Group Build policy discussion

[Ratch]

I tend to miss quite a few BM GBs because ones that interest me take forever to happen and I've forgotten by the time they come around.

It would help if the duration of the GB was stated in the OP of the Chat Thread. I've come across one or two that interest me, but I got bored reading through no end of posts trying to work out when it started and how long is left.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

1 hour ago, Anatol Pigwa said:

1 GB reserved for ships

 

1 hour ago, trickyrich said:

Maybe also ensure one slot minimum is for non-aircraft builds.

Not a problem per se but it usually takes more than four months for most people to build ships as there is a significant cost involved and size ? So would four months be enough, in my opinion for some yes. Is that “Some” enough to get members to sign up for them remains to be seen ? 

[trickyrich]

16 minutes ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

 

Not a problem per se but it usually takes more than four months for most people to build ships as there is a significant cost involved and size ? So would four months be enough, in my opinion for some yes. Is that “Some” enough to get members to sign up for them remains to be seen ? 

I agree for some GB's 4 months isn't a lot, maybe we can have this time extended for certain GB's.

 

I have an idea floating in my head (one of many...though this one is doing the backstroke) of a "Super-sized GB", for large scale models (aircraft goer, ships 1/400th and bigger, car > then 1/24th etc), a GB like this due to the size/scale of the models would need to be longer.......maybe this could be one of the Special GB's held each year??

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

1 hour ago, Ratch said:

I tend to miss quite a few BM GBs because ones that interest me take forever to happen and I've forgotten by the time they come around.

It would help if the duration of the GB was stated in the OP of the Chat Thread. I've come across one or two that interest me, but I got bored reading through no end of posts trying to work out when it started and how long is left.

I try to list dates in my title as soon as I get them for that reason. 

[Romeo Alpha Yankee]

5 hours ago, trickyrich said:

Arrrrr Enzo????  

 

Are we meant to vote on these proposals/ideas or just chat about them? 

 

Good luck keeping track of all those ideas.........herding cats will be easier! 

 

I'll make my choices easy.......... (the only time you'll get a break from me! )

 

• Have 7 each of GBs and STGBs
• Rockin' All Over The World - Status Quo?    you really are showing your age!
• Two years between nominations - help keep everything fresh
• Move the STGBs in line with GBs.  There will be an STGB bunfight for 2022, However, the currently nominated STGBs will stand. - would be awesome, more bloodshed!
• All GBs which are within ten *** open for discussion *** votes of the cutoff get a bye - Though I reckon only the top 2 losers
• 75% of the available slots - would make your votes more important, currently we average only 7 votes from the 9 available to us so wasting 2 votes
• 1 Special GB /year

+ proposed GB's only stay in the GB Chat area for 2 years them archived.

 

Think this would be enough to re-fresh the GB/STGB area for a start.

 

Plus we do need a total spring clean/tidy up of the GB Chat area and completely start from fresh.

I pretty much agree with Rich 😉

5 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said:

 

You don't know the half of it.  I remember John Fogerty's original!  

I was waiting for  In the Army now as one for your dot points 

[Col.]

4 hours ago, Romeo Alpha Yankee said:

I pretty much agree with Rich 😉

I was waiting for  In the Army now as one for your dot points 

Are you singing or floating a GB idea there Ray?  

[Hockeyboy76]

It seems that lots of peeps vote to get the proposed GB into the bum fight, then forget to vote in the actual fight. 
Could that be looked at or taken into account when starting the annual vote?

Say you have 60 interested in your gb, you get a head start in the actual vote

[zebra]

52 minutes ago, Hockeyboy76 said:

It seems that lots of peeps vote to get the proposed GB into the bum fight, then forget to vote in the actual fight. 
Could that be looked at or taken into account when starting the annual vote?

Say you have 60 interested in your gb, you get a head start in the actual vote

 

Is it that they forget to vote or that they vote for more than 9 to get into the bum fight so can't then vote for them all? I know I voted for more than 9 to get in, but the way I see that is I'm voting to get it into the end of year poll, I've then got to weigh up which my top nine are.

 

Anyway, my thoughts on the whole thing, for what it's worth:

 

There might be too many GBs and STGBs. There are sometimes so many overlapping that it's not really possible to participate in all of them. When something's got to give it's usually the STGB that I drop out of, because the GBs get an extra month so give me a bit more leeway to get things done.

 

The other problem with STGBs is they don't seem to be very diverse. There are quite a lot of repeat subjects, it's mostly aircraft, rarely non-military, very rarely anything other than aircraft and armour, and so on. But I also recognise that they get into the calendar because they reflect what people want to build. But if that's the case they should have to get through the poll just like everything else.

