More Resignations

[CaptainAhab]

10 hours ago, WasatchModeler said:

Just made it through the discussion and have some questions.  If most of the people on the Facebook page are not members,  how do we get them to be members instead of trying to remove them?  Why are they not members? If a large portion of members don't attend nationals,  how do we get them to join?  Why do they not attend? 

Why are we trying to exclude people than listen to them? 

It appears like growing membership is not a concern.  

The question of why don’t more members go to the nationals was being asked when I first joined 35 years ago, and has continued the entire time. The most prevalent answer has been cost and time, if it is held close to them they would probably go (close meaning well within a days drive), the cost of travel, hotels and everything that goes with it, then there’s the time, work, family, a lot of people just can’t be away for 4-6 days for a hobby, even if they want too. I don’t believe those are things IPMS can change, the solution has been to rotate the convention around the country, which has worked well, as long as chapters are willing and able to host it, which is a different issue.

Excluding people? I’m not aware of anyone who sent in their membership form and paid the fee being rejected. Ron’s description is good, if you pay dues to belong to a union, are you alright with other people not paying dues and being allowed to belong to it, and getting the same services and a voice in how it is run? 
 

Yes, IPMS should pay attention to what is happening in the greater modeling community, and “if” it looks like something that can be pragmatically and operationally incorporated into the society and made an “added” benefit then great. I really don’t care if the FB page is open to the public, if that it the best place to have a public “face” then OK, my main issue is/was the e-boards hasty reactions to the drama that comes with it and implementing policies/rules because of it.
 

And honest questions, why should IPMS and its members be concerned with, and/or focus on growing? What would the benefits be to IPMS and its members to have 10,000 members, 20,000, 30,000 or more? We can not get more than 18-20% of the current membership to vote and/or voice an opinion, would growing the membership help that? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RainingOil]

On 1/14/2024 at 9:07 AM, PaulBradley said:

How about retaining the current FB page, but create a second, private, page for members only. The private page is for discussion of IPMS business, including discussions on issues at the Convention, etc, etc. 

The existing page can be re-cast as strictly for modelling topics only - ask how-to questions, show off your latest creation, advertise and post photos of model shows, etc, etc. If anyone starts a potentially controversial post, the mods don't approve it - it dies right there. Anyone adds a controversial reply to a post, mods delete it. Put all this in the revised page rules - basically, stay on topic and keep it civil, folks.  No such thing as 'free speech' on a privately-owned space. The old page could be retitled or rebranded as 'Scale Modeling presented by IPMS/USA', or some such. 

Keep our 'dirty laundry' on the private page where the non-member agitators cannot see it. 

There will be no privacy for these memeber-only pipe dreams. There are paid agitators with forum logins even in here that will be screenshotting everything. 

You'd also be surprised just how many of the "non member agitators" as you call them actually are members. Locking it all down is not the move. But you're right; no free speech on a privately-owned space. But what if I'm a part owner because I have an IPMS number and pay my dues? Can I go behind closed doors and agitate there? 

[CaptainAhab]

1 hour ago, RainingOil said:

There will be no privacy for these memeber-only pipe dreams. There are paid agitators with forum logins even in here that will be screenshotting everything. 

You'd also be surprised just how many of the "non member agitators" as you call them actually are members. Locking it all down is not the move. But you're right; no free speech on a privately-owned space. But what if I'm a part owner because I have an IPMS number and pay my dues? Can I go behind closed doors and agitate there? 

I understand not everything should or could be members only, and yes, I have a good picture of the amount of “agitators”, it’s not something unique to current times. 
 

And yes, as a paying member you can go behind closed doors and be an agitator, my question is, why do you just want to be an agitator? Member or not, if your someone who just enjoys agitating people I think IPMS should take a hard look at how that is helping the society and what the remedy could be.

[ghodges]

Cameron: Despite the tone of some of the commentary here (including mine), we are not trying to blow off or ignore non-members on FB and social media, and IPMSUSA allows them there with the hope that they WILL become interested in us and join (though most don't).

