General Discussion

[McColm]

No propellers, whatabout rotors?

You cannot view this attachment.

That's allowed along with unmanned probes or other planetary vehicles

[McColm]

The Philadephia Experiment throws up a few possibilities,  HMS Belfast as a spaceship could be interesting or even a submarine.

[Steel Penguin]

something along the lines of space battleship Yamato... 
this is starting to draw me more and more,
my long proposed deep range explorer, i think would be illegible due to the main part being the guts of an ISS that ive built and then taken to pods and parts.
that and my mojo is all over the place..

[NARSES2]

Question.  Is this or is this not Science Fiction GB ? Because if it is then it's not what I thought was intended.

Please see my last comment in the Rules thread.

[kitbasher]

Question.  Is this or is this not Science Fiction GB ? Because if it is then it's not what I thought was intended.

Please see my last comment in the Rules thread.

I'm also very confused by the scope of this GB.  I thought I did understand what it was about but not any more.

Is the 'outer space' scope limited to exploration of our solar system or does it go beyond (in every sense!)?

Mention has already been made of the Karman Line, I think this is an important marker and I think should be considered for incorporation into the rules.  I only say this as it has in the so-called 'Real World' been a major factor when developing global regulatory material governing 'new entrants' in aviation.  Why?  Because of a) the impact of space vehicle launches on aviation, and b) deciding when a very high altitude aerial vehicle becomes a space vehicle.

My two penn'orth.  Not meant to upset anyone.

[Weaver]

A general observation, not related to the specific points of discussion re this GB:

The kind of confusion we see here is a result of trying to expand and dilute specific, narrowly-focussed GB proposals to be more "inclusive", in the name of getting as much participation as possible. This may be a laudable goal in principle, but if you go too far with it, the GB scope becomes less meaningful the closer it approaches "build anything you want".

For example (and I'm not blowing my own trumpet here, it's just the example I'm most familar with), I've repeatedly suggested a "James Bond GB". I think this is a good idea because 1) everybody understands the style and a nature of stuff that you get in a James Bond movie, but 2) it encompasses all sorts of sea, land, air and space vehicles, as well as dioramas and even props, so there's huge scope for just about every modelling taste. However the frequent responses are along the lines of, "well why don't we make it any kind of spy movie?" followed by, "well let's merge it with the 'Anything From The Movies' GB", and the result is a GB featuring anything from a Swordfish that appeared in the maker's what-if remake of Sink The Bismark, to a laser-armed space-fighter from the novel it's maker thinks should have been filmed but never was. Are any of these bad models? No, they're not, but if the point of the exercise is produce a collection of models around a "theme", then the theme has to be discernable in the resulting models, otherwise it's just "build anything you want".

I think it's also worth pointing out that since a hard-and-fast rule is that the model must be a What-If, that already broadens the scope massively, even if the stated scope is quite focussed. For example, if you have a real-world "Central America GB" and somebody wants to build a space rocket, then they can't, because real world Central American states have neither the money nor the tech base to launch space rockets. However, if you have a What-If "Central America GB", then the participant can just re-write the history and politics of the region to make, say, El Salvador a Singapore-like success story, and then they can have their space rockets.

To summarise: I think there's a tendency on here to avoid or dilute highly-specific GB proposals, but then to get frustrated with the confusion about scope that inevitably results from vague and "wishy-washy" GBs. You can't have it both ways.

[kitbasher]

Fair points all, H.  There's a balance to be struck (of course) between GB focus and encouraging participation.

So that needs to be borne in mind when proposing themes - avoid extremely 'niche' topics (yeah okay define 'extremely 'niche''), consider the participation aspect.

Also help Chris (or whoever may be sorting out the annual GB programme) by including a summary description of the intent/scope of the proposed GB.  Most folk actually do that already, but some (and I've been guilty of this myself) assume a title is enough.  Sometimes it is, sometimes not, so descriptions should be added.

There, I've slapped my own wrist, so I'll shut up now.

[PR19_Kit]

There, I've slapped my own wrist, so I'll shut up now.

Hod do you do that, and still type that you HAVE done it Dave? 

Do you have three arms?

[kitbasher]

There, I've slapped my own wrist, so I'll shut up now.

Hod do you do that, and still type that you HAVE done it Dave? 

Do you have three arms?

I typed, then slapped my wrist and then finished typing!

[PR19_Kit]

Very clever, I should have thought as much from an RAF man. 

[McColm]

If we just stick with spacecraft, spaceplanes and planetary exploration vehicles then all the bases are covered.
The Mods are still in the discussion stage of whether or not to amend the rules, their final decision will be published before the start date.

[zenrat]

Fair points all, H.  There's a balance to be struck (of course) between GB focus and encouraging participation.

So that needs to be borne in mind when proposing themes - avoid extremely 'niche' topics (yeah okay define 'extremely 'niche''), consider the participation aspect.

