More Resignations

[Highlander]

13 hours ago, jcorley said:

Maybe the guy in Missori that sued IPMS because he didn't win?

Just one of several, but the only one who attempted to sue ... as far as I know.  Not the only one to have an infantile breakdown.  Not the only one who attempted to dictate to the Nats and the NCC how his entry would be entered, located, supported, highlighted, judged, and reported.  One of a small, but troublesome and time consuming minority.

It seems that every year, an entrant shows up with an entry that takes a flatbed to move into the model room and then demands the electrical output of three medium nuclear reactors to power it.  The bit about advance coordination seems to have been missed.

Also sarcasm, and not at all by much.

Edited January 18 by Highlander

[Bert]

10 minutes ago, Highlander said:

 

Jerks are everywhere. Some even in IPMS/USA. 

[Highlander]

4 minutes ago, Bert said:

Jerks are everywhere. Some even in IPMS/USA. 

But few in N'Awlins.

[CaptainAhab]

2 hours ago, RainingOil said:

Well, agitator seems to be, by your implication, a dismissive term in which you’re lumping everyone not for maintaining the status quo. This club has a giant problem with being a good ol boys club, and that is what people want to change. 

OK… I don’t see good ol’ boys, by your implication, as any less dismissive. As I said, you can, as a member, come here and discuss issues that effect the society, and be an agitator, my question is can you be more? Can you put ideas forward that will appeal to ALL members, if the median age is 62ish, like it or not, you will need to get historic members (as Eric kindly put it) on board with any changes. Speaking from experience it is hard to change a paradigm, and is usually a slow process, but can be done, the saying “you will catch more flies with sugar then salt” is still true even if you don’t like it.
 

I appreciate you coming here, and encourage it to discuss member issues, but I disagree there is a giant problem with status quo, please show me some kind of hard data to support it. It doesn’t mean you can’t change mine and or other peoples thinking/minds, it’s just going to take more finesse then force. 

[ghodges]

That "good old boys" moniker, or the idea that there's a "special grouping" which takes some sort of ingratiating go-along mentality (and perhaps learning a secret handshake) in order to be a part of is a complete misnomer, and one perpetuated by outsiders looking in. It's common everywhere in all kinds of volunteer societies, where even some members view other members as somehow being more accepted or privileged.

And it's true.... BUT NOT in the way generally portrayed or thought of!

People who volunteer to SERVE as officers at the local and national level, by their service, duties, and the interactions created in doing so become a separate group apart from the majority of those who do not serve. The volunteer officers and other appointed "officials" usually don't look askance at those who sit on the sidelines (well, there was that one "freeloader" comment....), BUT they do have something in common with each other that the rest cannot relate to because the majority are not "in" on those interactive dealings and the inner workings of the organization. That is why TRANSPARENCY and TRUST are so important for those who DO step up to do the work. It minimizes the bad perceptions created by the gap between those who serve and those who don't; and from those "in the know" and those who can only look on and hope their best interests are being taken care of. Those who serve are not better, or special, or more privileged, but they are (especially over time) a separate group within the group and can be viewed as good old boys who seemingly all know each other. And that group of good old boys is NOT a bad thing!

The most famous "old boys club" is the CONTEST WINNERS! And those SAME PEOPLE always seem to keep winning.... Well then (from anyone who can't seem to win) it MUST be because the judges KNOW them! They're a part of the good old boys contest club and have an inside edge to begin with. It couldn't be they win because they have years of experience at their craft that gives them a leg up..... or that they're experienced judges themselves and learned the problems the judges look for (and thus the problems to avoid) and therefore make fewer mistakes..... or that they hold themselves to a higher standard than the vast majority of builders and thus build at a higher quality level... or that they consistently win because of all of the above. NO.... it HAS to be because they've wormed their way into the good graces of their judging friends and no one else outside of that good old boys club has a chance as an "outsider". It's easy to take on that attitude unless you're truly interested in an honest appraisal of your own building abilities and results. I challenge anyone inclined to think that way to come to the Nats and become a judge. It'll open your eyes as to why models win and especially as to how they're eliminated from the competition. And you'll find that the only "club" is those who've learned how to build at a higher level with fewer mistakes, and that it doesn't matter who you know.