 

So my view on STGBs is I don't care how many there are, but they should be treated just like every other GB. So they shouldn't get reserved slots and should have to fight for a place in the same poll as every other GB, and they should run for the same 4 months as every other GB (which would increase my participation in STGBs).

 

The classic kit GBs are very popular and it strikes me that they could go on forever if we allowed them to. So my suggestion is that we don't treat them as a normal GB but just constantly have a classic GB going - eg we could have them run for six months, 1 Jan - 30 June and 1 July - 31 December each year. I'd include the other nostalgic ones like a kit you built as a kid in this.

 

I don't have a view on how many votes it should take to get a GB into the poll. Whatever we go with is going to disappoint some GB proposers - either those that don't make it through the final poll, or those that don't make it in because the threshold was raised. I think I'm leaning towards leaving it alone so that we end up with a good diverse group of GBs to choose from.

 

I don't really care about repeated subjects, I'm not convinced there's really a problem. I may be wrong but apart from Nordic potentially happening two years in a row and a one year gap between flying boats and floatplanes GBs, on the whole they aren't repeating all that often. 

 

There should be a limit on byes. Those that just miss the cut will usually have received more votes in the poll than it would take to get into the next poll, so they seem to have demonstrated that they have enough support. So I think those that just miss the cut - and we can debate how that's measured - can have a bye. I also wouldn't object if there were no byes at all.

 

I'll stop there - probably gone on a bit too much!

[CliffB]

Thanks for grappling with this one Enzo 

There are just two things that I feel reasonably strongly about:

• scrap the whole concept of STGBs.  If someone wants to propose a 'single type' GB that's fine - but it's just another GB, nothing special.  As the number of annual GB slots is limited, all GBs should be competing on an equal footing.
• limit votes to 60% of the available spaces.  It's clear that many votes that are currently cast in the bunfight do not translate into actual GB builds.

Cheers

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

1 minute ago, zebra said:

Is it that they forget to vote or that they vote for more than 9 to get into the bum fight so can't then vote for them all? I know I voted for more than 9 to get in, but the way I see that is I'm voting to get it into the end of year poll, I've then got to weigh up which my top nine are.

I have the same issue, so many to choose from not enough votes. So in the end I have to decide what I can realistically afford to buy on a limited budget. That defines which I vote for.

     In a weird way it also defines what builds I can participate in, some builds just get dropped because I cant get the needed kit. Simply because it falls at the wrong time for my budget. 

[diases]

I think that the whole system is Flawed.

I'm mostly a AFV modeller, and there is a heavy membership bias towards aircraft (that's just how it is).

 

The bun fight candidates can be from many years ago. A quick check showed candidates, first thread started in 2016.

How many of those original members are still active, or wish to participate, all these years later.

Maybe the GB proposer should poll the people that applied (via private message) to find out the numbers still interested, and then report to the boss if the build should still be included in the actual bun fight, before the poll is set-up.

At least you would know that the slots would not be wasted.

 

I also think that there should be set times for certain classic (and popular) builds. Like the present Hawk build, maybe a September 1st slot each year, other classic's could be set at certain dates. 

Special Event's mess this Idea up, if you want certain historical dates, but in theory, could work. 

Sponsored GB, like the Hawk and Jadlam, could be discussed with possible sponsors as to the favoured time period during the year.

 

As for the other available slots, I would like to think that we could get at least 1 pure AFV GB each year, but the present system biased towards aircraft because of the membership and number of votes being able to cast.

Take British AFV, 35 votes. or Cars/Trucks/Bikes/AFV, 28 votes.  Without the aircraft element they have almost no chance of getting through the Bunfight. Not picking on any particular Aircraft build, even a limited subject like V-Force get 33 votes, or gliders/tugs at 32 votes.

Maybe, a couple of slots per year for no wings GB could be allocated, for the modellers that like like to keep things on the surface of the earth.

 

STGB should not automatically be allocated when they get required number of participants, as like others have stated, we end up with mostly aircraft.

Of the 11 future STGB, only 2 are non aircraft subjects.

I believe this is because the non aircraft STGB proposers have to work harder and longer to get the required interest, as there is a lower pool of people available.

 

I Know this post appears to have a dig at the pure aircraft community, but that's not my intension. 

I wanted to point out that the more niche builders would like a shot at getting their chance, and open up the world of GB's to a larger audience.

