AnonymousDFB1 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Single Type Group Builds (STGB) have become a victim of their own success. So a small change is going to be made in the criteria for STGBs With the allocation of dates to both the Ducati Panigale and Westland Wessex GBs the STGB calendar for 2016 is now full. If we carry on at the same rate the STGB calendar for 2017 will be full before the end of this year 2015! So with immediate effect all proposed STGBs will need to gain 25 interested members in order to get a slot on the calendar. This is a modest rise of five extra interested members per STGB. I know this is going to cause some chest puffing and ranting but it is the best and fairest solution to try and slow the march of the calendar. I do hope you understand. Edited July 28, 2015 by Mish 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Sounds fair to me Mish. Wez 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hgbn Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Totally agrees Mish. Either that or a poll for the next years STGB's like the full GB's. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vingtor Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Ir there a reason why not two - ore more - group builds (single type or not) cannot be run in parallell? If a group of modellers would like to do a group build on e.g. F-35s, why should they not be allowed to do this while another group of modellers are doing a group build on e.g. pre-war airliners...? Just trying to be constructive. Nils 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 All seems good to me Mish. As you say something has to happen before we snow ourselves under with too many STGB and GB events stretching so far into the future we forget what we've signed up for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver Fox Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Seems fair to me, in fact I'd go further and ask for 25 members. It would an interesting exercise to see compare those signing up for STGBs against those who actually start a kit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousDFB1 Posted March 20, 2015 Author Share Posted March 20, 2015 Ir there a reason why not two - ore more - group builds (single type or not) cannot be run in parallell? If a group of modellers would like to do a group build on e.g. F-35s, why should they not be allowed to do this while another group of modellers are doing a group build on e.g. pre-war airliners...? Just trying to be constructive. Nils Nils, we do this a look at the GB's running at the moment will show just how many GB's are running parallel. At any time we will have two STGBs running in overlap and four GBs running in parallel and overlap. We can't add anymore. even I and I count myself as a prolific builder can't build for every GB. Seems fair to me, in fact I'd go further and ask for 25 members. It would an interesting exercise to see compare those signing up for STGBs against those who actually start a kit. If need be we will raise the 'gateway level' for STGB, but lets try a modest increase first if need be we might have to resort to a vote like we do with the GBs Please feel free to carry out that exercise. but I would thing we, as an average, get 50% to 75% finish rate of all GBs, but I can't force people to build and finish just because they expressed an interest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vingtor Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Nils, we do this a look at the GB's running at the moment will show just how many GB's are running parallel. At any time we will have two STGBs running in overlap and four GBs running in parallel and overlap. We can't add anymore. even I and I count myself as a prolific builder can't build for every GB. Very well. I was not aware of this. Nils Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerbannog Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 I assume the number of BM members has risen quite a lot since the 15 votes rule was made so this makes absolutely sense. Maybe one should consider to raise the needed votes every time the number of members has exceeded a certain percentage. Same the other way round - should this ever happen. Rene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickyrich Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 I agree with you 100% Mish. It was starting to get a little to easy to get STGB's up. Now with the increased membership it is the right time to raise the initial limit and for the start of 2017 makes perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Knight Posted March 21, 2015 Share Posted March 21, 2015 Might a moratorium be put on STGB suggestions for a while? Perhaps until this time next year? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousDFB1 Posted March 21, 2015 Author Share Posted March 21, 2015 Might a moratorium be put on STGB suggestions for a while? Perhaps until this time next year? Just a thought. I did that a few years ago and it did nothing to stop the suggestions, all it did was put the sorting of dates out to later. That is why I intoduced the 30/15 interested members limit to GBs and STGBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vppelt68 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 ...we might have to resort to a vote like we do with the GBs No, no, not THE VOTE (for Garfield the cat it´s THE VET). I even support a rise to 25. What´s good about the STGB- system is that only those that are really interested and intend to build that certain single type of -whatever- usually sign in and also participate in the build, where as in regular GB:s anonymous voters, that have no real ties to the GB:s being elected, can affect the next years´ calender and may drop a GB that would´ve got more builders. Been there and done that . V-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousDFB1 Posted March 24, 2015 Author Share Posted March 24, 2015 IF we did go to the voting approach we can make the voting public so all can see who voted for what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now