The "good old boys" club IS a perception problem that IPMSUSA will have to overcome at least to some degree in order to grow. That's why I've touted GSB over 1-2-3 as it allows for more people to be rewarded for excellent model building and could help lessen the idea of having to be "in" in order to win in IPMS. However, it's a problem of perception, and NOT a real problem. ANYONE can be a "good old boy" by stepping up to serve or to judge, making themselves less of an outsider and increasing their chances of being a contest winner.

 

Gil 

Edited January 18 by ghodges

[CaptainAhab]

56 minutes ago, ghodges said:

….ANYONE can be a "good old boy" by stepping up to serve or to judge, making themselves less of an outsider and increasing their chances of being a contest winner….

Gil 

I believe Gil is right, it’s really ironic that those that feel they are on the outside of a perceived group will themselves become the “good old boys” of that group if/when they replace the existing people that are perceived to make up that group.

[jcorley]

7 hours ago, Eric Aitala said:

One is the IPMS/USA #, the other is the internal Wild Apricot number. Both can be said to be a valid IPMS/USA membership numbers.

Members with 'historic' IPMS numbers will get both

E

 

Thank you explaining it, Eric

[Chris Bucholtz]

1 hour ago, ghodges said:

The "good old boys" club IS a perception problem that IPMSUSA will have to overcome at least to some degree in order to grow. That's why I've touted GSB over 1-2-3 as it allows for more people to be rewarded for excellent model building and could help lessen the idea of having to be "in" in order to win in IPMS."

The problem is, once you've had two or three GSB contests and the same people win gold, then some folks will AGAIN think there's some "insiders' club" or something.

At a certain level, some folks have a sportsmanship problem that leads to their perception problem. I've gone to 24 Nationals and I've won four times (statistically, less than the average 24-time attendee) and it's not because there's a cabal or because I'm not a good modeler (I hope!). It's because that's the way it goes. If you can't accept that, or if your personal identity is defined by where your model finishes, you're going to have a rough time in contests (or in watching team sports, or following politics or anything where there's winners and non-winners). 

 

[Bert]

35 minutes ago, Chris Bucholtz said:

The problem is, once you've had two or three GSB contests and the same people win gold, then some folks will AGAIN think there's some "insiders' club" or something.

At a certain level, some folks have a sportsmanship problem that leads to their perception problem. I've gone to 24 Nationals and I've won four times (statistically, less than the average 24-time attendee) and it's not because there's a cabal or because I'm not a good modeler (I hope!). It's because that's the way it goes. If you can't accept that, or if your personal identity is defined by where your model finishes, you're going to have a rough time in contests (or in watching team sports, or following politics or anything where there's winners and non-winners). 

 

Here's an idea. I'll count myself in on this. I've been competing in IPMS/USA Nat'l convention contest starting in 1996. (As of now, I've only missed 4). I've been honored to have received awards in almost all I've entered. After a while, how many more trophies do you need? I understand there will be a "for display only" section in the model room at next year's Nats. How about all the consistent fortunate award-winning members stop competing and "display only" your entries? Could this stop some of some of the perceived "insiders club" reactions? IDK

[RONBO]

5 minutes ago, Bert said:

Here's an idea. I'll count myself in on this. I've been competing in IPMS/USA Nat'l convention contest starting in 1996. (As of now, I've only missed 4). I've been honored to have received awards in almost all I've entered. After a while, how many more trophies do you need? I understand there will be a "for display only" section in the model room at next year's Nats. How about all the consistent fortunate award-winning members stop competing and "display only" your entries? Could this stop some of some of the perceived "insiders club" reactions? IDK

Let the 123 contest continue there will always be a chase for baubles and if that's defines you as a modeler good for you.

But if IPMS wants any chance of the Society going another 50 yrs. The Society has to find a way for the casual modeler hopefully a younger modeler who might find a GSB more palatable to compete in and improve their own modelling skills. I believe that both contests can co-exist it won't be overnight we can't upset the old bulls. 

I think as the Society ages out the cut throat contest will winnow down.

And the younger modelers could hopefully fill the gaps. Personally I think younger modelers aren't that enamored with a 123 contest and I could be totally wrong but I also believe that a GSB contest with feedback will get future members into the Society. But whoever's going be on a E-board should have a vision on the future if this Society is to continue for another 50 yrs. 

As for me in 20 yrs I will be 81 well past my prime to do anything modeling related. 

The 2030 report has some good points and some that needs fine tuning.  The time was 10yrs ago but if we do nothing that to me a total disrespect to the Society.

