There has been a bit of controversy about the Campaings system on the site since early on. How many campaigns? Official or not? Timetables? Awards or Prizes?

I need your input. And I would like your input directed at me particularly. Please don't post in response to someone elses comments. They have their opinion, and you have yours. I want to hear yours.

Also I have asked staff members not to chime in on this as many of them have already voiced their views and I want to hear yours.

This is your chance.

Thanks,
Jim

I really like the idea of campaigns. I think they are a great way of promoting community and can sometimes get people to branch out and build something that they normally wouldn't.

In regards to awards, I don't particularily care for giving awards or prizes or even judging the entries because it is a bit unfair without some sort of standard judging criteria (popularity of modeler shouldn't count). I've seen really subpar work given high marks and I've also seen people judge their own kits. Besides these problems, it is really hard to judge a kit purely based on pictures. Some people may be spectacular modelers, but not have a great camera and therefore their work doesn't look as good as it should.

Another issue I've had with the campaigns in the past is with rules being bent or broken just to accomodate someone. During the Cold War Campaign a kit was allowed that had nothing to do with the Cold War just because someone wanted to build that kit and participate in the campaign. My thought was that either you build something that fits the parameters of the build or don't participate. It's that simple. Also, along the same lines, if an entry comes in that doesn't fit the parameters of the build it should not be accepted either. The modeler who submits the pictures should be informed that while their submission might be nice and is appreciated, it doens't fit the parameters of the build and isn't being included.

In summary, I like having the campaigns, but I think that the rules agreed upon in the beginning should be stuck to and enforced and I don't think that awards or prizes (other than a campaign ribbon) should be given out.

Thanks.

Hi Jim

It's been sad to see how the campaign debate has caused so much ill-feeling.

I've taken part in 2 campaigns and have really enjoyed them both.

For me, building to a set dead-line has been very important. For the past few years, I've found it almost impossible to actually finish any models, but the extra "pressure" of the Campaigns has been great for my discipline and determination. So far, I've started 2 and finished... 2! (I'm still in a state of shock).

Group builds really don't seem much different to me... it's the encouragement of a shared experience that will benefit me.

The "competition" element of Campaigns doesn't interest me... I'd award Medals for everyone who completes the Campaign. I figure seeing medals may encourage new members to get really involved in the Armorama community.

As regards how many Campaigns or Group Builds... I think it would be nice for anyone, whatever their modelling interest, to be able to join about 3 or 4 per year - but that's only based on my being a slow builder...

All the best

Rowan

Okay,
The first thing I would consider is setting the campaign calendar for the year in January. I think that would eliminate a lot of the "Hey, how about an X campaign?" Take all the submissions for potential campaigns up until the end of November. The committee would then have a month to decide which campaigns should go forward, (based on subject, appeal, potential participation, etc.) and schedule them. The results could be posted in early January and that would be that. I think would serve a couple of purposes, First, anyone whose suggested campaign did not "go official" would then be able to start a group build if they decided to go that route and would know what the status of their suggested campaign right away. As an added benefit people would have time to save up money for that "perfect" kit for the campaign. If a year seems too far ahead to set a schedule maybe biannually, but you know what I mean.
Secondly, I think I would limit the number of campaigns per category to 2 or 3 a year. Three dioramas or armor models a year, six total, is plenty I would think.
Next, I think the ribbons given to all participants and posted on the profile page are fine. Giving an award or a prize opens up too much potential for someone to get their feelings hurt, I think. Anyone who wants get their feelings hurt can go to an IPMS regional
Finally, I think the timing of the campaigns has been fine so far.

Just my opinion, Jim.

Thanks for asking,
Shaun

I like the idea of campaigns and group builds. I think they are good for the site as they generate interest and participation. Personally, I think some of the problems have stemmed from a bit of confusion about the difference between an official campaign and a group build. I am still not sure I know the difference. I think the site should offer as many campaigns as the administrators have the time and patience to handle and approve. A person can choose to participate or not based on their own time and financial committments.

I really want the campaigns to continue. I'm not 100% sure of the difference between "Group Builds" and "Campaigns" but it seems that campaigns are more formal. That's fine with me. I've been in three campaigns, and finished two of them. Based on past performance that's a pretty high ratio for me.

