Group Build policy discussion

[vppelt68]

Thanks Cliff for your reply, you know, that Small Wars is something I too feel very bad for and have voted for in 2021!

Regarding alt-92:s reply about the He 111 STGB, correct, but for those participating it was still a good GB. Would raising the required number of participants tie them more closely to actually building in that? I doubt.

Regular GB:s and STGB:s may be for a bit different minded Britmodellers, or then not. Anyway the amalgamation of those two types does not add a single month, week, day or even an hour in one calendar year.

V-P

[jackroadkill]

Being a newbie here and also having only just signed up for my first GB I'm not sure whether I'm qualified to make suggestions, but my take is that the whole process is really complicated from an outsider / new person's point of view.  I think that having the bunfight is great and I've really enjoyed the silliness and faux-aggro that goes on in the bunfight thread, so I think keep the voting etc broadly similar whatever happens.

 

So, if the present system's become too complicated, what would I suggest?

 

• No byes from past years; if it doesn't get the votes, it doesn't get the votes. 
• A split between GB's and STGB's as decided on by Enzo / the Electoral College / The House of Lords / whatever (could be 50/50, 70/30 or something).
• Three years between proposals for the same or markedly similar GB's / STGB's.
• Once the Bunfight is over proposals for the next bunfight and only the next bunfight can be made
• A single "historic" GB, eg anniversaries of things like the Falklands War, significant battles, the entrance into service of particular aircraft / AFV types etc each year, proposed in the normal fashion

I think this would keep things simple and easy to manage and hopefully reduce the workload for the guys who give a lot of their time to organise the schedule and hold it all together.

 

Just my tuppen'orth, and no intention to rock boats etc.

[alt-92]

1 hour ago, vppelt68 said:

correct, but for those participating it was still a good GB. Would raising the required number of participants tie them more closely to actually building in that? I doubt.

One could use the same argument of 'being a good GB for those participating'  in favour of doing the smaller/oddball/less popular GB's that currently don't survive the bunfight.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

7 hours ago, Chimpion said:

I confess I don't know how to solve this, or even whether others see this as a problem at all.

I admit freely I didn't see any problems with the current system, apparently I was grossly mistaken ? Others have quite valid points thus my interest in at least hearing everyone out and throwing ideas out there.   

[trickyrich]

One thing i really haven't had a good chance to look at though is the participation rate to completion rate.

 

For some GB's/STGB's it's very good, but for others???  Just because a build doesn't attract a lot of member doesn't mean it's not a popular one with a good completion rate, and vice-a-versa.

 

Forgoing STGB slots or making them harder to go through is not going to makes the builds that go through, GB's or STGB's, any more popular. In fact I suspect if we have more build slots the rate of actual models being completed will actually drop. 

 

Members over commit (yes I'm one), they start too loose interest in the build (me again), or the next build is coming up and is more exciting (this is sounding bad for me!) then your current build. We end up with a few built models, lots of Shelf Queens and generally a bit unsatisfied with the whole GB thing...... I've seen this in some of he member here.

 

Whatever comes of all these ideas, we really have to limit the number of votes available for Bumfights! I really think this will lead to better participation in GB's and a better completion rate, which would mean the satisfaction rate with GB's would increase....and hopefully lead to better GB's and more interesting ones. STGB's they I feel need to be "protected", prob not the best word but will do, and a stop of severe crackdown on those endless repeats of the same subject matter.

 

Just because a STGB attracts a small number of members doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a success, you'll find those in it have more passion about their builds than most would have in these huge GB's.

 

Whatever the final out come will be, it just so amazing and nice it is to see how many other members, both new and old, are so passionate about GB's & STGB's and where their future is. Hopefully this will allow them to grow stronger and continue on..........gosh if not where else can I go and annoy members.....and where possible could I then build my "Mythical Draken'!!  

[helios16v]

Sounds like a presidential speech.  

 

Better watch out Enzo!  

[vppelt68]

7 hours ago, helios16v said:

Sounds like a presidential speech.  

 

Better watch out Enzo!  

No worries, because he's not democratically elected

 

[alt-92]

12 hours ago, trickyrich said:

Just because a STGB attracts a small number of members doesn't necessarily mean it isn't a success, you'll find those in it have more passion about their builds than most would have in these huge GB's.

It depends on how you look at it. 
60% completion rate of 60% attendance of 30 is 11 builds out of 30. That would make me scratch my head.

 

I also think some proposals could benefit from looking around a bit and reaching out:

One could consider holding that STGB virtually within the Century GB - that would help both parties!

 

 

[trickyrich]

2 hours ago, alt-92 said:

It depends on how you look at it. 
60% completion rate of 60% attendance of 30 is 11 builds out of 30. That would make me scratch my head.

 

I also think some proposals could benefit from looking around a bit and reaching out:

One could consider holding that STGB virtually within the Century GB - that would help both parties!

 

 

 

I tried a Century build a few years ago.......never even got enough interested member to go through to the voting....think it was even back when the threshold was 25 for GB's!

[vppelt68]

Fortunately, in about six weeks, it'll be January 2021. We'll have a new calendar and everyone is looking forward to whatever group builds there are on it. But meanwhile, we can discuss as much as we want to 

[Enzo the Magnificent]

I said earlier on that we could keep the consultation going until the end of the year.  I now think we need to move on with it as quickly as possible. 

 

The consultation will end at the end of the month.   If you have any concrete proposals to be added to the polls, please put them in here and mention me  @Enzo Matrix  in the post. 