As to Madison I just received a e-mail asking to volunteer to be a judging the contest the I have judged in a only 3 National Conventions always as OJT so I will opt out on the 30 yrs of judging model contests I have a lot to offer but being a 3rd wheel on a judging team to me personally a waste of my talents I'm sure I can be more productive in other areas of the National.

Ron Ronbo Thorne Jr. 

Head Bottle Washer. 

[Stikpusher]

How did Pete write it?

"meet the new boss... same as the old boss"

[WasatchModeler]

Sorry I have been away.  If there was nothing wrong with what was in the photo then it would not have gone viral.  Perception is key.  If the board just explained away that this is okay behavior then it would have gotten worse.  There are merits on both sides about picking up models.  Yes we evaluate 3d art. Yes 2 dozen models were broken that could possibly have been avoided.  

Isn't it common for committees to answer to the e board? To be on the ncc right now they are looking for people that have been there for 10 years.  Where is there room for new thoughts? 

I brought up an idea at the judges meeting and was laughed at... so I don't imagine many members feeling open to bringing up their concerns.  

[CaptainAhab]

3 hours ago, Chris Bucholtz said:

The problem is, once you've had two or three GSB contests and the same people win gold, then some folks will AGAIN think there's some "insiders' club" or something.

At a certain level, some folks have a sportsmanship problem that leads to their perception problem. I've gone to 24 Nationals and I've won four times (statistically, less than the average 24-time attendee) and it's not because there's a cabal or because I'm not a good modeler (I hope!). It's because that's the way it goes. If you can't accept that, or if your personal identity is defined by where your model finishes, you're going to have a rough time in contests (or in watching team sports, or following politics or anything where there's winners and non-winners). 

I agree with Chris here, I don't think that competition between modelers is really as much of a problem as it’s made out, competition is hardwired in humans, and definitely in the U.S., sure, some people genuinely don’t like it and/or don’t care, but I believe they are the exception not the rule. I think what people don’t like is the thought that they didn’t win, and look at it as losing, and when someone looks at it like that they look at everything like it’s cutthroat, including driving. 

I fully support expanding the display and SIG display aspect of the convention and making it a prominent part of it. And would not object to adding a separate G,S,B type of show separately from the contest. 

I hear a LOT about how our contest should be run and awarded like IPMS/UK’s Telford, and I’m SURE it is a great contest with fantastic models and modelers. The only difference I’m seeing is that they score the models numerically for award placements, there are still only three awards in each category, one G,S,B per category, and I don’t know if all contestants get their scores and can compare where they fell on the scale. Is this that much different than what we do?

Call it 1,2,3 or G,S,B, if someone thinks they should have gotten something they didn’t their not going to like it, it’s how someone accepts and deals with it that will make the difference, as it is with everything in life, in my opinion.

Edited January 19 by CaptainAhab

[Scalemodeldoc]

I frequently see this false allegation that GSB is some type of easier, or participation-based award.

You could use GSB and make the difficulty-to-place so high that LESS awards are given out at Nats than currently are given.  I think it is a philosophically / mathematically more fair approach.

 

My own personal issues with I/2/3 aren't really derived around winning/losing, more:

(1) Categories in Armor had as few as 3 and as many as 40+ entries in the past few years. 1/2/3 is a VERY different competition when categories are of very different sizes.  GSB lets you avoid giving awards just for participating in a niche split, and if 40 people do enter a category and truly bring a half dozen amazing models, each could get the recognition they deserve.

(2) A lot of people play the game of making models to fit a wife variety of categories, to maximize chance of grabbing an award.  I would rather people bring their 3 best builds of the year; if they all happen to be WW2 Axis armor, so be it, they could (theoretically) get a Gold and two Silvers, instead of having just one model really "count".

 

Neither of these are deal breakers, and I still participate in the current Nats 1/2/3 format.  From a judging perspective, I dislike giving 1/2/3 to a category of 10 entries where, honestly, only one was of "national award winning caliber", and then go judge a second category of 10 entries where 5 are truly epic-level amazing, nearly-flawless.  I'd rather award each entry on its merits.  Just a philosophical thing.