I would say to keep the contest aspect of campaigns also. I have a pretty good idea of my modeling skills and I certainly don't mind loosing to a superior modeler. It adds another level to the campaign and gives me something to shoot for. If I didn't want my work judged I wouldn't put it out for inspection.

I think thought that there should be some happy medium between the low end as far as different campaigns that I've seen suggested, and the number that have been proposed lately. Seems like the Campaign Central is full of "hey, what about...." ideas. I would think that four of any one type might be a happy medium, and to make it easier make them begin and end with the seasons. That would be four armor, four aircraft, four figure, and so on. If there isn't enough interest in one type, say ships, then that's ok.

Finally I think that rules are what make the campaign, and they should be stuck to. For example I plan on being in the "Fun in the Sun" campaign. I happened to disagree with Vlady as to what makes an OOB kit and a modified one but I'm OK with the fact that he's the moderator and he decides what falls under what category. If I felt so strongly about it I wouldn't join the campaign and I'd try to set up my own. If you're going to have rules, and I really think you should, then those rules should apply to everybody, unless there is a consensus that they should be changed, i.e. extending the deadline if needed.

I like the idea of official campaigns. I think they are good for the site and help encourage a sense of community. If we can get a bunch of the people working on the same subject (ie; Barbarossa or CWC) posting tips and helping each other it brings us together and makes it fun for everyone. I wasn't in the last couple campaigns but I always enjoyed reading the campaign updates and like to follow the progress of other members.
As for the frequency of campaigns, I think that if we are going to keep the number down (1 per category per year) then we should have some sort of a vote or survey poll to pick the subject just to make sure there is plenty of interest. But i think that we could manage to support 2 per category per year and maybe an extra one for the more poplar subjects (armor/dios). If they are spaced out over the year you would still only have a few running at the same time.
The awards and prizes aren't needed but the idea of getting a campaign ribbon for participation should encourage newcomers and those of us still learning to get involved without alot of pressure and worrying about "1st prize!"

Jim:
I like the idea of campaigns,it gives me a deadline to strive for. I've entered 2 campaigns SPLASH & the RISEING SUN campaign which hasn't started yet but I can't waite.
I think the idea of 4 or 5 campaigns a year so we can keep up, but as many group builds we want.
As for prizes. Prizes aren't necessary but maybe adding on a bar to the ribbon to the one
that gets the most votes.
:-H

I really feel the campaigns/group builds have added a lot to the site. Just look at all the entries pouring into the armor and rivet forums at the moment. Why not call them all group builds or call them all campiagns. An idea above was to set up a forum where all posts relating to a build could be posted. No need for campaign folders as they are under used and un-noticed. I dont believe in awards ... this adds cost to somebody, but the participating medal is worth a lot more to me .... this cant be bought. Have to agree on the rules issue as well. Moderators may have to enforce some a little harder. Maybe the deadlines should be respected to gain the medal (to properly complete the campaign). If not finished ... just finish at you leísure and post when finished. I think a little more control on the amount of campaigns suggested at one time should be taken into consideration. Its better to have 3 campaigns with nearly all modellers finishing, than 6 with less than half finishing.
I know there has been some debate lately .... and I would like to give Gunnie a pat on the back. hes been stuck in the middle of something that cant please everybody.

Jim,
I like very much the idea of having both campaigns and group builds. What I mean for Campaign is something limited to a specific historical period (i.e. Cold War, Barbarossa Operation, ecc.) and sticking to a precise set of rules. What I mean for Gropu Build is either something organized as a Campaign when it's not possible to have one (I understand that we cannot have an unmanageable amount of Campaigns around and the consequent need to disciplinate them), or something you can take a "little bit easier". I agree with you when you say that's hard to judge having only a set of pics available and the variety of "informatic" tools available to any of us is quite different. On top of that, also having a good or a bad camera does not mean that someone is a good photographer. I cannot figure out a number of Campaigns to carry out during a year, what I can say is to have a manageable number of Camapaigns and ideally any of these should be able to involve the widest number of partecipants (I mean, figures, ships, submarines, armour, flying stuff, etc.) in a way that few events can motivate as much people as possible to get in. For the number of group builds I'd be more flexible in term of numbers. Almost everybody should be able to launch a GB as far as he is commited to carry out the task; as much the subject is interesting as much people can be involved.
Prizes or awards? I have no doubt: awards. This for the following main reasons:
a) the Armorama users base is spread all around the world and the management of the shipping and its costs can be complicated
b) if some money is available for prizes I'd prefer to have it invested in site improvements (it's up to you to decide which)
c) it will be almost impossible to judge properly for the reasons I mentionded before
In conclusion I just repeat what I said today in another thread: my motivation cames from two things:
a) the will of building a nice model to be added to my collection, not from medals, ribbons or prizes
b) the huge amount of hints, tips, tricks and ideas I get from looking at what the others do in a campaign or a group build
Ciao

