13 responses to “Exhibition & Evaluation Principles Part 2”

1. 

   Kevin Kelly

   2024-08-20

   Pictures would certainly work too, and it would certainly make it easier on the organization process. It could even be optional, as in “provide photos if you would like visual feedback”

   Reply
2. 

   Kevin Kelly

   2024-08-19

   I had been thinking about a method to give feedback to modelers for about a year. I was inspired by the Paxcon sticky notes, but thought it was a little thin since the modeler doesn’t know exactly where the evaluator is referring.
   It made me think of some of the diagrams I had used in accidents and assaults on Police reports I used to use to indicate damage and injuries. In policing we used a simple front reader humanoid figure, and a four position line drawing of a vehicle (top down, passenger and drivers side, front and rear). We could circle, or put a small “X” on the affected area so it was easy to reconcile the written report.
   After hearing about the sticky note, I was contemplating using a rudimentary half sheet of paper with a line drawing specific to subject matter (airplane, AFV, ship, car, etc…) but never followed up on it as my local club and show are entrenched in IPMS, 123 judging and I was politely told they were not interested.
   There are plenty of open source line drawings available, and who knows, maybe some publishers like detail and scale and David Doyle books would let us use their line drawings. Literally one general example for the whole genre like a B-25 for aircraft, a Sherman for tanks, etc…
   However, with the interest in electronic processing, it would be cool to have multiple types of subjects available by selecting with a fingertip on a touch screen. The evaluator could simply select the most applicable, not necessarily the exact subject modelled (I used two LL’s, lol).
   This is just a pipe dream idea concerning the electronic format. I am not capable of any type of programming, and don’t even know if it’s possible. I just think it would be cool to check “seam”, and circle or tap an area on the top of a fuselage with your finger, and bingo. Self explanatory, and immediately apparent feedback.

   My second suggestion/concern is that it might be tough for small or new chapters to hold an event, or adopt the evaluation process if they are required to purchase electronics or software, and a paper alternative for start ups be available. It would also be good to have as a back up should Murphy show up and kill the Wi-Fi , short out your tablets, or be hacked by China.

   Both of these are just thoughts and suggestions, with the sole motivation being to help the process. I have zero ego in them, and you can feel free to say thanks, but no thanks, it won’t work, or we just don’t like it. No biggie, and keep on fighting the good fight.

   Reply
   1. 

      Bruce Worrall

      2024-08-20

      Hi Kevin. Thanks for the suggestions.
      I really like the diagram idea in principle. It would definitely help the judges be clear about communicating what they’re seeing. Instead of drawings, what about photos of the model itself? If modellers had to submit a few digital photos of their model with the entry form (say front, sides, back, top?) then a tool allowing the Judge to draw an arrow or circle on the photo to correspond with a comment might do the trick?
      For your point about small chapters, we’re all about empowering local clubs to put on shows and conduct local outreach. We haven’t settled yet on whether or not clubs would have to pay to use the Exhibition tools… more to follow. In terms of a backup in the event of loss of internet, we will likely need to have have some sort of paper/local Excel file alternative to use if the system goes down.

      Reply
3. 

   Paul Pendleton-Brown

   2024-08-19

   Main thing from my side is not to use the term judging or judges and use evaluators…

   Gives a less authoritarian impression and those evaluating can use a broader term of model building skills rather than judging if the correct stores armourment had been used on the modellers build!

   Reply
   1. 

      Bruce Worrall

      2024-08-19

      Hi Paul. We’ve debated whether to use Judge or Evaluator for a while. I agree that Evaluator sounds less imposing… it’s something that we still have to figure out.

      Reply
4. 

   Richard Herrington

   2024-08-19

   I have judged at AMPS contests in the past. They have a good system, and it works

   Reply
   1. 

      Bruce Worrall

      2024-08-19

      Hi Richard. I like the AMPS system too. We’re definitely borrowing some features from the AMPS system, but choosing some features of other systems as well.

      Reply
5. 

   Martin

   2024-08-19

   No3: ✅️
   No4: What do you mean by Word Pictures?

   Reply
   1. 

      Bruce Worrall

      2024-08-19

      Hi Martin. A Word Picture i a short sentence that corresponds to a score (1-5) describing a specific quality of the model being evaluated.
      For example, for a criteria describing how well the model’s seams are filled, the Word Pictures might be “Some of the seams are filled” (score of 3), “Most of the seams are filled” (score of 4), or “All of the seams are filled” (score of 5).

      Reply
6. 

   Danny Herron

   2024-08-19

   I think it’s not necessarily the criteria of a kit submitted for evaluation, but the judge. To have an uninformed or ” ignorant” ( in the sense of kit/ model/ figure knowledge) is where IMHO is where the real rub is. In the same sense of having referees for a pro team and they have only done college level. Am I hitting the mark? What say you?

   Reply
   1. 

      Bruce Worrall

      2024-08-19

      Hi Danny. Our proposed Judge training/certification process includes a tiered certification system. A new Judge would initially be trained to evaluate models at the lower skill levels – Junior, Beginner, and Intermediate. After working as a Judge as several shows as a Basic Judge, they could take the next level of training and, if they’re successful, would be able to Jude at the higher skill levels – Advanced and Masters.
      Kind of like moving from College ball to the Pros based on extra training and experience.

      Reply
7. 

   Robin Van der Sande

   2024-08-19

   It sounds like « standards » in this context are pretty close to the notion of « standards » in Total Quality Management, is that right ? By nature such « standards » capture the « state of the art » in executing something, as defined by recognized experts in the domain. When supported by adequate documentation this can strongly contribute to the reduction in overall subjectivity, and also facilitate the work of modelers wanting to compete in that framework. The downside is that standards can stifle innovation, if not used properly, with the right mindset : how will this be taken into account if at all I’d be curious to hear about.

   Reply
   1. 

      Bruce Worrall

      2024-08-19

      Thanks for the feedback Robin. You’re correct that we’re using “standard” to help reduce subjectivity (although we fully acknowledge that subjectivity is an inherent part of evaluating someone else’s creative work).
      At the higher skill levels (which we’re calling “Advanced” and “Masters” we have a criteria called “Artistic Merit”. This will allow us to reward models that innovate and/or have a “Wow factor”.

      Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.