 

I do enjoy the reportedly "American" winning-based awards, so I personally would do a modified GSB where all the Golds within a category are looked at and a WINNER is also declared.  Keeps both sides happy.  Granted, I envision much larger categories where this WINNER award would be very very meaningful, eg armor might have such broad categories as "WW1", "WW2 axis", "WW2 allied", "Cold War US/NATO"

Like Michael mentions above, I think the related "feedback" topic, which perhaps comes more naturally if you are looking at each model for G/S/B, may improve the average participants' reaction to the Nats.  Clearly there isn't time for judges to pen an essay on each model, but the use of a scoring rubric or even writing down a couple "deductions" on each entry form would be valuable (IMHO). I've spoken to a LOT more people curious why one model of theirs did well, and others did nothing, than I've spoken to people actually being sore losers.

[ghodges]

Cameron asked:

"Isn't it common for committees to answer to the e board? To be on the ncc right now they are looking for people that have been there for 10 years.  Where is there room for new thoughts? "

Yes... and up til now the NCC CHIEF JUDGE  (not the entire committee) "answered" to the Eboard, and he served at the "pleasure of the President". HOWEVER, the NCC as a whole also worked autonomously without direct control or interference in the running of the Nats contest by the Eboards in the past. The Eboard in office last summer changed that by taking over the NCC, issuing orders instead of suggesting new guidelines, and some Eboard members directly told Head Judges (face to face) "YOU WORK FOR US". Thus, instead of working WITH the NCC, and using the Chief Judge to affect change (fire him if he doesn't lead in the direction you want to go), they decided to arrogantly dominate the entire NCC and that caused most of it to resign.

As for the 10yrs of seniority and "new thoughts...

With the loss of nearly every Head Judge IPMS lost DECADES of contest administration experience. The people they're asking to step up have to know HOW to run a contest, not just how to judge. AND, with the Madison show growing ever nearer, there's NO TIME to recruit neophiles and inexperienced volunteers to fill positions that need experienced guidance.

There's room for new thoughts.... but there's a time and place also. Right now the Eboard and the interim Chief Judge have to put solving the Madison judging crisis as first priority. After that, perhaps starting with the NCC meeting on the Saturday after the judging there, THAT would be the place to start making suggestions and offering new ideas. Until then IPMS better rely on what's tried and true and has worked up til now.

But what about your suggestion in the judging room that was laughed down (and was this at the Nats, or a local/regional show)? My guess is that it was an idea that's been tried and didn't work (and therefore was considered "silly"), but I'd like to know why you got that reaction. Would you mind asking it here? If not, feel free to message me separately and maybe I can help figure out why it got such a reaction. I can certainly sympathize with being made like feeling your idea wasn't even "worthy" of a civil or polite reply; which is a shame, though I tend to doubt it was intentional.

Gil 

[jcorley]

11 hours ago, Bert said:

How about all the consistent fortunate award-winning members stop competing and "display only" your entries? 

Some guys, the ones Chris alluded to, need the ego boost. They need to feel like they win the dominence game, thus they cannot fail to compete.

[RJackson]

In the last few entries an old issue has resurfaced and I feel the need to respond.

The contention is that contest is flawed because it is so driven by competition and some/many modelers won't enter as a result.  They feel oppressed.  We must restructure the contest to make sure that bad things aren't said about the models and, by extension, the builders.  Your personal self-worth tied is the outcome.

Where is it written that in order to enter you are required to care about how your model places in the category? 

If you don't want to compete, walk in the room, plunk you model down, and walk away.  Look at the other models, go to the vendors, attend seminars, visit and generally have a good time without giving a second thought about whether you model will win or not.  If you are concerned that someone will make disparaging remarks about your model walk away so you won't hear them.

Rick

[WasatchModeler]

10 hours ago, ghodges said:

Cameron asked:

"Isn't it common for committees to answer to the e board? To be on the ncc right now they are looking for people that have been there for 10 years.  Where is there room for new thoughts? "

Yes... and up til now the NCC CHIEF JUDGE  (not the entire committee) "answered" to the Eboard, and he served at the "pleasure of the President". HOWEVER, the NCC as a whole also worked autonomously without direct control or interference in the running of the Nats contest by the Eboards in the past. The Eboard in office last summer changed that by taking over the NCC, issuing orders instead of suggesting new guidelines, and some Eboard members directly told Head Judges (face to face) "YOU WORK FOR US". Thus, instead of working WITH the NCC, and using the Chief Judge to affect change (fire him if he doesn't lead in the direction you want to go), they decided to arrogantly dominate the entire NCC and that caused most of it to resign.

As for the 10yrs of seniority and "new thoughts...