The first problem with their commentary on our IPMS FB page is that many of them are offering opinions that are from the outside looking in and without any REAL knowledge of how things operate in IPMS or its contests. They're going on hearsay from others instead of commenting from their own experiences. Thus you have their ignorant comments, along with the comments from members and ex-members with IPMS experience adding to the overall volume of commentary, which at a glance makes any controversial topic look that much more controversial.

The second and more important problem is that the current Eboard has for some reason in the last year suddenly decided that they needed to pay more heed to FB and social media commentary. Unfortunately, since you often don't know how much of the commentary is done by members or non-members, that means they're actually giving heed to a lot of non-member input when their first priority should be decerning what OUR membership wants and thinks, not outsiders.

Can they have opinions as valid as ours? You betcha! However, what we've really been driving at in this and related discussions is the need for our Eboard to be SURE they're not over reacting to dustups on FB and social media (as they did after the Nats last summer), especially when so much of it was driven by ignorant, non-member posts.

If you check other posts in related topics you'll also see discussions on what IPMSUSA needs to do to get those non-members more interested in joining us. So please be aware that we don't really want to control what non-members say or do on the internet, but we are concerned about their having any sway with those running IPMSUSA at this time instead of we, the members. Cheers!

 

Gil 

[WasatchModeler]

3 hours ago, ghodges said:

Cameron: Despite the tone of some of the commentary here (including mine), we are not trying to blow off or ignore non-members on FB and social media, and IPMSUSA allows them there with the hope that they WILL become interested in us and join (though most don't).

The first problem with their commentary on our IPMS FB page is that many of them are offering opinions that are from the outside looking in and without any REAL knowledge of how things operate in IPMS or its contests. They're going on hearsay from others instead of commenting from their own experiences. Thus you have their ignorant comments, along with the comments from members and ex-members with IPMS experience adding to the overall volume of commentary, which at a glance makes any controversial topic look that much more controversial.

The second and more important problem is that the current Eboard has for some reason in the last year suddenly decided that they needed to pay more heed to FB and social media commentary. Unfortunately, since you often don't know how much of the commentary is done by members or non-members, that means they're actually giving heed to a lot of non-member input when their first priority should be decerning what OUR membership wants and thinks, not outsiders.

Can they have opinions as valid as ours? You betcha! However, what we've really been driving at in this and related discussions is the need for our Eboard to be SURE they're not over reacting to dustups on FB and social media (as they did after the Nats last summer), especially when so much of it was driven by ignorant, non-member posts.

If you check other posts in related topics you'll also see discussions on what IPMSUSA needs to do to get those non-members more interested in joining us. So please be aware that we don't really want to control what non-members say or do on the internet, but we are concerned about their having any sway with those running IPMSUSA at this time instead of we, the members. Cheers!

 

Gil 

It makes for an interesting public relations strategy.  It sounds like we do not want to listen to non members. In consumer relations,  you do want to listen to both customers and non customers.  If they are ignorant then why don't we educate them on why ipms operates as it does? 

As far as the incident with the tank being held overhead,  is that how you would want your entry being held? If that becomes the norm then people are going to think twice about entering in the future.  One way of thinking about it is a knee jerk reaction but the other side is listening to people's concerns and taking action.  One of the stigmas of the organization is inaction.  

If the organization grows to a larger number then that could open up some new opportunities.  The big concern is that if we stay where we are,  as the organization dies off, (let's be honest about the average age of the org) then it will eventuality for with it.  

[ghodges]

Cameron said: "As far as the incident with the tank being held overhead, is that how you would want your entry being held?"

And there-in lies the problem.... There was NOTHING WRONG in that picture. The problem was that no one on the Eboard, nor none of the NCC, nor any of the armor judges got on social media and FB to push back against the comments and say "it's NOT a problem". Some of we judges did... but no one in a position of authority did.

