La précision et le jugement.

IPMS Judging and accuracy.....are you freaking kidding me?
By
Scott Brown

"Accuracy" certainly has its place in the IPMS judging system....at the very far back of the bus....hanging off the bumper.

In over 25 years of judging at the local, regional and national level....in the toughest of classes....1/48 prop axis, 1/48 small and medium jet....I've allowed accuracy to influence place twice....both at NATS and both in 1/48 prop. One year it was the formation lights on the bottom wing of a P-51 being the wrong order, one year it was stick position of a corsair. These 2 events were separated by 15 years.

Point being, if you as an IPMS judge allow "accuracy" to intrude into your judging decisions, you are in direct contravention of the written rules regarding the criteria to be utilized in awarding places....period.

The judging criteria states (from the IPMS competition handbook):

JUDGING. Models will be judged for skill in construction, finish, realism, and accuracy.

There is a reason construction and finish are first. I'll let the competition handbook spell it out, then expound a bit....'cause I'm not that wordy:

"Accuracy
Absolute accuracy is a noble, but probably unattainable, goal. No scale model is ever 100% accurate, yet some people urge that models be judged principally on their accuracy. This is a real minefield. Yes, gross inaccuracy should be easy to spot — most would agree that a model of an F-86 with forward-swept wings is inaccurate. Beyond that, however, the situation quickly becomes murky and can lead to unfairness in judging. For example, suppose one of the judges for the 1/72 Multi-engine Jet category had spent the better part of 20 years as a USAF F-4 crew chief. That judge is going to be an absolute expert on Phantoms and probably will be able to find inaccuracies of one type or another on every F-4 entered in the category. But is he equally knowledgeable about Canadian CF-100 Canucks? Probably not. So, if he judges solely on the basis of accuracy, there's a real risk that he will unfairly penalize those who entered F-4 models. The Chief Judge and Class Head Judges take pains every year to remind the judges to be aware of this problem and to be fair to all on this issue. But before we get too wrapped around the accuracy debate, remember that judges concentrate first on the modeling aspects. A model with every component built absolutely accurately probably still won't win if seams between the components aren't filled properly. Conversely, a superbly built model containing an inaccuracy could win if it is, in all other respects, the best model in the category. Judges take lots of hits from modelers who know some minute aspect of a prototype and mistakenly believe that judges must also have that much detailed knowledge and more. It's simply not possible for all IPMS judges to match, model for model, the expertise developed by our disparate and incredibly knowledgeable membership. Don't assume that the judges know all the details you know. Help them and help yourself by putting a little time into the entry sheet or any other display material you put out with your model. Judges do read that stuff, and it could make the difference for you."

Which is PRECISELY why we judge SKILL in modeling, not skill in replicating accuracy. There is a very important distinction there. I cannot stress that enough....we are there to judge the modelers skill in executing the build of a kit....period. There are times.....exceedingly rare.... in which there are 2 entries that are SO evenly matched....the pieces are just astoundingly perfect in every regard in terms of construction and finish that its impossible for 3 guys to fairly pick a winner. At THAT point....and only that point, is it acceptable to move on into "accuracy". The reason is, accuracy is SO subjective. The judging process we use is subjective enough. The reason IPMS uses the system it does is because its the most expedient to fairly apply for the most ammount of people. Its not the best system by any means, but its the best we can do with vollunteer judges. It would be GREAT to have a professional paid judging staff at every contest applying their vast knowlege to our pieces....but we don't. We have some dude who we scammed out of the stands and tossed him into the fray. What's easier for him to apply.....go see if the model is constructed well, has nice paint and decals that you can't tell are decals or run over there and decide which FW-190D-15 has the proper shade of RLM-83?

I mentioned twice using "accuracy". Once, we took the time to run out to the vendor room and look at a book with the color order of the formation lights to confirm our decision, the second was basic aerodynamic principle....if the stick is over against the R console, the R aileron is deflected up....this one was down...he had it crossed. Picky? Yup...picky as hell, but it was SO rare that I didn't feel too bad about it.....(conversely, I see this all the time....deflected flying surfaces with the controls neutral)

Now, I was pretty confident how the controls on an F4U worked....as were the guys on the team with me....but what about an F-4J? Or a Mirage 2000? Its common to see F-18s with both rudders cocked in while parked, but I've seen judges ding pieces for it. Are you 100% sure the 361st was using OD on their mustangs or was it blue? What shade of blue were on Malta spitfires?

When I started judging, all Me-109s were 2 shades of green, period, end of story.