I think the idea of campaigns and group builds are great. I participated in my first campaign with the recently ended Barbarossa. Any critiques or suggestions I now make are with the full knowledge that you (Jim) and the other staff work very hard with keeping the site up and running and current and up to date.

My main concern was the overlapping campaigns of Barbarossa and Age of Aces. I was working on models for both, but due to time, I had to bow out of Age of Aces.
One of my suggestions would be to schedule campaign dates thoughout the year. Not specific campaign topics- just alloted time that is 'first come,first serve' - one slot to each interest .
Something like-
Jan 1 to March 31
Feb 15 to May 15
April 1 to June 30
June 1 to August 31
July 15 to Oct 15
Sept 1 to November 30
October 1 to Dec 15.
7 date slots would allow each interest (air, armor, figures, warships, sci fi, dioramas) one campaign a year, with an extra campaign up for grabs under a 'most requested' allocation to a particular interest- Or a special campaign to commemorate a special anniversary.
For example - for 2004
Warship campaign 1/1/04 to 3/31/04
Figures campaign 2/15/04 to 5/15/04
Armor campaign 4/1/04 to 6/30/04
Special D-Day campaign 6/6/04 to 8/31/04
Sci Fi campaign 7/15/04 to 10/15/04
Diorama campaign 9/1/04 to 11/30/04
Air campaign 10/1/04 to 12/15/04

This is a suggestion for official campaigns- which I assume are more labor intensive to run and manage. My opinion is that structure would make things a bit more manageable, and fairer- allowing all modelers with different interests to have the opportunity to 'sign-up' for the campaign of their choice (or choices).

As I understand group builds- they are a 'step down' from a campaign- not as official, but still with a timeframe. I would favor keeping the group builds- I assume that they are run by a specific member, and mostly require a folder (sticky?) for posting.

Awards- campaign ribbons are great
Prizes- hmmm, if vendor sponsored, maybe each campaign can award an appropriate prize, selected by random draw from a pool of all members completing the campaign.

My humble opinions,

Peter

Edit-- To qualify for a campaign slot, a proposed campaign must have a minimum number of members (the current 10 maybe- or slightly higher 15 perhaps?)

hi
I like very much the idea of compaigns, but now there are too many ideas about it and the calendar is too full. The scale models are a fantastic hobby, but it's cool if you do with pleasure ,time and relax. I don't like the stressing. I propose only 2 or 3 compaign in one year for type. And before all the compaign is finished it is prohibited to speack about new compaigns...in this mode we can do compaign with pleasure and without stress
regards

I really think the campaigns are a great idea and Is one of the main reasons I joined the site. The group builds are just as much fun and really help motivate as well as educate. More than once I have looked at a photo of a fellow modeler and found myself saying "why didn't I think of that" or " thats how thats done ". I believe that prizes are a distraction and can become counterproductive. A campaign ribbon on the other hand is something that can be worn proudly showing that you served together with a certain group of your friends and shared a common experience. I do think there should be a formal way to submit campaign proposals and that everyone should refrain from calling it a campaign untill it has been deemed offical by the committee

Well for the most part....I would have to agree with most....as to scheduling campaigns....I like the way sphyrna suggested.....the idea could be played with a little as to the order you would want them in...but the base idea is great....schedule the campaigns....don't have them so defined as to what is built....for example....if you had a campaign just for "sherman tanks"....but rather maybe "tanks of the battle of the bulge", leave the sherman tanks for a group build....most of the ones I have been interested in (albeit I haven't completed anything yet...but shame on me), have been the Battle of Britian Campaign....pretty broad, Cold War Campaign...again pretty broad, Naval Aviation and Helicopter Campaigns, (Helicopter being considered as a campaign? or a group build?).

