Proposed Rules - Discussion

[NARSES2]

Right here are the proposed rules for the “In the Navy” GB. These are purely here for discussion at the moment and I will publish the finalised ones in due course.

Other than the specifics they are the same as last year so shouldn't cause a problem ? Famous last words  

1.  Group Build runs from 00.01 Wednesday 1st June 2016 to 24:00 Wednesday 31st August (all times GMT).  If people would rather run Friday to a Sunday then let me know.

2)  Now I understand “In the Navy” to mean any naval subject, so ships, boats, submarines, naval aircraft and Marine forces where they are part of a Navy. Does not need to be at sea, you could have riverine and lake based as well. Plus having just re-read E.E. Doc Smiths Skylark series I’m reminded there are numerous watery planets in Sci Fi. Note that naval vehicles can be included in the scope of this build, so if you wish to play with an Amtrack, play with it.

Now I understand this could be a little contentious, however I do think it’s unfair to tighten the rules of a G.B. after the vote has been held. This is why I’m also very firm in my view that the other poll winners cannot have their definitions changed now. If we want tight GB’s then the poll needs to be clear. I for one like them loose, but not ridiculously so, so as to encourage maximum participation.

3)  You may build, draw or write as many entries as you like (good luck!).  The posting of in-progress pictures is encouraged as always.  Back stories - however long or short - win extra points.  Well OK they don't but they're always nice to see.

4)  "Preparation" work is allowed prior to the start of the GB - this includes the cutting out and cleaning up of parts, even printing your own decals (!), but anything involving paint or glue is not allowed.  

5)  Part-started models will be considered by the moderators. You should explain what you have done or post pics (even better) and they will decide, their decision being final - we are relying on the honour of our membership to uphold this rule.

6)  No rule 6 - is there ever a rule 6 ?
 
7)  The GB is to be conducted in the true Olympian spirit - it's not the winning but the taking part.  Coming top of the pile (or is that stash?) does add to the enjoyment though and the winner will receive a hand-crafted illuminated scroll prepared by the monks of Lindisfarne .  In the event of a tie there will not be a 'whif-off', the honours will be shared.

I will be in touch with prospective moderators over the weekend.

Chris

[Gondor]

With regard to your E.E. Doc Smith reference to Water worlds would "Space Navy" be applicable as "Navy" or is the term "Navy" for this Group Build only "Wet" navy?

Probably not taking part though I can think of one build for this but I can see that someone will have to ask the above question.

Gondor

[NARSES2]

In my view the subject needs to "wet navy".

[Old Wombat]

In my view the subject needs to "wet navy".

Fine by me!

[PR19_Kit]

I'm pleased to se the return of a 'proper' Rule 6. 

[Librarian]

I'll draw attention to Shirow's 'dry navy' in Tank Police....undersand submarines etc .

Just go out and read anything by Shirow

[Weaver]

Re these two:

4)  "Preparation" work is allowed prior to the start of the GB - this includes the cutting out and cleaning up of parts, even printing your own decals (!), but anything involving paint or glue is not allowed.

5)  Part-started models are not allowed - we are relying on the honour of our membership to uphold this rule.

I can understand banning part-started models for something like the One Week GB where a few hour's work done in advance constitutes a significant advantage, but it seems a little harsh in the context of a three-month GB. It's been normal practice to say that pre-started models should be submitted to the mods for approval before being entered, and the mods can then decide on a case-by-case basis. That's how we did the Cold War GB that's just finished.

[ysi_maniac]

^^^^^
I agree with Weaver.

[sandiego89]

I think the proposed rules look great.  As from my earlier discussion I tend to prefer things a little tighter, to keep somewhat of a theme spirit, but am fine with Marine entries if folks are so inclined.   

I prefer "wet"-  no sci-fi or steampunk "Navies"

I would prefer no pre-started entires, but Weavers suggestion to allow a submission to the mods seems reasonable if someone really has something minimally started they want to submit- no re-sprays/re-works.

2) does not specifically mention Navy "vehicles" but I would say yes (wheeled/tracked vehicles, trucks, SEAL dune buggies...)

-Dave

[NARSES2]

I can understand banning part-started models for something like the One Week GB where a few hour's work done in advance constitutes a significant advantage, but it seems a little harsh in the context of a three-month GB. It's been normal practice to say that pre-started models should be submitted to the mods for approval before being entered, and the mods can then decide on a case-by-case basis. That's how we did the Cold War GB that's just finished.

Noted and draft amended. The kit I have in mind has actually had it's deck cut in two so I would have needed to have asked anyway.

2) does not specifically mention Navy "vehicles" but I would say yes (wheeled/tracked vehicles, trucks, SEAL dune buggies...)

-Dave

Noted and I've made the draft rules clearer I hope

[Old Wombat]

Hmm!? The amendments open up the possibility of me holding off on further work on my RAM F6F in the hope that it's not too far along the road & trying for 2 entries.

[Knightflyer]

Would an aircraft flying for the Fleet Requirements and Air Direction Unit (FRADU) count ?

[Nick]

I support the idea of allowing part-started kits as I have too many half-built waiting for a reason to finish them and this GB would be a good motivator. Of course this would be down to the moderators discretion.

[Dizzyfugu]

Would an aircraft flying for the Fleet Requirements and Air Direction Unit (FRADU) count ?

I'm no moderator, but IMHO: yes, with appropriate details.

I'd also allow part-started kits/projects, after approval, though. A GB is always a good motivation to finish things off, this should be supported.

Generally, I'd vote for a wide topic interpretation, at least in this case - as long as the subject shows distinctive signs of naval and military usaga or purpose. A FRADU test aircraft would fall into this category, as well as naval mecha (that could open a window for a project I started many years ago - there's a started diorama base staring at me from the display shelvem but the kit to go into it was never started, even though it rests in the pile and catches dust...).

Other GBs like a "F-105 GB" can be tighter and more precise, but "In the Navy" stirs imagination and opens a wider field of creativity.

Just my 2 cents, though... 

[zenrat]

Firstly, I would prefer Space Navy to be allowed.  Although if it isn't it'll only need a change in the decals.  But I feel to have to do so would leave my build aesthetically challenged.  The proposal was "in the navy" not "in the wet navy" or "messing around in boats".
Secondly, please drop the reference to the olympic spirit as I feel it sullies the good name of GBs lowering them to the realms of back handers and performance enhancing substances.
Thirdly, I don't think I should have had that second glass of port.