 

Cheers for reading

Paul

 

PS. Would it be possible to place a Link to the appropriate GB in the poll, would make it easier to see what some are about

Edited November 16, 2020 by diases
Added a PS

[zebra]

54 minutes ago, diases said:

Maybe, a couple of slots per year for no wings GB could be allocated, for the modellers that like like to keep things on the surface of the earth.

 

 

I've got a lot of sympathy for this suggestion. Whilst the majority of GBs are open to non-aircraft, the non-aircraft modellers should get a chance to have some GBs that aren't dominated by aircraft. There need to be more non-aircraft GB proposals getting through to the vote to make it work though - my suggestion would be to reserve a slot or two each year for non-aircraft subjects and hold a separate poll to choose them, with a lower threshold to get into the poll.

[Mike]

My only concern is the use of the term “bum fight”. It conjures up so many unpleasant images.  

 

Other than that, chat on  

[bianfuxia]

hello, here are some of my thoughts.

 

I am relatively new to BM and quickly worked out that I only really participate in the Group Build section of the forum. I've entered many since my first one in perhaps 2016, and in some I've done multiple builds (especially since COVID - in the "In the Navy" one I made something like seven ships). 

 

I really enjoy the group builds, and what I am about to say is based on that personal experience. I acknowledge that everyone does their hobby differently - these are just my impressions that may or may not resonate with others.

 

 

- the best ones are the diverse ones where lots of people join in and build a wide range of models

- so...STGBs aren't that great by comparison. I'm in the Tornado one now, and enjoying my build, but I can't help but notice there are a lot fewer participants. That one has 2 pages of builds and it ends in a few weeks; the interceptors one which started just a few days ago already has four pages of builds (and "In the Navy" finished with about 100 in the gallery; similarly Kit You Built As a Kid had lots as does Heller now). I understand that there's a clear difference between the two types of GB and I understand why a STGB would have fewer subscribers. The question I ask is, if that's the case, wouldn't it be better to use the STGB slots for a GB that will attract more people?

- so my feelings are:

 

* have STGBs go to the vote in the same way as other GBs

* have all GB ideas start in one calendar year for running in the next. That is, have a process where GB ideas are generated from January (or whenever, but in the calendar year) in advance of the bunfight in November, to then be run the next calendar year. Not a situation where a GB idea can be around for a while before finally getting a slot

* all GB ideas that don't make the cut in the poll are back to zero and have to start canvassing support again. They don't spend several years slowly building apparent support (because  as someone else said, there is no real way of knowing whether that level of support actually exists at the time the GB would run).

 

The idea is to keep it tight so when you express interest in a GB you know it will run next year if enough people vote for it. A good GB would garner strong support over a short period of time, and the bunfight is then soon enough afterwards that the support translates into votes.

 

Then it is up to the GB proposer to think up a GB that will attract people. 

 

I understand the concern about balancing between specific GB subjects - like subjects from a certain war or theatre of war - and broad subjects that attract many builds but could end up as "the aeroplane GB" or the "has the colour red on it" GB. But somewhere is a sweet spot, and I personally enjoy the ones with more players than the others. Whatever we can do to support that higher participation would be good, I think.

 

To put it another way: I know - and very much appreciate - that politics are off limits here. But I guess I feel like that we presently have a US style approach - never-ending primaries just to work out who is running, and then a long campaign up to the actual election. Maybe we need something like in Australia or NZ (and perhaps UK?) - a few short weeks of intense campaigning and then boom! An election and it's decided.

 

Anyway, thanks for reading. 

 

And thanks to all those who run the GBs - I can see it's a great deal of work!

 

[PlaStix]

My tuppence worth:

 

GBs

Although I really enjoy GBs, I do think that there are perhaps too many of them currently - I am personally struggling for time this year and haven’t been able to take part in a couple I had signed up for. If we then add in special event GBs and classic GBs, etc., as well (which, by the way, I am all in favour of) - it is going to get a bit overwhelming. Seven seems a sensible compromise for a year plus a couple from the special event, classic, blitz-build GBs etc.

 

I think the number of sign ups to get a standard GB into the poll at the end of the year is fine and I think the current polling system is basically sound. My issue is with the number of byes from one year to the next. I would say – if it does not get chosen this year - then it is either dropped or proposed again and started from scratch for the following year. I think the GBs which get a bye often suffer from having a year in almost limbo before the next poll. Which then means they don’t have the same level of interest in the actual poll…..yet again.

 

I think there should be no repeat of or follow on GBs for at least two years. It may just be me, but some seem to appear several years in a row. They are obviously popular - because they get through the vote at the end of the year repeatedly - but it does mean that other subjects/proposals stand less chance of getting through.

