted and it is a dogpile of fire starters and pot stirrers, the few that tried to add thoughtful comments were basically shouted down, insulted and/or bullied, so they left, leaving it to the mob. This forum is not a smoke-filled back room, it is available to all members, the society has a constitution and by-laws, that basically dictates how members will operate while they are IPMS members,  I realize in this day and age people might think everything should be open to everyone, especially on social media, that is not reality. I see no problem with requiring people to go to a members forum to discuss member issues. By looking at the comments on Facebook posts, IPMS related or not, there are plenty of people that would not be missed if they did not engage. If anyone thinks backroom conversations do not go on, or they can or have been stopped, they are fooling themselves.

2 - That’s not the assumption I have heard from anyone I know, it is that non-members should not be the driving force behind knee-jerk reactions and major changes to the society, and that is what I believe is happening. By your math 130 of the 13K people that follow the IPMS Facebook page are responsible for almost all of the activity on issues, and I don’t believe that all of them are IPMS members, being generous I would say 80 of them are, so do I understand correctly that less then 1% of the membership should be driving the decisions for major change?

3 - In my opinion IPMS is not responsible for growing the hobby, and it HAS and continues to be more inclusive and welcoming, it will never be what every last person wants, or do exactly what everyone wants, and it should not have too, or even try. It should be common knowledge that you can not  make everyone happy all the time.  What part of membership is confusing, to be a member you need to join, and for IPMS that means a membership fee, I belong to two different chapters, they do not allow me to keep being a member without paying the club membership fee, no doors are locked, you just need to join and be a member.

4 - I disagree, the problem is where, and the tactics used to turn them into a supposed controversy. Now we have any and all complaints, valid or not, understandable or not, made out as an outrage on Facebook to rile up the mob. Case in point, a picture was posted two days ago of someone (judge?) at a contest in Spain HOLDING UP a model at eye level with one hand and using a flashlight with the other to look at it. So far it has 4-5 likes and one post, and no pitchfork and torch welding mob of angry people have turned it into a controversy, or even a joke. As for attacking the complaint, they opened themselves up to criticism, good or bad, by choosing facebook to air their grievances and should have known that.
 

[Bert]

From Jay Andry.

Jay Andry is awaiting  his approval to post on the IPMS Forums. The following is the letter he sent to the e-board in response to their decision of October 1,1023 regarding the category 608 issue.

To the Executive Board of IPMS/USA:

 

 

I have waited some time to reflect after reading the E-Board’s letter to the membership dated October 1, 2023. Rather than leave this without having commented, I thought it best to let you know that I disagree strenuously with your decision.

 

It is unfortunate that the E-Board has reversed itself without further interviewing or questioning the now-censured parties or the NCC. It seems to me that those people directly involved – Manny, Kal, and I – would have been questioned by the E-Board’s appointed investigator, John Figueroa. Previously, both Kal and I called John to answer any questions he might have had, but he declined to ask us any. Additionally, Manny was never contacted by John.

 

However, when I did speak to John, he said that he had read the letters of all the parties and taken statements from the other individuals. He went on to say that he was confident that I would be cleared of any wrongdoing. I realize that he was not the final arbiter in the decision-making process; however, I feel his comments are telling. Furthermore, if the E-Board’s vote was unanimous, he must have changed his mind.

 

As I hope you read in my written response, I was the assistant head judge at this year’s national contest in the Space and Sci-fi Category. As such, I did not participate in the actual judging. Instead, I assisted with assignment of judging teams, check judging, oversight of the judging process, and clerical work. Of all these responsibilities, overseeing the judging process is where I spent most of my time.

 

While overseeing the process, I recognized a change in the table set-up. This year, the tables were on risers, elevating them approximately eighteen inches. The risers had the effect of making the tables less stable than they normally had been. Several times during the contest, I noticed that there were individuals who were bumping the tables. In fact, numerous Gundam models fell over due to judges bumping into the tables. As to the proximity of the tables, Category 608 was abutting the Gundam category, 607. One individual, while judging Category 608, had to be told three times about bumping or leaning on the table. I told him to stop twice then asked another, more-senior judge on his team to tell him the third time. I later learned that the judge who was bumping and leaning on the table was Chris McClain and that the more-senior judge was Dana Smith.

