Rewarding Results or Efforts?

Some time ago I wrote a bit about why we have contests at model shows. It was a self-reflective piece as well as a commentary on current events. I’ll admit: I was probably a little too honest. And given some of the reactions it got on the socials, my theory as to why people participate in model contests may have cut a little too close to home for some. Before the discussions devolved to the European contest experience (and yes, I took lumps for my lazy assumptions from my happy-go-lucky European fans), there was a considerable number of people who swore up and down that they didn’t care about contest results. They most certainly did not participate in contests for validation or to chase clout! Oh no, they only go ‘to participate’ or ‘to support the show’ or ‘to give and share’ or [insert another socially acceptable rationale here]. 

Yeah, no. I’m not buying it. 

Given the several waves of commentary following the 2023 IPMS Nationals in Texas, I’d say there are a great many who very much care about the contest. Most importantly, I’d even say they really care about results and how the winners are determined. Not only that, a great many care about how the contest is run, the standards that are applied, and the level of experience and the behavior of the judges. They also believe that contest rules need to be changed. 

But what rules need to be changed? 

And here is where I am simply not getting it. While there is considerable support for ‘changing’ the contest rules, what particular rules or what specific changes are never clear. Don’t get me wrong, it would be ridiculous to assume that IPMS or AMPS or any contest-oriented organization has created the perfect set of rules. If that is the central issue; that the organization simply refuses to discuss ANY rule change, then these modelers have a point. 

But I think there is more to it.

Within all this chatter there is often the assertion that the Gold-Silver-Bronze (or Open) format is “better” and should be universally adopted over the IPMS 1-2-3 system. This is usually mixed with discussions about the possibilities of ‘mediocre’ models winning thinly populated categories and whether the ‘level of effort’ should get more consideration when evaluating a completed model. After all, some have argued, some kits just fall together while others are real dragons that need to be slayed. And if you can get those dragons anywhere close to presentable, then maybe you should reap some form of reward, recognition, cash prize, or get an IPMS chapter named after you.

A focus on scope of effort was mistakenly put into practice at the last IMPS Nationals show. ‘Chris In Scale’ Chris detailed this event, complete with receipts. The head judge ultimately revised the category winners after the category judges submitted their judging sheet. Prior to doing this, the head judge wanted to know why a specific entry did not place in the top three. He then “dismissed some defects in that entry, arguing that the “scope of effort” should elevate it to award-winning status over other kits in the category.”

Now, that is an interesting thing to say. Let’s see… scope of effort…. scope of effort…. AH! There it is: IPMS Nationals Rules, Part II Section A:

“Judging: Models will be judged for skill in construction, finish, realism, and scope of effort;…”

The IPMS Nationals contest rules do not define these terms and there is no further guidance to suggest anything beyond a plain language meaning. So, I should be safe to assume that all four skill areas are to be considered. However, I would not assume there is an equal weighting or value for each of the four skill components. And I would not assume that a model must simultaneously demonstrate all of these skill areas. In other words, no single skill area is more important than the others and the lack of a demonstrated skill is not fatal to the evaluation of the model.

So, why did that head judge ignore the published rules to the point of overruling the opinions of the other judges? Well, as I stated above, he isn’t the first one to be hung up on the ‘scope of effort’ hook. A while ago this was brought up on the On the Bench podcast, (I can’t remember which episode). Ian (one of the hosts), believed that the level of effort should be given additional or heightened consideration when judges evaluate the entry. However, another host, Julian, was of the firm belief that only the end result should be judged, not the level of effort needed to get there.

Unfortunately, they ended the discussion at that point. I say this because they were at the start of a discussion about the pursuit of a universal truth. Perhaps the OTB boys didn’t realize they stumbled onto the threshold of a classic modernism vs. post-modernism discussion. But I do think they missed out on an opportunity to take this down a deeper philosophical path.

So, let’s do that now.

Post-Modernism and scale models? Hold onto your hats, kids!

Let’s set aside the very obvious subjectivity problem with the ‘scope of effort’ argument. After all, what someone like Paul Budzik considers to be a basic scratching-building skill would be very difficult for me.

The scope of effort argument is simply an argument for rewarding work. This is a modernist argument. In modernism, any worthwhile result must derive from effort, work, or experience. Also, the amount of value placed on any result, endeavor, or creation is directly linked to how much effort or work went into achieving it. Of course, the inverse is true as well. Anything achieved without work and sacrifice is simply not worth as much, or anything at all.