 

I will then set up the various polls and we can have two weeks of voting.  We should then have the next policies in place and everything tidied up by the end of the year. 

[Stephen]

I think the poll on choosing subjects should be done a lot quicker rather than 30 days it should be no longer than 7-10 days. 

[Wez]

I've finally had the time to read through this thread, in the words of the Ramones, "my brain is hanging upside down!"

 

ISTR the STGB came about because aircraft builds were monopolising the GB calendar, thus it was introduced as a way of ensuring the Mustang or Spitfire GB didn't take the place of a GB that may potentially recruit modellers from other themes.  Therefore, there is a place for STGB but they should be subjected to a vote.  Those that are already nominated should be allowed to go ahead but we start the bunfight for 2023.

 

I also agree there is too much repetition between certain STGB subjects so there should be a reasonable gap between nominations - I can't decide whether 2 years is too short and 3 years is too long.  I like the idea of ensuring there are slots reserved for non-aircraft GBs.

 

The system of providing byes for GB's that made a bunfight but didn't get through is part of what's causing the huge number of potential GBs this year, maybe only the top 3 that didn't make the cut should get a bye but for one year only!  If they don't get through the second year they have to start from scratch, likewise any other proposal that doesn't make get a bye shouldn't think that it could continue with that support going forward, they should have to start from scratch.  I think the same should apply to any proposal that doesn't make the threshold within a year of being proposed.

 

I like the classic GB's, there should be one every year with a good gap in between them, I wouldn't want to see a Classic Heller GB 2 for at least five years!  I also think more prominence should be given to more inclusive GBs, the Vietnam, Nordic and yes, French Fancy 2 GB's are examples of these, yes they may encourage proportionally more aircraft than other subjects but that's the demographic, at least they provide the space for AFV/ship/figue/motorcycle/car/truck etc modellers to join in a GB.  Perhaps we could try these regional type GBs every year but move them around the globe like the olympics?  That way we may get more diversity?  Again, with these, perhaps there should be a decent gap between repeat offenders, the original French Fancy GB ran in 2015, with a fair wind and fingers crossed it makes it through to next year, that'll be 6 years between appearances, a fair gap I think.

 

The special anniversary GB's should remain.

 

Less subjects in the poll, e.g. 7 of each?  Yes!

 

Raise the threshold to achieve a nomination?  Yes!

 

Reduce the amount of votes?  Yes, 75% gets my vote.

 

Reduce the length of time for the poll?  Yes, I think so, two weeks should do it, that would allow the proposers to badger encourage their supporters to vote for them and not disenfranchise votes through tactical voting?

 

Perhaps the first two weeks of November should be the voting for the GB's and the second two for STGB's?

 

Just my two penneth worth.

[Enzo the Magnificent]

The polls are now set up and ready to go.  They will open on Tuesday 1 December.  Voting will close at 2359 UK time on sunday 13 December.

[Corsairfoxfouruncle]

@Enzo Matrix  Are the polls open then ? It appears to be so but looking for confirmation. 

[Enzo the Magnificent]

Yes, the polls are now open.

[trickyrich]

Just voted....awesome job my fine man! 

 

I really don't know how you put up with some of us (ok me! ), but you do an amazing job behind the scenes and infront with builds as well!

 

I just want to say a huge thank you for all your effort, you help maintain the GB spirit which I love and I know everyone one else here does as well! 

 

Give yourself a big pat on the back......now back to the modelling bench! 

[Col.]

6 hours ago, Enzo Matrix said:

Yes, the polls are now open.

Fight! Fight! Fight! Er, I mean, let the next round of fun begin

[trickyrich]

..and yes you'll always be blamed for everything!!!! 

[modelling minion]

Votes duly cast, now just a matter of waiting to see what the majority want to do.

I would like to echo Rich's views and express my sincere thanks for hosting the annual bunfight again and for having put this poll together too, top work mate.👍

[At Sea]

Good idea and thoughtful questions.

I have voted, and fow what it's worth I actually think the 'problem' we have with group builds is too many subjects being proposed and too many participants, which shows people are engaged and enjoying the hobby and the site, which isn't really a problem at all!

GroupBuilds on BritModeller, a victim of it's own success!  🙂 

[vppelt68]

And in the end, we are all heading in the same destination, it´s just the route and means of travel that we argue discuss about. When we´ve got there, everybody is usually happy .

But I haven´t clearly yet said thank you to Enzo Matrix for setting up, constant development and running of the whole GB circus, and Trickyrich for again reporting the bunfight progress to us all. Keep up the good work! V-P

[Hockeyboy76]

I’ve voted and even managed to keep the change fairies in check. Some great ideas, well done the Britmodeller GB Massive. 

 

 

[CraigPCM]

As a newbie until this group build policy discussion  clarified a number of points i was unsure of all the  GB guidelines from just reading the future group build thread ,could an explanation of the future GB workings be put up to enlighten any future newbies when the new format is sorted

Craig

[Enzo the Magnificent]

31 minutes ago, CraigPCM said:

As a newbie until this group build policy discussion  clarified a number of points i was unsure of all the  GB guidelines from just reading the future group build thread ,could an explanation of the future GB workings be put up to enlighten any future newbies when the new format is sorted

Craig

 

 

You're quite right Craig, that is sorely needed.   I'm in the process of tidying up the whole GB area so one the dust has settled I will be adding a number of posts to the FAQ area.