 

Both Dana Smith and Richard Robison, another member of the judging team in question, have confirmed that from a distance of two tables and one aisle, I advised Chris McClain about bumping the tables. At this distance, I was never near the team during the judging of 608 except when I was check-judging Category 607. I never discussed the models on the table with any of the judges of Category 608 nor did I overhear or oversee their comments. I would also note that I had similar comments about bumping the tables to an entirely different judging team on the opposite side of the contest room. I cautioned those judges from a similar distance. That judging team ultimately damaged two models despite my cautions. None of the other Space and Sci-fi teams were bumping the tables. When speaking to the 608 team as well as Chris McClain, I was doing my job as assistant head category judge. I did it from a distance to protect models and not interfere with the actual judging. As Dana Smith said in his letter of August 14^th, to the NCC “Jay did come by several times while we were judging, and Kaliste also, but I see that as their job to supervise. He did not interfere while judging his model. No issue there for me. “

On the night of the contest, I was made aware that there was an issue with Category 608. I was not initially told what the issue was. Regarding the issue, Manny informed me that 608 had to be rejudged. As soon as he said this, I turned on my heel and made my way to the other side of category 600, some 25-30 feet away. I wanted to make sure that I was not in the vicinity of discussion of a category in which my model was entered to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. As I see this, my moving away from the category is in keeping with the goal that the E-Board now plans to adopt. I did not return to the area until after the judging sheet had been turned in.

 

Manny Gutsche and I are friendly; however, we are not what I would call friends. We have spoken for ten or fifteen minutes a few times each year for the past decade or so. In the past year, however, our communication has increased. Last year, Manny told me that he was suggesting my name to take over as head judge in 2024. He told me it was because I have the most national judging experience of anyone in the Space and Sci-fi judging cadre. Additionally, I had acted as head category judge several years ago when Manny could not attend the contest. He said that he thought I was both decisive and would stand up for my decisions - skills he said I would need as a head category judge. That is the extent of our contact prior to this incident. I have known Manny to be a fair and reasonable head category judge with great insight who rigorously enforces the check judge system. Prior to this event, judging teams have been overruled a handful of times, and at least twice, Mark Persichetti was brought in by Manny to settle a disputed judging issue. In those cases, Mark assigned new judges to resolve the issue. All these situations were resolved without further incident. My understanding from other category head judges is that they have had similar incidents - all resolved without uproar.

 

As to Kaliste Saloom: he and I are good friends. We went to law school together and, some ten years later, became reacquainted when we saw each other at an IPMS Nationals. Kal has been a senior national judge for approximately five years so he has over 25 years of National judging experience. He has also judged at scores of local contests, all without issue or complaint.Further Kal has acted as the lawyer for IPMS/USA numerous times advising them on contractual issues. Recently he was asked by Rob Booth to assist him with issues regarding the Maddisaon WI Nationals next year. Rob has also sought Kal out numerous times to judge at the Alamo Squadron’s annual local contests. I know Kal to be a fair and honest person. Without hesitation, he has told me flatly when he has found fault with my models. Though we are friends, we have never gone out of our way to either judge or avoid judging each other’s models. Sadly, this issue and the E-Board’s last decision has cast a shadow on his character. Kaliste Saloom is a man of integrity.

 

Within the past few weeks, I have re-read Chris McClain’s indictment. In it, Chris referred to the scope of work aspect of judging in quotes, as though that term was singular to this incident. As we all know, Mark’s pre-judging slide show explains that scope of work is a major tenant of the judging criteria.

 

Additionally, I listened to Chris discuss this matter on a podcast, Sprue Cutters Union. During his comments on the podcast, Chris said that he was angered about being told to stop bumping and leaning on the tables. Considering the incident in which a model tank being held overhead, I think preventing damage to models would be important to the E-Board. I also heard him say on the podcast that he did not attend the mandatory judges meeting prior to the beginning of judging at the national contest this year. I’m not sure how many of those meetings he has attended, but apparently not enough of them for him to know the correct course of action the night of the contest. He should have presented his concerns to Contest Head Judge Mark Persichetti. Mark emphasizes the reporting procedure every year in the judges meeting, including this year. He also emphasizes that waiting until after the contest is too late to change the outcome.

 

Chris also said on that podcast that he did not know who Mark was. Mark, in his leadership capacity, identifies himself as Head Contest Judge and head of the National Contest Committee every year during the judges meeting. Chris should have gone to Mark with his concerns. He was standing less than fifteen feet away from Mark before judging had concluded. Additionally, Chris could have approached Mark after he was in the photo of the Space and Sci-fi judging team taken the night of the contest. The group was less than two table lengths from Mark and the scoring table. These opportunities presented themselves long before the judging was over. Instead, Chris said he was off taking pictures of models.