Group builds could be left to stuff that is more specific, or for those ideas that didn't make the "Official Campaign" status.

As far as prizes go....I have no interest at all.....maybe if there is something donated from a vendor....then I agree with another suggestion on here where everyone's name that completed an entry gets entered, and an name is randomly drawn for the prize.....but only one prize per campaign. As well if money was involved...I would just rather it be put back into the site. As far as everyone else that enters a campaign....a simple campaign ribbon for all that enter and complete their entry is fine with me....looks good on the account page.

Maybe Group builds could also get their own page like campaigns do.....just an idea.....but maybe more trouble than its worth. But would be a good way to organize the group builds , that are either too specific...or ideas that just don't make it as an "official campaign", whether due to time contraints or for whatever reason.
Obvioulsy at the same time....group builds would have to be limited as well....we can't have 6-8 campaigns running, and then have an unlimited amount of group builds going as well. But....people are going to have to decide what they really want to do as far as campaigns and group builds...or we are going run into people not managing to finish one, while wanting to start another one....I guess people will have to police themselves for this.

Let face it folks....Jim and the rest of the crowd the keep this site going, are doing so of their own voluntary will, and are by no means getting paid for it....personally I would like to thank all that put their hard work into adding and keeping this site operational. In the past little while I have found that some people....that will remain nameless have been treating some of the moderators as if they were servants and that when they tell them to jump....that the moterators should ask how high? And to me this is unacceptable. Yes we all have been waiting for updates on the campaigns.....but people please....don't berate the campaign moderator(s) on how the campaign docket should be ran....Gunnie hasn't missed a campaign date.....and frankly I can't blame him for getting ticked off at some people.

As well the whole thing that happened with Sabot.....I am not sure of the whole story....whether he is taking a more behind the scenes role by personal choice and time contraints...or by something that was said to him that struck him the wrong way and caused him to make the move that he has....

Either way you slice it.....this site is here by the hard work, sweat and tears by a woefully few people, and through their hard work, all of the rest of us get to enjoy, and learn from others, share our work with others...and occasionally get rewarded by nice comments about our work, and maybe if we are lucky a little ribbon for our account to show off. So I think its time for some people to just chill out and be a little bit.....noooo alot more patient!!!!

(To Jim....sorry for the last little rant....I realize it probably doesn't belong in this thread....but its how I feel, and I think the episodes over the campaigns is what has brought this on.....if you feel you want to delete the little rant....or the whole post.....I wouldn't take offence...)

My 2 cents!!

Damn, damn...damn......,

I promised myself I wouldn't open my my mouth. But, I guess I haven't learned.

The consensus seems to be a resounding " I really like the idea of Campaign's ". So, we pretty much all agree, Campaign's are a 'good' idea, right???? Good. Nuff' said on that.

I am of the impression that this site exists to promote modeling in general,and armour modeling specifically. Right!?! (otherwise the name 'Armorama would be supersilious)

I am also of the impression, that this site (and hopefully it's member's) serve's the purpose of not only supporting existing modeler's, but also sharing talents/techniques, and bringing in 'new blood' as well!?! (something IPMS portends to do...:-( )

Additionally, we all 'tune-in' here to observe other's efforts and support them, as well as learn from all of the 'input' generated by that effort......right? ( Something I'm absolutely sure we all do!)

SO.......Campaign's?...........................................................

Much has been said about both the frequency, and the subject matter of these 'Campaign's'......
This, said, on an INTERNET that essentially encompass's thousand's upon thousand's of differing opinion's!!!!!
Putting a limit of any kind on the amount of Campaign's is limiting to member's who do not find that particular Campaign appealing, either for interest levels, or time involvement.
Likewise, putting a time frame limitation on "how many", "about what", or "only so many 'per' year" is self-serving to someone.
And, finally , the conflict on whether we should all be awarded medals, ribbons, reward's, etc...
The idea of an actual, physical 'award/reward' is superfluous. It is my opinion that the majority of Armorama members get their 'reward' from the comaraderie that they are able to generate by their participation, and the lessons both learned and shared by that participation.
In case the point is being missed....this is a 'win/win' situation.