And my answer is YES!, I have no problem with a judge carefully picking my model up, keeping it level instead of turning it upside down (much more dangerous), and using his phone light to get a better lit look instead of tilting it to try to get the ambient room light to hit where he's trying to see. Since I have decades (literally) as a national judge I know that SOMETIMES the judging gets that tight and tough at the Nats. I know, from experience, that a judge only does that when needed, and NOT to every model judged. AND, the rules clearly state that models are judged in ALL 3 DIMENSIONS. And yet people act astonished that models are picked up to view the bottoms....

The picture was posted IN ORDER to make you THINK that that's "the norm" and is done to every model, and that the judges do it in a "cavalier" way without regard to the model or its builder. Posting it could serve no other purpose, and was designed to create the fervor it did so the Eboard could issue their "absolutely no model handling" edict to the NCC; all the while knowing the NCC wouldn't stand for it. They precipitated the resignations of most of the NCC and now we are less than a year away from the Madison Nats without an experienced group of head judges and a BIG question mark as to how many of the judging corp (also made to look like fools in that pic) will be willing to work that show. Would YOU want to judge knowing someone may take a pic of you, post it, and make you look like a "judging rube"? Yes, the person who posted that pic did that much damage, and what's worse, isn't sorry he did it either.

The picture also implies that model breakage is a problem at the Nats and it's not. Breakage is carefully tracked during the judging and it does occur, but in VERY small numbers, especially compared to the number of models being moved and handled over the entire 4 days of the show. In fact, as much or MORE breakage occurs from viewers with swinging badges on lanyards, dangling cameras, and careless leans trying to get better looks at the back rows. ALL breakage is regrettable and certainly important, especially to the builder whose model is damaged. But are you even AWARE of the judging rule that IF a builder puts a note saying "damaged in transit" then that damage isn't held against the model during judging? Funny how THAT never got mentioned in all of the outrage over the tank pic! And IF a judge does cause some damage, THAT is (of course) not held against the entry either.

Does the "handling policy" need modification or change, especially considering the "outrage and concern" expressed on social media? PERHAPS.... but then I challenge YOU and every other person that thinks so to first go to a Nats, undergo the OJT judge training, actually judge AT THE NATS, see how it's actually done, and THEN step back and offer an experienced opinion; which lets out 95% of those commenting on the subject on social media.

I agree with you in that IPMSUSA has a big decision to make: WHO do we want to appeal to, WHO do we wish to "target" our efforts to get to join us, and HOW do we need to change in order to appeal to that broader group of people? We should certainly listen when we ask non-members what can IPMSUSA do to make you possibly want to join? But, IPMSUSA has NO obligations to listen to or heed ignorant comments on Nats judging largely made by those who've never even tried to judge in that arena.

 

Gil 

Edited January 17 by ghodges

[Bert]

Although I cannot prove it. I believe the infamous photo was staged and posted for the sole reason to harm the society. Who took the photo? The judge's face was blocked by his arm and have no idea who he was. It's a perfectly framed photo. Sorry, I don't believe was randomly taken.

[ghodges]

The picture was NOT staged.... it is a an actual pic of the armor judging, taken by a "blogger" in the room and posted on his blog to begin with, where it was picked up and posted elsewhere including the IPMSUSA FB page.

But it was not "randomly" taken....

It was was meant to make the IPMSUSA 1-2-3 judging system look bad and to make IPMS judges look like overly anal idiots.

The armor judge in the photo has since quit IPMS and who can blame him? No one on the Eboard or the NCC came to his defense or even stepped up to give him any benefit of the doubt.

Gil 

[Bert]

What was a blogger doing in the room that is closed to everyone except judges?

[CaptainAhab]

3 hours ago, WasatchModeler said:

One way of thinking about it is a knee jerk reaction but the other side is listening to people's concerns and taking action.  One of the stigmas of the organization is inaction.  