 

STGBs

I personally like the idea of STGBs and the way they are currently chosen – without going through the poll at the end of the year. Having them go through the poll system would probably result in STGBs involving anything other than aircraft, never getting through. I (again personally) do not have a problem with aircraft STGBs getting through – if enough people enjoy building a particular type of plane - so be it. If there is voting for STGBs – more aircraft STGBs will still get through. At the end of the day, AFVs, cars, ships, boats, figures and space/sci-fi GBs do not have the same level of interest on Britmodeller (which is fine, by the way) so if they reach a suitable level of interest for a STGB slot then I think they should automatically happen – reasonably quickly if possible without going through an additional hurdle of a vote at the end of the year.  There could be a similar rule that there is a couple of years between a particular subject.

 

I quite liked someone’s suggestion that STGBs are slightly more independent and happen much more rapidly – although a month may be too quick. I do think, in these circumstances, to slow them down a bit, they should require the same amount of initial sign ups as GBs - or even slightly more. Sometimes the proposal to the actual GB time is very long – for example, my Panzer III STGB was proposed and got the necessary votes to proceed two years before it could take place (starting in February next year!) - and I know for a fact that some modellers who signed up have not been around these parts for a while. Having said that, we are still having regular new signups and I know that the start of the STGB is eagerly anticipated by a lot of the people signed up to take part.

 

I would also like to see these STGBs being 4 months long rather than three. Someone mentioned that there seem to be less people taking part in STGBs – some of this may be down to the fact that three months is not long for some us to build bigger more complex kits. It takes me quite a while to build the smaller kits these days.

 

As I said at the start – just my tuppence worth.

 

Finally a big thank you to @Enzo Matrix for all the work you already put into the GB section – I know it is really appreciated by all of us.

 

Kind regards,

Stix

[Chimpion]

I would like to see a single post with a very brief description of all of the GBs in the vote with a link to the discussion thread. This year some of the titles are anything but self-explanatory and trying to find the threads for them all would take ages. In the end I just voted for a few that I could see myself taking part in.

As for the number of votes, it shouldn't affect the end result that much. If we all only had two or three votes, many of the GBs might not get any at all, and some might get chosen on a handful of votes. I think the current approach is fine.

I also think it's ok to vote in the bunfight for GBs you don't intend to take part in. I'd vote for a 1/12 scale vehicle GB to enjoy the show, but would personally never get one of those built in 4 months.

 

[Enzo the Magnificent]

3 hours ago, Chimpion said:

I would like to see a single post with a very brief description of all of the GBs in the vote with a link to the discussion thread. This year some of the titles are anything but self-explanatory and trying to find the threads for them all would take ages. In the end I just voted for a few that I could see myself taking part in.

 

 

My proposal here would be to have a seperate forum called Annual GB Poll.  At the start of the year it will be empty.  As GB proposals pass the relevant threshold, they will be moved into the Poll forum.  The poll itself will also be held in this forum. 

 

GBs that get selected will then be moved into the Future GBs forum.  Those that don't will be moved back into the chat forum or will be archived, depending on what we decide. 

 

 

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

9 hours ago, diases said:

I Know this post appears to have a dig at the pure aircraft community, but that's not my intension.

I get it as Im the host/proposer of Armor build. I am also running the Panther build, and my very first build I hosted was the Patton/Pershing Single type. Im mostly aircraft but do mess around with armor builds sometimes. 

 

8 hours ago, Mike said:

My only concern is the use of the term “bum fight”. It conjures up so many unpleasant images.  

 

Other than that, chat on  

This is the Giggling Academy that is group builds. 

[theplasticsurgeon]

On 11/15/2020 at 8:46 PM, Enzo Matrix said:

So...  those are the topics.  We aren't restricted to those topics however.  If you want to raise a burning issue, please do.  Likewise, please let me have your comments on whether we should modify or add proposals.

 

Let the chaos commence!    

Another topic worthy of consideration is the duration of the Voting Process.  No idea why a whole month is given to this - where did that come from?

These days everybody is connected, wherever they are, and could get their votes cast in the same week at most.

 

Another topic that comes out of the duration is tactical voting.  Being able to remove votes from one GB that's doing well - to bump another over the threshold.

I'd call this cheating.  I know others think it's part of the fun - but someone's votes are being defrauded.

Electronic voting might not be able to prevent this, but shorter duration gives less opportunity.

 

 

 

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Just now, theplasticsurgeon said:

Electronic voting might not be able to prevent this, but shorter duration gives less opportunity.