Also help Chris (or whoever may be sorting out the annual GB programme) by including a summary description of the intent/scope of the proposed GB.  Most folk actually do that already, but some (and I've been guilty of this myself) assume a title is enough.  Sometimes it is, sometimes not, so descriptions should be added.

There, I've slapped my own wrist, so I'll shut up now.

Of course (pointing no fingers and not meaning this GB specifically) sometimes the mods take someone else's idea and run with it in a direction it hadn't been intended to go.

Again generally and pointing no fingers,  WRT GBs if the mods state something is specifically banned (propellors, post office trucks, red hats etc) then it needs to be written into the rules.

[McColm]

Fair points all, H.  There's a balance to be struck (of course) between GB focus and encouraging participation.

So that needs to be borne in mind when proposing themes - avoid extremely 'niche' topics (yeah okay define 'extremely 'niche''), consider the participation aspect.

Also help Chris (or whoever may be sorting out the annual GB programme) by including a summary description of the intent/scope of the proposed GB.  Most folk actually do that already, but some (and I've been guilty of this myself) assume a title is enough.  Sometimes it is, sometimes not, so descriptions should be added.

There, I've slapped my own wrist, so I'll shut up now.

Of course (pointing no fingers and not meaning this GB specifically) sometimes the mods take someone else's idea and run with it in a direction it hadn't been intended to go.

Again generally and pointing no fingers,  WRT GBs if the mods state something is specifically banned (propellors, post office trucks, red hats etc) then it needs to be written into the rules.

I made that mistake thinking it was the right thing to do, Looks like I'll be overruled so just have to wait patiently for the revised rules to be published when Chris returns from his holiday .

[Weaver]

Fair points all, H.  There's a balance to be struck (of course) between GB focus and encouraging participation.

So that needs to be borne in mind when proposing themes - avoid extremely 'niche' topics (yeah okay define 'extremely 'niche''), consider the participation aspect.

Also help Chris (or whoever may be sorting out the annual GB programme) by including a summary description of the intent/scope of the proposed GB.  Most folk actually do that already, but some (and I've been guilty of this myself) assume a title is enough.  Sometimes it is, sometimes not, so descriptions should be added.

There, I've slapped my own wrist, so I'll shut up now.

Cheers. 

A problem with descriptions, which are indeed VERY useful to understanding the intent of a GB, is that of neccessity they get dropped when a poll is compiled. The poll can't really be anything other than a list of two-line (at most) descriptions, with a link that not everybody will click.

This was vividly brought home to me many years ago when a suggestion of mine for a Gunships GB was accepted over on BTS. I couldn't have made it clearer in the description that the GB was specifically for fixed-wing aircraft with off-axis firing gun batteries, that is to say AC-130 Spectre-style "gunships", but of course it only appeared in the poll as "The Gunships GB". A bunch of people who obviously hadn't read my description then tried to enter helicopter gunships and A-26 Invader-style aircraft with batteries of forwards firing guns, and when I, as moderator, pointed out that they were out of scope, they got angry and complained that they'd been conned into voting for the GB because this was the model they'd always intended to enter. IIRC it got near zero participation as a result.

My two-penn'th is that we need three threads to manage this:

1. An open "Call For GB Ideas" thread when people can make, and comment on, suggestions for new GBs.

2. A LOCKED "List Of Provisional GB Proposals" thread where the moderator puts each originator's summary after the deadline for new ideas has expired. The thread is locked so that it's crystal clear what the proposal is from ONE post: people don't have to plough through pages of debate to figure out what it actually means.
If originators don't agree with the summary, they can submit a new one to the Moderator.
The Moderator should NOT combine or modify proposals: the voting members can see for themselves if two proposals are almost identical or subtly different.
If two proposals are almost identical, then that should be hashed out in the "Call For GB Ideas" thread, guided by the moderator, BEFORE the "List Of Provisional GB Porposals" thread is compiled.
The Moderator SHOULD reserve the right to reject proposals which the originator does not provide an adequate or clear explanation (at least a paragraph) for.

3. An open "GB Poll" thread with links in the poll to the relevent posts on the "List of Provisional GBs Proposals" thread. If it takes multiple rounds of voting to reach a decision, then so be it.

[NARSES2]

I'm giving up on this, and yes I am taking some of it personaly.

Do you know how much time I spend moderating this site, and trying to make it as inclusive as possible ? I also have a fairly active social life. Yes it would be far, far easier if I simply laid down tthe law as far as GB rules go but I don't. Maybe, assuming I bother to organiise next years Poll, and Weaver's suggestion would mean a lot of work for me, then we simply stipulate that if a members suggestion is accepted they have to Modderate it and help sort the rules ?

Enough said, of to breakfast in a very nice hotel in Brussels.

Chris