If the organization grows to a larger number then that could open up some new opportunities.  The big concern is that if we stay where we are,  as the organization dies off, (let's be honest about the average age of the org) then it will eventuality for with it.  

I guess I’m not understanding the idea that the society suffers from inaction, at least not where the national contest is concerned. The rules and categories are updated yearly, trends are tracked and when new categories are tried they are tracked for three years for participation to judge popularity. The NCC holds two open meetings at the convention, for explanation of judging, after contest reporting of how it went, taking suggestions and answering questions. I was at both in San Marcos, I could count the attendees on two hands. If you haven’t I encourage you to read the National Contest Final Report from SM, and/or all of them, they are lessons in how to collect important information and statistics for an event.

I would need to know what possible opportunities could be opened up from growing the membership before I would even entertain thinking about them. I’m not sure about the dying off concerns, we are not the same group that joined in the sixty’s finally getting too old, I’ve belonged to chapters that have gone from 10 people to 25, then back to 8, then to 30, people come and go for a lot of reasons, yes, we are heavier on older members, that can be for lots of reasons too, but I see a lot of younger members at the national convention,  someone can correct me but I think IPMS has always had an older median aged membership.

[jcorley]

If you didn't see it, they announced a decision further Social Media Manager. She certainly sounds qualified for the job.  I just hope her mediation skills aren't overtaxed! 

[CaptainAhab]

56 minutes ago, Bert said:

What was a blogger doing in the room that is closed to everyone except judges?

To my knowledge the photo taker was a judge, although there was not much, if any control on room entry that night, nor was there an easy way to know if someone was a judge or not, something to consider moving forward.

[Bert]

Judges are usually supplied badges with 'judge" written on them.

[Highlander]

2 hours ago, CaptainAhab said:

...The NCC holds two open meetings at the convention, for explanation of judging, after contest reporting of how it went, taking suggestions and answering questions. I was at both in San Marcos, I could count the attendees on two hands. ...

True.  The NCC pointed out exactly the above.  Lack of attendance was evident. 

Some who pushed rapid and revolutionary change charged the NCC with lack of transparency.  Some who were clearly ignorant of how the NCC worked also charged lack of transparency.  In the after contest meeting, each suggestion from the floor was treated as an action item, recorded in the minutes, formally discussed and evaluated, and then the result was reported.  It was not unusual for the change proposer to be asked to provide further information so the NCC could better evaluate the proposal; often the requested information was not provided and the proposed change died stillborn.  Some suggestions were adopted, others weren't. 

In addition, a massive report was issued after each Nats, providing exhaustive detail on the NCC and its operation, the judging corps, the contest, and changes and issues for that year.   But, the charge that the NCC wasn't transparent was trumpeted loudly and often  -- IMHO, often by those who wanted the National Contest to change the way they wanted it to change.  With the risk assumed by someone else and the work being done by someone else.

I offer that it is hard to tell if something is transparent if one does not look at it.

[Highlander]

2 hours ago, CaptainAhab said:

... there was not much, if any control on room entry that night, nor was there an easy way to know if someone was a judge or not ...

This has always been an issue.  Someone (or several someones) attends the judges meeting, then wanders into the model room, doesn't hook up with a judging team, and wanders around.  Or joins a team, then wanders off, and wanders around.  When discovered, such folks are usually told to judge or leave.  Or just leave.

But, in the heat of getting organized and getting underway, the wanderer or two or three can be hard to spot.

[Chris Bucholtz]

"The armor judge in the photo has since quit IPMS and who can blame him?"

An update: that member contacted me and told me he's staying in IPMS. I would like to think that's because enough members contacted him with positive sentiments to keep him in the fold. 

[ghodges]

Glad to hear that Chris! It's  bad enough the pic was blown out of proportion without the armor judge being unfairly characterized too. He was not at fault in any way... merely taken advantage of!

 

Gil 

[noelsmith]

Is it not made clear to all contestants that their models are placed on the table entirely at their own risk and that IPMS although taking reasonable care will not be held responsible for any loss or damage howsoever caused.