 

 

That's another topic for consideration

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Consider this hypothetical situation:

 

In future, group builds for the year may be split down into a number of categories:   Aircraft, non-aircraft, classic kits.    If we do this how do we organise the bunfight?  Three seperate bunfights or three categories with one bunfight?  

 

Consider that we may also decide to incorporate STGBs into the the standard GB bunfight.  If we follow a similar split for STGBs, that means possibly five seperate bunfights.

 

That's an awful lot of work for your friendly neighbourhood Group Build Moderator.

 

 

[Col.]

20 minutes ago, Enzo Matrix said:

Consider this hypothetical situation:

 

In future, group builds for the year may be split down into a number of categories:   Aircraft, non-aircraft, classic kits.    If we do this how do we organise the bunfight?  Three seperate bunfights or three categories with one bunfight?  

 

Consider that we may also decide to incorporate STGBs into the the standard GB bunfight.  If we follow a similat split for STGBs, that means possibly five seperate bunfights.

 

That's an awful lot of work for your friendly neighbourhood GB moderator.

Perhaps a three topic question in the poll with the opportunity to cast a finite number of votes in each one? Is this a way in which non-aircraft specific subjects are given greater weight and preferential treatment to encourage us to expand our model subject horizons

Do we need to make STGB and GB one and the same thing? Same nomination requirements. Same duration. Compete together for the same places

[alt-92]

First off: Compliments to the Chef, can't be easy cooking these schedules up yearly for everyone

👍🏼

 

What is the track record and ratio of aircraft vs . non-aircraft GBs over the years?
That would at least give you an indication on how many slots might be 'reserved'  - for lack of a better term - for AFV & Naval subjects. 
 

With regards to the bye procedure: not my preferred method. 

Either you make it, or you don't.

Reduces hassle, lot clearer, and makes sure proposals are 'fresh'.

 

Keep a couple of slots reserved for Commemorative events or Specials (like the Jadlam) at Chef's Table discretion.

 

 

 

 

[trickyrich]

1 hour ago, Enzo Matrix said:

 

My proposal here would be to have a seperate forum called Annual GB Poll.  At the start of the year it will be empty.  As GB proposals pass the relevant threshold, they will be moved into the Poll forum.  The poll itself will also be held in this forum. 

 

GBs that get selected will then be moved into the Future GBs forum.  Those that don't will be moved back into the chat forum or will be archived, depening on what we decide. 

 

This idea is a winner, would make life sooo much easier. 

 

34 minutes ago, Enzo Matrix said:

Consider this hypothetical situation:

 

In future, group builds for the year may be split down into a number of categories:   Aircraft, non-aircraft, classic kits.    If we do this how do we organise the bunfight?  Three seperate bunfights or three categories with one bunfight?  

 

 

Didn't we try this at one stage?  I'm not sure about dividing up the poll into categories as such, I can easily see some GB's that miss the cutoff yet having nearly double the votes and interest of one that goes through. A guaranteed non-aircraft GB position is a better way to go form a total of 7 GB's for the year (with only 5 votes being available). I still say combining small GB subjects into a bigger overall one is the way to go for some of these GB ideas. I've done it a couple of times now and they've generated a lot of interest been really popular and successful.

 

Or we run non-aircraft GB's as a totally seperate GB calendar........just harder organise and plan.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Enzo Matrix said:

Consider that we may also decide to incorporate STGBs into the the standard GB bunfight.  If we follow a similat split for STGBs, that means possibly five seperate bunfights.

 

 

I do like STGB's and think they do need to be treated separately. The nice thing with them is you can see the evolution of a particular subject. The Me-262 one was one of the best example, we had everything form the genesis Me-262 V-1  (I built that) right up to a few "paper plane" versions.  The concept behind an STGB is sound and good......how it's being put into practice is a bit broken. It's becoming the same old same subjects coming up way too regularly now.

 

There needs to be a time limit on repeats (in GB's as well), plus a dedicated non-aircraft STGB. I don't have a problem with them going up for a vote either. They may never get the same degree of interest as GB's but they still have a important part in the Britmodeller GB calendar in my opinion.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

8 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

What is the track record and ratio of aircraft vs . non-aircraft GBs over the years?

That would at least give you an indication on how many slots might be 'reserved'  - for lack of a better term - for AFV & Naval subjects. 
 

 

Up until 2018, every STGB was always an aircraft subject.  That changed in in late '18 with the Sherman STGB, our first non-sircraft subject.

 

In 2019, 50% of STGBs were on non-aircraft subjects.   This year, that had fallen to 20%.  Next year will be similar.

 

So I think 40% of STGBs reserved for non-aircraft subjects would be reasonable.