My parents held modernist views. I think most parents do. They said, “If you work really hard and apply yourself, you will succeed.” This usually meant that if I studied really hard, and avoided my friends and video games (all of which is definitely effort for a teen), then an ‘A’ would come. It’s sound logic. I remember doing those things and getting an A. And my efforts were celebrated; lauded even.

I also remember the time I pulled an A out of my butt. I played all of the video games and I spent all my time with my friends. I was woefully unprepared but I lucked out on the exam and some healthy bell curving got me another ‘A’. Now, it may have been the same letter grade, but for some reason, this ‘A’ wasn’t celebrated like the other ‘A’.

Hold that thought for a minute.

The post-modernist view rejects Puritan notions like “work” and “effort”. When post-modernism considers creative endeavors, there is no “high” or “low” art. All art, endeavors, and creations are the same regardless of the effort, technique, school, or materials that are put into them. In other words, to the post-modernist, the result speaks for itself. To OTB Julian’s point: if one model is objectively better than the other one, who cares how much work went into it?

To many, this idea of rejecting the value of work is not easy. Remember my parents who tried to manage my struggle for good grades? We all know why that lucky ‘A’ didn’t get me pizza and cake. Rejecting the value of work is an uncomfortable idea.

And no one explains why this discomfort exists better than Mr. Regular over at Regular Car Reviews. His example of the two comedians illustrates it perfectly: Comedian A spends 30 years perfecting his craft performing in all sorts of seedy clubs, touring on the road for months at a time, appearing on countless talk shows, and staying at every dank Super8 motel. After all that work, effort, and experience, Comedian A has garnered a massive following which results in getting a network TV show. Now compare that with Comedian B, the millennial who spends a few months uploading Tiktoks of his jokes that end up going super viral. His videos garner an even more massive following. And a network offers a show to Comedian B as well.

While both comedians have made it to the big leagues, the modernist view would celebrate Comedian A’s results while rejecting the success of the Tiktok star. The post-modernist view would see them as equals because they both got to the top of their professions.

Except that one of those views doesn’t feel right. Or, as Mr. Regular asks in the video: ‘That hardly seems fair, does it?’

In the context of model contests, it is very possible that a model built out of the box over a couple weekends with a simple finish can best a model that has been researched, scratch-built, and finished over countless months. While OTB’s in-house post-modernist thinks the results should always speak for themselves. Some may think such a result is unfair.

Maybe this unfairness has led to those calls for rule changes.

GSB: A backlash against the Post-Modernist view 

One of the many arguments in favor of GSB, is that the model is judged against a standard and not against other models that happen to be placed on the table that morning. Instead of narrowing the competitive field by looking for things like construction or finishing flaws, judges will be evaluating the model against a list of criteria with a corresponding point system. The more points the model receives, the higher the award it will get.

If we take a look at the AMPS judging criteria as an example of a GSB evaluation standard, we see that points are awarded for various construction and finishing items. Of course, there is some subjectivity on the part of the judges in how many points each sub-item is awarded on a given entry. However, it doesn’t take too long to figure out this is very much an exercise in awarding points for effort. Especially considering there are points awarded for ‘degree of difficulty’.

Those advocating for GSB may cite any number of reasons for their preference but I think it all comes down to rewarding the effort over the result. Under this system, the 1000-hour scratch-built masterpiece will not be ignored in favor of some flashy eye candy. All that work will earn more points and get the builder the recognition he or she deserves.

And the eye candy? While its looks might turn heads and create buzz, those looks weren’t properly earned. So, there will be no pizza and cake.

Under GSB all might be ‘fair’ but is this the ideal place we want to be? I am not so sure. Maybe the GSB system will ensure that mediocre models never place first in a category. But doesn’t this also ensure that a simply-built head-turner is punished? Won’t this all devolve into a form of box-checking to ensure the sweetest desserts for scale model masochists?

I acknowledge that no system guarantees perfect results. Judges can sometimes get it wrong. But I kinda like the idea that someone can hit one out of the park on their first swing and every model on the table has a chance to get the highest recognition.

Last Thing

What I find interesting about this modernist/post modernist clash is that one can start to see that both views can make sense at the same time. Usually I end up arguing against myself. Take 3D printed models for example. Let’s forget the pro/con 3D printing arguments for a moment. Instead, let’s assume a 3D model builder only printed a model, finished it, and placed it on the contest table. All the other entries are regular kits that may have taken months to tame and build and get just right. Now consider the 3D print was set up in minutes and perfectly shot out by the machine.

Do the results speak for themselves now?