Yes. it is irritating if your model gets damaged  in competition or at a show (been there and got the tee shirt). But anyone showing a model should appreciate that they are taking a risk if their model goes into competition or on public display and need to be a bit grown up about it if their model suffers a breakage.

Aren't we supposed to be modellers who can build, restore and repair things after all? 

Anybody would think that a model getting damaged is a life threatening situation judging by some of the belly aching and diatribe aimed at that judge on social media. So a tank model got accidentally damaged by a human being looking at it whilst judging it.  If indeed that is what actually happened? I expect that poor guy felt sick to the stomach at the time. I know I would. It's no small wonder he felt that IPMS wasn't for him after all that. Glad he got dissuaded from leaving.

 

Edited January 17 by noelsmith

[CaptainAhab]

7 minutes ago, noelsmith said:

Is it not made clear to all contestants that their models are placed on the table entirely at their own risk and that IPMS although taking reasonable care will not be held responsible for any loss or damage howsoever caused.

Yes. it is irritating if your model gets damaged  in competition or at a show (been there and got the tee shirt). But anyone showing a model should appreciate that they are taking a risk if their model goes into competition or on public display and need to be a bit grown up about it if their model suffers a breakage. Aren't we supposed to be modellers who can build, restore and repair things after all?  Anybody would think that a mere model getting damaged is a life threatening situation judging by some of the belly aching and diatribe aimed at that judge on social media. So a tank model got accidentally damaged by a human being looking at it whilst judging it. I expect that poor guy felt sick to the stomach when it happened. I know I would.

So guys, lets cut each other a bit of slack before vilifying someone for everyone else and their dog to read.

I couldn’t agree more, but for the record the model he was holding did not get damaged. In fact we had very few damaged models in the Military Vehicle Categories, and some of those were from spectators.

I see more models with damage from transporting them too the contest then at the contest. 

[ghodges]

That's the thing Noel.... that tank in the picture suffered no damage at all....

The only thing damaged was that judge's reputation and IPMSUSA's image of how we judge.

Gil 

[Scalemodeldoc]

I was present for the taking of the photo. I might have taken it myself if I was faster at the draw with my iPhone.

An experienced judge (not a blogger) took the photo. 

it was not an isolated single tank lifted and tilted with bare fingers. that judging group was lifting most entries, multiple over their heads, and tilting tanks placed on bases (with notes that said “careful not attached”) way off parallel to the point they were sliding on their bases. They were using iPhone flash lights (the room had good lighting). 
 

The photo was taken (I believe) initially as evidence to share up the chain of command in the room to get some re-education and reign in the team. This DID occur. 
 

one can argue the judge did nothing wrong, but having judged multiple Nats and other shows, and having first hand watched them lift things with my own eyes, it would NOT be my preferred method for moving and inspecting models. At least wear a glove. 
 

later, someone aside from the taker of the photo leaked the photo in response to general online discussion of the large number of broken models this year, and the back and forth discussion of “the judges are perfectly careful you can’t be any more careful” Vs “want a picture of a judge bare fingering a tank over his head?”   
 

it, as things do, blew up. 
 

my own opinion is it is too bad the judges face was visible as it’s not personally about HIM (or at least shouldn’t be!) it’s more a debate on the preferred ways we should systemically hand move and judge models within IPMS events. 

[Bert]

Although I don't build armor and have not judged any, I can't see why it was necessary holding the model over his head and shining a light on it. What is there to see? I don't get it.

[patd]

I must agree that that photo was posted as an intentional effort to damage the IPMS and the judging corps. Up until Sam Marcos the only people I ever saw taking photos of the judging in progress was for the IPMS magazine. To be honest posting the photo had the same effect as an outboard motor in a cesspool, it was meant to raise a stink and start a controversy as if ALL models were handled this way by the judges. It was sophism.