Now, much has been said about the 'Rules'. Yeah, I know, rules really suckwind.....did ya get that you censor's?? #:-). But rules are needed for both conformity (parameters), and participatory equality (friendship). This might be a bit of a hard swallow for some of us, but, to be honest, I can't think of a more balanced crowd!

So, in closing (I know you're all happy about this!), my Farthing's worth is;

1) Allow as many 'Campaign's' as the members require to maintain both an interest level, and a personal 'comfort' level (this is different for each of us).
2) Apply fairly strict rules for involvement (I won't go into the 'further reaching' thingies here)
3) Issue only a Campaign ribbon/symbol to reward/elevate their significant involvement of both time and application of spirit (ala' Boy Scout's/H.S./ College/Military Service designs)
4) Assign someone (possibly the 'flag planter' of this particular Campaign) as Chief 'Honcho' and ramrod of the Campaign. This with the implicit knowledge of both the 'Moderator', in this case Gunnie, and our fearless leader, Jim.

O.K.........I'm done. I'll put my soapbox away under the counter till next time

Thx All,

Tread.

OH! BTW (you all thought I was finished huh?), Something needs to be said about Gunnie's involvement here....

I recently read a thread (a very lengthy thread) about participation in a Helo Campaign. Just Loved the idea (being an old Helo driver and all) There was all kinds of input, people were giving all kinds of suggestions, member's were getting all excited and being typical great Armorama members, until................. What is it with people? Are we all still embracing the ancient 'pecking order' strut!?!
Without getting anymore specific, our friend and mentor 'Gunnie', was operating as the moderator of said thread. He was performing absolutely admirally , doing what a good professional does, moderate all the input....when unfortunately some 'pecking order' [edited] decided to try his hand at 'calling bluff'.....ya know what? Gunnie, in his usual professional, mature, and friendly/supportive manner, laid it out for the thread!

Bottom line.......the participant's (potential) suffered for it.....including me.

Sounded like a really good idea....

Jim, this is going to hurt!!!! Campaigns are good, but the current campaigns are not more than a over glorified group build! I say this because even my own campaign for Naval Aviation is going in that direction. A definite schedule is needed, and the ideas can still be generated by the members. However, some specific work needs to be done by the council on when it starts and stops. I.E. Gunnie or someone else decides the dates. Next how about getting a sponsor or 2 for the campaigns. It works for the shops/companies in "free advertising" plus we set the campains apart by giving prizes!!!
On Group builds a seperate forum will nice, and then we can work from there. I say one or 2 guys working that side, to make sure everyone gets a fair shake. I'll think I'll stop there. STUG

I love the campaigns, however as Stug said most are little more than glorified group builds.

To me a Campaign should be more of an undertaking. If we made them more difficult people may not want more than a couple a year and will make completing them more of an accomplishment.

My humble suggestion would be to make a requirement that would seperate the hackers from the modelers on the campaigns. Like the 'Splash' campaign had to have water in it somewhere. Perhaps the requirement that the entry must depict a scene of some kind instead of just building a model. That idea would pretty much turn all campaigns into Dio campaigns but they could have their own focus. Something like that would make finishing a campaign more of an accomplishment.

Here are my thoughts on the subject.

1. I love campaigns... great motivational tools to get me to actually finish what I start. I just completed my Barbarossa entry and am tickled pink at how I feel it turned out. Sure there was a little bit of pressure at the end to get the thing done - but FUN!

2. Group builds just aren't the same to me... still fun, but there isn't that little "extra". I like the added structure of a campaign and all its rules. I like the campaign subject limitations. Barbarossa forced me to actually think about and build a vehicle that I would not have picked out from my pile, were it not for the campaign. The Under the Sun group build has me picking a model that I would not otherwise build, but this is an exception to the rule. If someone were to start a "Sherman" group build, I would probably not participate, because I don't have any Sherman kits.... However, if a campaign featuring armor in the Pacific were to be launched - I'd definately participate, and depending upon the rules, would probably do a sherman.... I think the campaign page with my name on the "roster" of participants gives me motivation to expand my horizons... Heck, I might build a helocopter or a Japanese plane, just for the fun of participation.