The quicksand is wide and deep when you start dragging accuracy into your judging. I know a ton about 357th FG P-51s, 50s and 60 navy jets and modern US stuff.....I see little inaccurate things all the time....a block 50 F-16 toting the wrong bomb or missing the JHMCS sensor in the canopy....is it fair that I ding it but let something more egregious slide on a MiG-21 because I don't know MiG-21s?

Here's the money shot. Do NOT believe for a second....despite the "horror stories"......I could swap you story for story, trust me....that anything close to the majority of people who judge IPMS shows do it against the stated rules. There are obviously noted exceptions....guys with the "natural metal bias"....its real, I've seen it in action......guys with the RLM bias (a poorly build FW-190 beats a nice P-51 every time)...you name it, I've seen it. Guys who believe that if you let the wrong shade of RLM-83 slide you are on the slippery slope to Pactra red 109s built with tube glue. It doesn't happen that way. The vast, vast majority of guys are able to follow the rules as written, and not believe they are the smartest dude in the room. I rant occasionally about the poor results in judging and how you shouldn't take them seriously....but that is about human frailty, not dishonesty.....and not following the rules is dishonest. Guys make bad judging decisions constantly, but they do it within the confines of the rules. They made a bad judgement call, not flouted the rules.....that's the difference.

Now, I'm also a guy who enjoys his accuracy. I like "rivet counters"....I like guys who can look at a 109 and see the missing 1/4 inch in 1/48 scale......but that has NO place in IPMS judging.....none.

We as a society take heat because of the percieved emphasis on contests, and stuff like this doesn't help. It forwards the notion that IPMS is a collection of flashlight weilding root weevils who scurry and scour over your model looking for inaccurate tire pressure and the correct shade of yellow worn by Oberstgruppenfurher Schickelgruber's 109G-234 at the 4th pitched battle of Gottdamerung....and a lot of it is self-inflicted, but I'm going to tell you that the rank and file don't operate that way. We follow the rules so that something as....again....subjective as model judging is as fair as possible...and that's what its about....basic fairness.

Its not cool in the least to build a model that conforms to the stated rules, and take it to a contest where a guy arbitrarily tosses the rules out and goes his own way.

Your mileage may obviously vary, but that's the way the book reads folks.

Talk amongst yourselves.....

Extrait du texte d'en haut; ...its real, I've seen it in action......guys with the RLM bias (a poorly build FW-190 beats a nice P-51 every time)...you name it, I've seen it. Guys who believe that if you let the wrong shade of RLM-83 slide you are on the slippery slope to Pactra red 109s built with tube glue. It doesn't happen that way.

Traduit:
..c'est vrai, , je l'ai vu en action ...... Ceux avec le biais RLM (Un mauvais FW-190 bat un beau P-51 chaque fois) ... et j'en passe, je l'ai vu. Les gars qui croient que si vous laissez la mauvaise nuance de RLM-83 passer vous êtes sur la pente glissante de favoriser un Bf109 peinturé rouge Pactra et construit avec de la colle en tube. Ca n'arrive pas!

Premiere réaction;
Deuxieme réaction; Oui! D'autres gens croit au mérite de la construction avant la "précision" du modèle.
Bonne article, merci!

Je ressort des boules à mites ce thread, car pour beaucoup de modélistes, une maquette jugée égal = La précision historique/mécanique à tout prix.

Une simple réponse, NON!  

La qualitée d'assemblage, les décalques bien appliqués, la symétrie *quand c'est approprié* sont les facteurs importants.
(à suivre...)

Et là on parlait seulement d'avions. Qu'est-ce qui arrive quand le sujet est automobile? On est condammé à ne faire que du "factory stock", vu que c'est comme ca que c'est sorti d'usine?   
Mais non...On juge une auto/camion/moto pour sa construction et sa finition, tout comme le reste des maquettes de plastique. Oui?  

Je pense à des commentaires entendus, dans tout les shows:
"Le modéliste a fait des grosses corrections pour rendre ce kit plus précis au vrai, ca devrait valoir des points de plus pour gagner quelque chose."

Oui? Hmmmm...Oui et non. Si il est assemblé croche, ou mal sablé, ou mal peinturé, pourquoi le travail de plus serait récompensé?
Plus on AJOUTE du travail à un kit, plus on se donne la chance de rater notre coup.
   Mais si tout est beau, on a un gagnant en vue!
Et on revient encore à la question "Faites vous un kit pour gagner à tout prix?"     
(J'ai rien contre! )