With the loss of nearly every Head Judge IPMS lost DECADES of contest administration experience. The people they're asking to step up have to know HOW to run a contest, not just how to judge. AND, with the Madison show growing ever nearer, there's NO TIME to recruit neophiles and inexperienced volunteers to fill positions that need experienced guidance.

There's room for new thoughts.... but there's a time and place also. Right now the Eboard and the interim Chief Judge have to put solving the Madison judging crisis as first priority. After that, perhaps starting with the NCC meeting on the Saturday after the judging there, THAT would be the place to start making suggestions and offering new ideas. Until then IPMS better rely on what's tried and true and has worked up til now.

But what about your suggestion in the judging room that was laughed down (and was this at the Nats, or a local/regional show)? My guess is that it was an idea that's been tried and didn't work (and therefore was considered "silly"), but I'd like to know why you got that reaction. Would you mind asking it here? If not, feel free to message me separately and maybe I can help figure out why it got such a reaction. I can certainly sympathize with being made like feeling your idea wasn't even "worthy" of a civil or polite reply; which is a shame, though I tend to doubt it was intentional.

Gil 

The ncc does work for the elected e board.  They should have someone to answer to.  

Bringing in people that have judged at us ipms nationals for a decade brings in an attitude of doing things the old way.  In corporate speak we talk about diversity of thought.  We hire an outsider or consultant to get new ideas.  Bringing in fresh blood allows for a way to have them ask "why do we do it this way? What if we... instead we laught at new ideas saying that it is not possible even though other organizations are very proficient at it with similar numbers.  

I was laughed at in my first nationals at the aircraft judges meeting.  I think it was for feedback sheets or how you judge weathering.  It was at Las Vegas.  

[Dick Montgomery]

You're correct Cameron.

 

[CaptainAhab]

1 hour ago, WasatchModeler said:

The ncc does work for the elected e board.  They should have someone to answer to.  

Nobody “works” for anybody in this organization! We are all volunteers, and as such don’t “answer” as such, to anyone. In any professional or volunteer organization I’ve been involved with committees are organized this way:

* A chairman, for the NCC that is the chief judge. The chief judge (chairman) has ALWAYS been approved and appointed by the president and e-board, and reports back to them on committee operations. It has ALWAYS been that they can be dismissed and replaced at the presidents/e-boards discretion.

* The committee members, for the NCC those are the head category judges. They report to the chief judge (chairman). The chief judge (chairman) appoints them and can dismiss and replace them.

* The NCC develops the rules and operating parameters for the contest and is responsible for all contest operations. The rules are updated yearly and GIVEN TO THE E-BOARD FOR APPROVAL, the e-board then can approve or not, ask questions, ask for changes, etc. Sure, they might get pushback and resistance, they had the ability to do the same.

That is how the constitution was written, BEFORE the resent changes. No committee I've ever been involved with had the entire committee reporting to the entity that organized it (e-board), it was always the chairman that was the go between. I don’t know how past boards viewed their authority, or used it, but it was there. 

[Scalemodeldoc]

Do you have a copy of the old constitution / bylaws that delineated the organization and reporting of the NCC and its components in the way you describe?

I just ask as I haven't seen it explained so succinctly. The bylaws I saw basically said "the NCC makes the contest rules" and else "committees serve at the pleasure of the president".  Pretty soft on details, lines of communication, veto power, committee size/structure, turnover... all those crucial details where the devil lives.  Still my reading was the president had rather unambigous power (as distasteful as some felt that to be).

From a relative neophyte, it felt like the eBoard was a combined legislative/executive branch that was voted in / out by membership, and the NCC was a supreme court who'd been appointed to life some decades ago, and did their own thing.  One must admit, there are advantages to long tenures and institutional knowledge, but also a clear disconnect from the "membership at large" when any group is well isolated from elections and other public facing engagement.  My own opinion is that this STRUCTURE drove a lot more of the "anger" from membership than the actual people or content involved.  Classic us versus them psychology.

Not saying all NCC members need to be voted into their positions on an annual basis, just that MORE communication / engagement improves things, from my viewpoint.

I did see an updated ruleset posted for this year's contest, and some of the clarifications are excellent... exactly the sort of thing that keeps IPMS moving forward.

