The Forum will be closing

[Eric Aitala]

The IPMS/USA Executive Board has decided to close the Forums during the July 20th, 2026 EBoard meeting.  The Forums will be disabled on September 14, 2026, please wrap up any personal messages or discussions before that date.

New user registrations have been disabled.

[Stikpusher]

 Now it’s time to say goodbye to all our company…

[Ron Bell]

I've read the minutes but no reason why is given. I'm not arguing, just asking. 

[Warwheels]

I agree with Ron. It would be nice to be provided with the general reasoning behind the decision. 

[Nick Filippone]

If I live to be 100, I will never understand why organizations make such decisions as this without any explanation at all. Managers never seem to learn that silence always encourages counterproductive speculations to fill the information void. If there is a good reason for this decision, there should be no reluctance to provide it. If it is for a bad reason, perhaps it shouldn’t be made in the first place! Nick Filippone 

[Eric Aitala]

Hi,

I would also like to shoutout David Willis who has been behind the scenes for the last several years handling the account registration requests.  His work has been largely been un-recognized, but its been a great help...

Eric

[VMF211]

Well this stinks. I agree with Ron, Patrick and Nick. How about some info as to why.

[Eric Aitala]

From https://ipmsusa.org/news/statement-forum-closure

Quote

 

As Eric noted in his recent announcement, we have elected to close the Forums pages on the IPMS/USA website. 

This decision was not taken lightly and there are several reasons for doing so. It is part of an overall program to update the website. The primary reason is that Forum participation was limited to a relatively small number of people. In contrast, there is much more activity on other social media platforms including our own Facebook page and associated groups, along with a growing presence on YouTube and the other platforms that Director of Social Media Eugenie Taylor Ray manages and promotes. 

A secondary driver is the cost of maintaining the Forums pages and we feel that this expense would be better applied to other growth opportunities. 

We encourage our Forum users to participate in these other platforms. 

John Noack, President, IPMS/USA

 

 

[Stikpusher]

2 hours ago, Eric Aitala said:

From https://ipmsusa.org/news/statement-forum-closure

 

Perhaps leading off with this information initially would have been a better way….

 

[ghodges]

Well this sucks....... I understand it from a financial standpoint...... but find it hard to believe that the costs of keeping it open is prohibitive. BUT NOTE, we'll be losing the ability to post "builds" over long periods of time (months or more) where someone can go to that specific post and either follow the build, or see it "all at one time" after it's was finished. On Social media you can post stuff, but it's all going to be buried and go "down" the way over time. 

You're also closing the ONLY source where we can come bitch among ourselves with some modicum of privacy, so be ready for that. It'll ALL be public now with NO other choice.

As for the LOW number of people here, YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELVES!!!! This site has NEVER been publicized! Not in the Journal, not on our FB page, and not by our "Social Media Director". And YES! I personally did specifically bring this to the EBoard's attention at more than 1 Nats business meeting asking that IPMSUSA PROMOTE this DF. The Eboard has generally treated this forum as a red-headed step child, probably due to the member's ability to come here and call them to accountability! I also find it "interesting" and ironic that this decision, which according to you was reached in July, GOT ABLSOULTELY NO MENTION AT THE NATS IPMSUSA BUSINESS MEETING IN FT. WAYNE IN AUGUST!!!  I know it'd made no difference in the end, but I'd have a lot more respect for an Eboard that had the spine to tell us in an environment where we could have directly discussed/debated/complained about it instead of waiting until SEPTEMBER to come here and do it.

Now we'll simply have to do any complaining or questioning in front of the ENTIRE "social media world". Well, this may save you a few bucks, but don't be surprised when you get what you decide to pay for!

 

Gil Hodges

#10803

[Eric Aitala]

I published it as soon as I got it.

E

 

1 hour ago, Stikpusher said:

Perhaps leading off with this information initially would have been a better way….

 

 

[TomDougherty]

One of the main reasons I come here.  To show my latest efforts and look at models by fellow builders.   I note that the statement posted is: "The primary reason is that Forum participation was limited to a relatively small number of people. In contrast, there is much more activity on other social media platforms including our own Facebook page and associated groups".  Curious as to how "relatively small"  it is in numbers?

I don't do Facebook and other social media.  Not because I am an "old guy", but because my son has a MS in cybersecurity and works for NavAir at a major NAS.  if you sat down and heard a few of his stories about the alarming cyber hacks of Social Media, you would need a handy set of clean underwear.   

Exactly how will cutting off posting of builds this attract new members?  

Edited Friday at 08:07 PM by TomDougherty

[Nick Filippone]

Gil has thoughtfully saved me the work of writing my own reply to the announced rationale for killing off the Forum. I agree with everything he has said. 
 