3. Rules - Gotta have them, AND enforce them. There is NO POINT in even setting up these campaigns if the scope is not defined. Why not just have everybody build anything they want and submit that.... you know - the "I built a model campaign". If the campaign rules say that the vehicle must have served in a particular conflict or theatre - that is that.... If you don't want to build a kit in that category - don't join the campaign.

4. Prizes... ribbons are plenty for me. I don't need to have my model "voted" on or anything. When I am seeking comments, I just post to the RRB - plenty of people help me out and give feedback.... that is all I am after.

I think that the campaign folders are not very utilized.... they are probably more work than they are worth.... however I DO like the idea of seeing the "roster" of participants. I can see who else is undertaking the same project. Perhaps instead of using the folders, you could have the sign up roster, along with each participants planned entry.... you know like:
Operation Barbarossa-
jrnelson - StuG IIIA
Phinneas Poobottom - Russian Harlot with lamp post (1/35th scale)
Mucksuck Smellmuch - X model KV tank
Conan the Barbarian - German War Club (version C)
etc.....
that way we would all have an idea of each other participant's subject, yet you wouln't have to set up all of those folders.

I totally agree with the suggestion that the campaign docket should be set WELL in advance (based on user input) and that should be it...... I feel that if I knew EXACTLY what campaigns were coming up, I would build someting to fit each one. Right now, I don't want to participate in a campaign that isn't necessarily my "cup of tea" because I don't know what else is "right around the corner". I am doing the Under the Sun thing... I love WWII armor, that is an easy one. I am also doing the trench campaign... same deal. I would like to build a helo, or a Japanese plane, but don't want to commit because I've heard rumors of a half-track campaign. I don't want to be spread too thin. If there was an absolute FIXED schedule.... and there was not going to be a half-track campaign.... I'd do a plane, or helo......

Thanks for taking the time to read this rambling diatribe... I hope I made sense..

Jeff

I am all for the campaigns/group-builds. However, the problem seems to be the grey-line which seperates the two entities. Perhaps the campaigns could be more formal, the group builds organised within sections. I like the competitive aspect of it although taking part should be enough, I like the campaign medal, I don't like the idea of a prize....

there is also an aspect to the campaigns which perhaps should represent all the various 'disciplines' on the site, in this we are talking about Aviation, Armor, Figures, Warships, science fiction. If I have left anyone out I apologise... Perhaps one way of doing this is to strengthen each separate group. Trouble is that this creates a kind of commitee within committee system which could get rapidly unworkable... I think a lot of the problems have come to the surface due to the site getting so big (and it will get bigger). Perhaps the problem is more structural than anything.....

A unified calendar is the only way forward. A maximum of 4 campaigns a year is the only possibility at the moment. So many people have interests which overlap, any more would be unworkable. Perhaps it would be useful to put up a forum only for campaign/ group-build ideas, each idea would have to be coherently presented and a decision taken by the administrators on the viability of each one. Sometimes the ideas can be just too general, this has to be firmed-up.

Would another way of helping the site not be an "entry-fee" for the campaigns? Perhaps $10 per entrant could be a good way of raising money... After all, in model shows this is frequently used to recoup costs... I don't think this is going to go down too well

Jim

My turn....
Campaigns shoulds stay, bottom line. Group builds should stay too.
The two to me are different. What sets them apart are rules and ribbons. I believe that a Campaign should have rules that are adhered to and monitored. With that said, there must be 'someone' to monitor each campaign. Here in lies the biggest problem (in my view). I am NOT knocking or in any way deminishing ANY of the admin on this site (quite the contrary - this site is the best most fairly administered site I have seen). To have a campaigns with rules and monitors requires people both at the campaign level and the site level. WIth this in mind I see a need to limit the number of campaigns per year. I like the previously mentioned schedules etc.
I like the idea of a Campaign Committe that reviews the ideas and sets a schedule. Personally, I have enough projects that I can and DO look a year out and start planning and researching so the 'dead' time from idea to start date is not a problem (Just look at the interest and support Market Garden has already gotten and its a year away).
A group build should be just that a group of like minded people who want to share building a common theme. You have someone who tosses out an idea gathers interest and off you go. Fewer rules, no ribbons, less site overhead. These can fill any voids or help with certain techniques to support campaigns.
I'm going to wrap it up with
Campaigns