 

Another important rule Mark emphasizes at the judges meeting is that members of the same club are not to judge together in the same team. The Category 608 judging team included another member of Hill Country Modelers. If either Chris or his club mate had attended the meeting, they should have known not to judge together on the same team. There is no way Manny or I could have known they were in the same club. It is my understanding that Rob Booth, Chris McClain, and a few others are all in the Hill Country Modelers from San Antonio. I am now aware that they are in the same club because they have posted photos of themselves on Facebook showing their weekly or monthly build sessions at someone’s home. It appears to be an intimate group.

 

If we are now to be held to the standard of avoiding the appearance of impropriety, E-Board Secretary Rob Booth should have recused himself on all aspects of this issue. I do not believe that recusal happened, but I am willing to stand corrected.

 

By taking away my ability to judge for a year, you have tried and convicted me without giving me the opportunity to defend myself. Despite this, I value my membership in IPMS, my judging experience, and my position as a senior national judge. Please accept this letter as my formal request to be reinstated to the judging corps in 2025 or sooner, if this body feels it appropriate. I am making this request even though there has never been a procedure for requesting to be a judge at Nationals other than showing up. I make this request out of an abundance of caution.

 

Let me conclude by stating that I do not believe that I did anything wrong. If a category head judge or assistant cannot caution judges about potentially damaging models in categories in which they have entered models, you will eliminate all the head and assistant head judges. Judges build and judge subjects which they know. That is what makes them good head, lead, or line judges. I was not hovering over the category as Chris accuses. I was protecting the models. As Dana Smith said in his letter to the NCC, Chris takes the facts and comes to all the wrong conclusions.

 

Jay Andry

Senior National Judge

IPMS#27033

 

 

 

 

--

Jay Andry

504-495-8814

5645 Bellaire Dr.

New Orleans LA 70124

[VonL]

On 10/4/2023 at 4:33 PM, ghodges said:

.... but have you been paying attention for the last year? If you need to, go down to the THIRD DF AREA "members only section" (you'll have to sign in to see it and participate there) and scroll down for the last 12 months to look at the various topics related to the Eboard's actions...

Gil 

Yes Gil, I (no longer) read the Members Only sections and have finally notched out of these fights for the aforementioned reasons. Thank you guys, sincerely, for caring enough to wrestle with this stuff to try and make it right. But I will no longer follow it down the rabbit hole. Again: Modeling is my escape from this kind of thing in the so-called real world.

Respectfully,

Von_L

Edited October 16, 2023 by VonL
spelling

[ghodges]

I applaud Jay for his inciteful and informative letter. It seems to confirm the moniker I've seen hung on the current Eboard: Ready! Shoot! Aim! They tend to react in a knee jerk way to internet chatter instead of taking the time needed to fully investigate a problem and take measured action from logical conclusions.

What seems worse, as Jay outlines above, though the Eboard statement suspending him says it got his side of the story, that was not true. I have NO problem if the Eboard did give Jay his say and then chose to go with the testimony of others. I have a HUGE problem if they interviewed and listened ONLY to people who supported the outcome they were looking for (a changing of the guard on the NCC), ala the Warren Commission.

Where I part from Jay and his letter is that it is incomplete in addressing Chris McLain's entire judging complaint. I can fully believe Jay's explanation of doing his job and not hovering and that there was no bias by him or anyone else in Cat608. HOWEVER, Jays letter does NOT address the more egregious issue of how the cat608 judging sheet results were changed after the judging was done; an undeniable fact that is supported by photographic evidence.

Jay probably had nothing to do with that. However, his letter casts aspersions on Chris McLain and taints him as a disgruntled judge seeing bias where it didn't exist. Jay may not have exhibited bias, BUT SOMEONE DID AT A LATER TIME BY CHANGING THAT SHEET. Mr. McLain AND all of US deserve a full explanation of how that happened, even if Chris was not happy with Jay about being told to more careful around the model tables while judging.

The bottom line here as it seems to be presented is yet another instance of the Eboard being either incompetent, misleading, or outright lying about its investigation being as thorough as they claimed. In light of all of their other recent actions, it's getting VERY difficult to continue to give them the benefit of any doubt.

 

Gil