While the reasons given were those that I suspected, it would not have been unreasonable to reveal exactly how much the Forum costs to maintain so we could decide for ourselves if this a sensible decision in the best interests of the Society. 
Furthermore, we (IPMS), should have a private, members only site. But, the 21st Century mentality seems to be to let everyone in the world know everything one is saying, doing and thinking!

I understand the reasons given, but I am still not sure this decision is in the best interests of the membership. 

 

[RandyJRay]

On 9/4/2026 at 12:58 PM, TomDougherty said:

Exactly how will cutting off posting of builds this attract new members?  

The forums were private to existing IPMS/USA members. How were they attracting new members to being with?

[Stikpusher]

On 9/4/2026 at 11:02 AM, Eric Aitala said:

I published it as soon as I got it.

E

 

 

 Not that it matters at this point, but… there seems to be a serious time lag in communications going out and being relayed to forum members. On July 20, the decision is made to shut down the forum. That decision is not announced on the forum until August 30. Then after some remarks on here, the eboard on September 1st makes a brief statement as to the reason(s) for closing the forum. After which that information is then relayed here to the forum members on September 4th. Now this is all based on the date/time stamps on the messages. But it does show a pattern of serious time lags in relaying information.

[Eric Aitala]

The news was posted on the main site Sept 1 - https://ipmsusa.org/news/statement-forum-closure - and was picked up in the Forums news section - https://forum.ipmsusa3.org/topic/27742-news-statement-on-the-forum-closure/#findComment-126441 - the same day. I copied that article to this post on the 4th.

Eric

 

7 hours ago, Stikpusher said:

 Not that it matters at this point, but… there seems to be a serious time lag in communications going out and being relayed to forum members. On July 20, the decision is made to shut down the forum. That decision is not announced on the forum until August 30. Then after some remarks on here, the eboard on September 1st makes a brief statement as to the reason(s) for closing the forum. After which that information is then relayed here to the forum members on September 4th. Now this is all based on the date/time stamps on the messages. But it does show a pattern of serious time lags in relaying information.

 

 

[TomDougherty]

17 hours ago, RandyJRay said:

The forums were private to existing IPMS/USA members. How were they attracting new members to being with?

Non-members could see the forums with the build photos, but could not post questions, comments, or photos of their own works.  Join IPMS and you could participate.

Edited Sunday at 03:23 PM by TomDougherty

[ghodges]

As I stated above, the THING that makes the timing and the Eboard look bad has nothing to do with the notification here. As Eric pointed out, he posted it here when he was notified to do so and then added the "reasons" why after a request/demand here as to why the decision was made.

The problem is the fact that according to their own records they made the decision to shut this Forum down at their JULY meeting and then kept it from the membership (and more importantly) the members who attended the IPMSUSA business meeting in Ft. Wayne in AUGUST. I'll say it plainly. THAT was cowardly!

The Eboard has the right to make financial decisions for IPMSUSA including unpopular ones like this one. We elect them to do so. We, as members, have a right to know about those decisions in a timely manner that allows us to give them feedback and dissention so they can make the best decisions for the membership as a whole. THEY INTENTIONALLY CHOSE NOT TO ALLOW THAT AT THE ONE PLACE WHERE WE COULD DO SO FACE TO FACE WITH THE EBOARD.

THAT is the PROBLEM I have with this decision! They could have shown how much is spent to keep the Forum running, compared it to other costs, and shown where they think the money could be or needs to be better spent instead of here as part of the Treasurer's financial report. Instead, it wasn't mentioned at all in any way. shape, or form at the ONE meeting a year where they have to FACE the members and be willing to take a little flack for something that "could" be more unpopular than they want to admit to. 

It also IMPLIES that they wanted to make this decision without any input from ANY of the membership and hoped the entire thing would basically fly under the radar. Now I have to question ALL of their decision making AND whether they truly desire to represent the membership, or merely RUN the membership and our opinions be damned.

While I'm disappointed in the decision to shut down the Forum, I'm even more disappointed in the lack of spine by the ENTIRE Eboard. Not one of them thought enough of those of us here who've supported it for years to even ask us or give us a chance to debate their decision, even if we are "just a few". The "Director of Social Media" didn't mention this change in Ft. Wayne despite it being a DIRECT part of her job! The Treasurer skipped talking about saving money by shutting the Forum down and also showing how that money will be better spent. And the President has shown a lack of transparency since HE should have made sure such a change was part of the BUSINESS MEETING. And the rest of them just sat back and LET IT HAPPEN, so they're not excused either!

And all for the lack of wanting to (perhaps) have to answer some hard questions in an open format face to face with the members whom their decisions directly impact! Be sure to give that some thought when re-election time comes around. I know I will!

 

Gil Hodges

#10803

 

 

Edited Sunday at 04:04 PM by ghodges

[VMF211]

Well......this STILL sucks. As for Fakebook and social media, I'm not on any of those nor will I ever be again. As to everything Gil has posted...DITTO. Oh well, it is what it is. 