If I may make a couple of points:

I have been on the A/C splits crew since 2005, in San Marcos the head A/C judged approached us about doing the splits late Thursday night after the room had closed as with the crowds in the room and more expected Friday we felt that trying to move the models into the proper categories would be very difficult. The head A/C judge had made arrangement to keep the lights on and for the splits crew (6 judges plus the head judge) to have access to the contest tables where the A/C were displayed. We as a group probably moved 300 models that night setting up the splits, cataloguing the nomenclature of the splits and doing the house keeping things like making sure BKB builds had the instructions, extending the categories table space and if necessary moving categories to where there was sufficient expansion room for more entries expected Friday. NO models were damaged during the splits reorganization in San Marcos, and we finished up about 12:30 AM. The next day we delt with whatever came pointing them to the correct category right up until registration closed. Over the years IF a model is damaged by the splits crew or in judging the person responsible leaves a signed note and usually the head A/C judge initials the note. IF a model is damaged it is NOT held against the modeler in judging nor are transport breakages

On judging night there are gloves available should a model have to be handled and usually it is the team leader that handles the model ONLY, if necessary, and rarely; models are 3-dimensional object and sometimes looking at the bottom of a A/C can be the tie breaker. One may have noticed that more and more A/C modelers are placing their pieces on mirrors, easier to see the bottom and easier to move for splits. I can say with certainly that the models are moved and handled by the splits crew and judges as if it was their own model. In some cases, if there is a crowd one member of the splits crew will walk ahead of the model holder making sure no one runs into the mover. In some cases, if the model is very delicate or large we will try to find a way to leave it in position and rearrange other pieces around it.

It is almost impossible to judge a model if it is in the back row of the contest table and the model has to be moved up front to be adequately seen by the judging team, in order to fairly appraise the model.

I also am of the opinion that more models are damaged by lanyards, camera straps and people leaning over the tables and hitting something, or people walking around the room with no situational awareness as to the proximity of the models to themselves and each other and bumping and leaning on the tables, or transit damage than any damage from judging.

The other categories, armor, auto, ships etc. take just a much care with their splits and judging as I have observed with the A/C judging in almost the last 20 years.

Pat Donahue

 

 

Edited January 17 by patd

[Scalemodeldoc]

Pat, if the judges were using the methods and technique as you describe, there would be no controversy!  

Careful moving for splits is clearly ok 

As you say: “On judging night there are gloves available should a model have to be handled and usually it is the team leader that handles the model ONLY, if necessary, and rarely”

Thing is, without the picture, I heard over and over that IPMS judging is perfect and models are always handled in an optimal manner. My own eyes, and digital photography, have demonstrated we actually have opportunities for improvement on this front… I’ve seen judges lift models, tip them over, and cause figures to fall out. We can do better.

What blows my mine is that it is apparently so difficult to come to the rational conclusion that this isn’t a vast conspiracy by a shadowy array of guerilla forces, but just a goof that can easily be rectified with some written guidelines and education, basically what you already wrote!

 

-Splits will be done at head judges discretion, preferably in a closed room or with teams to minimize risk

-If a model must be touched, gloves must be worn

-during judging, gently sliding models on the table to allow better viewing is allowable, but should be done with best care (i love the idea of small slideable discs to place models on, allowing easy movement)

-during judging, only the team lead may lift a model, and this should be a rare event clearly required for judging 

There is a way to do this that recognizes the pragmatic reality of judging and also respects the safety desires of model makers.  

 

 

[jcorley]

2 hours ago, Scalemodeldoc said:

The photo was taken (I believe) initially as evidence to share up the chain of command in the room to get some re-education and reign in the team. This DID occur. 

What re-education was needed? I was at the meeting (in the hall, no more room inside) and heard Mark specifically say we could pick up models. Your premise is wrong.

 

And what's up with the super large IPMS number? We should be in the mid 50,000s not way up at 60967005? I'm not blaming you for this, but did they adopt a new numbering system? Six Million plus?  really?