[Ron Bell]

The NCC was not mentioned in either the Constitution or the By Laws. It fell under the rubric of a committee established by, reporting to and serving at the pleasure of the Eboard. An important point to note is that it did, indeed, report to and was under the supervision of the Eboard. However, over the years it began to be assumed that it was independent of the Eboard because most Eboards left it alone, deferring to its accumulated and combined expertise and experience.

Edited January 19 by Ron Bell

[patd]

Just a question on contests: I sometimes wonder if the anti-competition thing is more of a generational attitude? Perhaps some do not want their work critically looked at, but that is how judging works. That is fine if that is their cup of tea. Some people enjoy the competition, yes there is always some tough competition and perhaps cut-throat attitudes but in almost 20 years of judging I have not seen to much of it. One thing is certain-after every nationals there is always discussion about what won and didn't win, it goes with the territory.

I fully believe that both being a judge and competition tend to make on a better modeler. Even with G/S/B do anyone really believe that will lead to less disappointment and  less verbal rancor among those not to win a medal? How does one differentiate between the highest Silver and the lowest Gold?  It would be just like the judge's judgement in 1/2/3. The judges are trained what to look for, we have a lot of corporate knowledge among the judging corps, throwing all that out would be counterproductive. The more experience one has doing something usually the better one gets at it. We have OJT set up to bring in new judges and if they stick with it after a while they may become team leaders and in turn school the new OJT folks. The system works much like an apprenticeship the older experienced hands showing the newer judges the ropes, so to speak.

I must say that the NCC and Convention Directors must be doing something right as it appears to me that the 'Nats are more and more successful. If the IPMS held a convention with just display only, vendors and no awards, or awards banquet, would it be successful?

I think if more people would volunteer to judge those 3-4 hours on a Friday night it would be an eye-opener for many as to what really goes on. I have seen a team spend the entire time on one category where the competition was close and the category was well subscribed. They certainly applied themselves and were not dismissive of any entry. I have heard many a team leader remark at the end of judging as to how hard it was.

Edited January 21 by patd

[CaptainAhab]

50 minutes ago, Scalemodeldoc said:

Do you have a copy of the old constitution / bylaws that delineated the organization and reporting of the NCC and its components in the way you describe?

I have not found a copy of the last constitution, I do have working docs from my time with the constitution committee. This is the section you would be talking about;

ARTICLE VII. DUTIES OF OTHER APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND COMMITTEES

A.  Titled Positions

1. By directive of the President and with approval of the Executive Board, any positions found necessary to the functioning, control, and maintenance of IPMS/USA may be created. 
2. These positions will be under the direct control of the President or other officer designated by him for the time required.

B.  Committees

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

I agree completely with Ron’s (past president) explanation above.

[CaptainAhab]

5 hours ago, WasatchModeler said:

Bringing in people that have judged at us ipms nationals for a decade brings in an attitude of doing things the old way.  In corporate speak we talk about diversity of thought.  We hire an outsider or consultant to get new ideas.  Bringing in fresh blood allows for a way to have them ask "why do we do it this way? What if we... instead we laught at new ideas saying that it is not possible even though other organizations are very proficient at it with similar numbers.  

I was laughed at in my first nationals at the aircraft judges meeting.  I think it was for feedback sheets or how you judge weathering.  It was at Las Vegas.  

Cameron, I have hired a good number of consultants and consulting firms over the years, and I always required all of them to show years of experience in the field/subject I wanted evaluated and/or studied, consultants are usually people with years of experience in their field and transition to consulting, firms are the same but may have a spread of experience. The same is true when it comes to us, the head judges for Madison will not be bring “new” or “old” ideas to the contest, they will be following the rules that were just posted for Madison. As Gil has pointed out, due to some of the head judges starting “cold” and really last minute by planning and organization standards, experience is important, and honestly I believe it always is. 
 

Presenting ideas is a tricky deal, first my advice would be before you present at an open meeting, shop your idea(s) around, and not just with your immediate group of modelers, I’ve fallen into the same situation where I thought I had a good idea and presented it without thoroughly researching if it had a history of working or not already. Experience can be a double edged sword, it gives you a deep history of past and present, what has worked and what has been tried and didn’t work, what is feasible and what isn’t, and you can come across a little impatient and jaded when “new” ideas that you have heard before come up. It’s unfortunate you were laughed at, but hopefully you understand that we are not in an environment where there is as strict control, as there would probably be in a paid employees environment, over interactions between people. In my case I took it as a learning experience, and found that prior preparation and presentation techniques made a huge difference.