• Revolves around Rules - concept, enlistment, xfactor
  
• Start and End Dates
  
• Leader
  
• Site support (campaign page)
  
• Ribbon
  

Group Builds

• revolves around a theme - loose idea, loose/no rules
  
• sponsor
  
• No site support other than RRB
  
• No ribbon
  

HI


I managed to lose a long rambling message on this topic a few minutes ago. Probably for the best.
I think Slodder's message is a good starting point for discussion.

My opinion, FWIW, is that Campaigns should serve as a formal mechanism of some kind. That is, they are online contests. People can have ribbons and whatever else they want. My opinion is that one's photography skills affect the judging as much as anything else (or the ability to use Photoshop...). And I'm really not interested in this aspect of the site.

I like the idea of informal group builds. Some modellers decide to work on a kit together, sharing tips along the way, and then share the outcome and comments. The release of a new kit, or discussion stemming from a query in a Forum are the impetus. The more rules the worse things will be, in my opinion. These group builds can exist in the forums or in the RRB as they do already. That side of things is more my interest.

Lately I've seen so many calls for campaigns I don't even read them any more. I'm not interested in contests, ribbons etc. I'm interested in getting better representations of history in miniature and relaxing with an interesting hobby. I think Armorama can fill both roles.

Cheers
Andy

I feel that both campaigns and group builds are essential to the site. I personally have done more modeling in the last year because of the campaigns. The hard part is deciding how much is too much.

I think that quarterly campaigns would work. As someone else said, all interested can submit ideas with an October 31 deadline. The campaign committee could have the month of November to decide which campaigns will be held. A calander for the upcoming year's events would be released in December allowing those interested to purchase what may be needed for the first campaign.

I think four campaigns in each category is plenty for a year. Armor, Aircraft, Figures, Sci/Fi, Ships, Dioramas, and a special "Campaign Committee Category". The latter could be whatever you guys think would be fun to see, dinosaurs, red bicycles, whatever. That would give you three months to work on whichever campaigns you want. One or all, it should be up to you, if you can complete them, build on.

The similarities in campaigns and group builds would be time frame and subject. The big difference is ribbons awarded to participants and a board for campaigns. The '"x" factor is also a thing which signifies a campaign.

You guys have done a wonderful job thus far, so the fact that you open this up to the peanut gallery for their ideas shows why I love this site.

Patrick

I am at best a mediocre (paint and weather wise) modeller at this stage, but improving slowly. Armorama and especially the CWCO got me back into modelling.

Well following the wise words of me (he was English) old father, “Prove your convictions”, convictions meaning both sincerity and principles. I have this to say; many enter campaigns and few complete them. I try as hard as possible to complete what I sign up for, purely because someone else is putting in extra time for me.

If we expect prizes and a fanfare fine, make group builds what campaigns are at the moment, that is:

Give a ribbon
Let a ‘senior’ modeller be in charge with support from an Armorama ‘staffer’
Give guidelines / rules
Encourage more of them
Anybody can enter, finish or not
No prizes, just ribbons / awards for those who complete the build

Then establish a Campaign section:
Run by an Armorama ‘staffer’ and supported by ‘senior’ modellers
Strict rules
Limit campaigns to a few per category per year
A nominal entry fee (If you are paying for it, you will finish it and can contibute to prizes)
Prizes (from sponsors?) for the top three and medals (not ribbons) / awards for those who complete the campaign

Example: Ideas should be submitted for campaigns. These ideas should then be voted upon, the successful ones become campaigns. Group builds will be less strict, basically as campaigns are now; Idea is entered in the Group Build forum, when there are ten agreed users it is elevated to a Group Build with one of the agreeing users as the leader.

Just an idea! I really do enjoy both the Group Builds and the Campaigns and hopefully one day I will be able to compete for the top awards.