[jlent]

I was very disappointed by the board decision to close the Forum.  I read the posts here, and I think the earlier comments expressed above made some very good points regarding the decision itself, the timing of the announcement, and the rationale behind the decision. I noted the primary reason given was "limited participation," and current funding to support the forum could be better used to promote other social media initiatives." Maybe, but I'm not so sure. 

I think the chief benefit of the Forum is that, unlike Facebook and places like Scalemates, it is compartmentalized. I'm interested in aircraft model subjects, and this format allowed me to go directly to the subsection on "Aircraft" and "Builds" to view what my fellow IPMS aircraft modelers built. They served as a source of inspiration to me, where I can admire their work, ask a question regarding a technique, or just tell them, "Great job!"  During my visits to the IPMS Facebook site, I may have to scroll through a number of posts of different modeling genres before coming to an aircraft post that interests me.  I'm not saying they are any less important, but my interest has always focused on aircraft modeling. The Forum gave me immediate access to my primary modeling interest. They say modeling is a solitary hobby, but I believe the Forum served as a tool to share the modeling experience with people who had a similar interest. I never cared about tracking who wrote the most comments or who had the greatest "rep"--that won't increase participation, and it may have even hurt it, by giving it a "competitive" appearance. I'm not sure what the definition of "limited participation" is either, but I know people actively participate in the Forum because of the number of views people received on the work they posted.  Some exceeded 3,000 views or higher. That has to be a measure of its value. I'm not a fast builder, but when I completed a project, I've posted my work on the Forum, not on the IPMS Facebook page. I regularly visited the Forum 4 or 5 times a week to see other peoples' work or provide me with the opportunity to make comments in other areas of interest to me, like providing national convention feedback or a recommendation that may be useful in future convention planning. While I didn't comment during the majority of visits, it's not an indicator that the tool had limited use by its membership. 

As this is my twenty-fourth, and most likely, final post on this Forum, I offer this thought.  Before making a decision of this magnitude, it may have been better for the E-Board to obtain feedback from membership concerning this issue. This may include recommendations on how to improve participation and trying them out before axing the program. I mean, you request input from members attending each national convention, why would this be different? Many of us view the Forum as a benefit that comes with membership. I think the people providing funding through dues payments or as volunteers who execute local contests or a national convention, should have an input one way or another, before that decision. If anything, you'll have membership input to consider as part of the overall process and not make that decision in an "undefined participation" vacuum. I guess I'll be content with my 14 reputation points and greater participation in Hyperscale.  I'm truly sorry to see this go.        

[JohnNoack]

A few members have commented unfavorably about our decision to move away from the Forums section of the website. A few of these posts have been personal attacks on members of the Board.  White I don't mind being criticized for decisions made by this Board, calling out Board members as cowards is offensive and totally inappropriate, particularly as several Board members are former military who put themselves in harms' way in actual combat situations to serve this country.

That being said, I accept the responsibility for not bringing up the fact that this decision had been made during our annual Business Meeting open to the membership who attended the Fort Wayne National Convention.  Rather than being part of some grand conspiracy, it did not make the agenda - I will take the hit for that.

 

Lest anyone think that there is some grand conspiracy at work here to silence people, we asked Webmaster Eric Aiitala to run some analytics on forum usage, and the chart below paints a very clear picture of why the vote went in that direction:

 

Forum usage is limited to an extremely small subset of our overall membership.  At its highest level during this year-long period, the forums were used by a maximum of 19 people on two particular days during that year - that's 0.37% of our membership, on a peak day.

 

The core decision for IPMS/USA is that the forum is a legacy application that does not serve the purpose we need, and takes cycles and money to upgrade. We would rather have our staff focus on more valuable and relevant objectives, particularly for the larger core of our membership. This doesn't mean there won't be a future member only forum, but the current technology is not something we want to continue with, and this will free up resources and man hours to find a more suitable solution.  A reminder that our IPMS/USA Facebook page, monitored by a volunteer staff, is available to all.

 

John Noack

President, IPMS/USA

[Nick Filippone]

Much of the recriminations could have been avoided by the simple expedient of informing the membership up front and ahead of time. One person’s “ legacy application “ is another’s familiar comfort zone. The march of time and technology is apparently inexorable, but that is not an excuse for leadership insensitivity. Nick Filippone 

Edited 21 hours ago by Nick Filippone
Not finished

[ghodges]

I'll stand by my comment..... true, your service to our country shows a willingness to put yourself at physical risk, and that is in no way cowardly.

However, there's also intellectual courage which is sometimes just as hard (just ask the ONE juror in the murder case in Mass.) and I believe the Eboard showed NO intellectual courage, and in fact CHOSE to bypass any chance for negative feedback by not telling the membership about the decision at the IPMSUSA business meeting in Ft. Wayne, so I will call the decision cowardly at the very least.

If you're offended..... so be it! I guess you can always kick me off this forum if you feel the need.

 

Gil H.

#10803