"To GB, or not to GB?"

[DerekF]

Your list of GB's from other sites I don't see what they have to do with what happens on here, and from the ones you've listed they're so restricted that it would be counter productive.

Everybody's favourite - Airfix only
Big scale GB - 1/32 and above
OOB - no aftermarket - as it comes out of the box
What you've seen this at airshows or whatever - backed up with a photo of your subject.

Restrictive? Seriously? They are ideas that we could use and are similar to those used elsewhere . That's all. I chose them because they are about as open as it gets. It is about encouraging others into the modelling fold and make it fun rather than make it into some sort of exclusive club with restrictive rules.

The GB section is only "broken" because it doesn't attract so many participants. That's what needs to change.

[scotthldr]

The whole idea behind GB's/SIB's is to involve a number of modellers building to the same topic/interest so they can learn from one another and in order to do so it's easier if everyone is talking about the same or similar subject, they had nothing to do about encouraging new modellers as a new modeller will want to discover their own level at their own speed. They also show and highlight the friendliness and knowledge available on here which will encourage new members to join in.

Where are these restrictive rules you talk about at present or in my proposal, guidelines yes but not restrictive rules, the rules are to be found in the main UKAR forum page and how many members have even looked at them. The main reasons why the GB's didn't take off was 1/ There was too many. 2/ There was no breaks between them and the idea became stale. 3/ Subject matter on majority was too wide. 4/ Lack of commitment from most members and we don't have the numbers to guarantee future commitment.

Your ideas may be similar to ideas elsewhere, however the Modelling Section on UKAR is different from those sites and is more like you put it an Exclusive club due to our very small numbers and it's something that the members here enjoy so to copy from other sites is rather negative, several steps backwards and shows lack of imagination.

Since this is an open debate and opinions are required on how to improve the area how do you intend to get members interested in something that clearly hasn't worked in for nearly two years.

[Craig]

The whole idea behind GB's/SIB's is to involve a number of modellers building to the same topic/interest so they can learn from one another and in order to do so it's easier if everyone is talking about the same or similar subject, they had nothing to do about encouraging new modellers as a new modeller will want to discover their own level at their own speed. They also show and highlight the friendliness and knowledge available on here which will encourage new members to join in.

Where are these restrictive rules you talk about at present or in my proposal, guidelines yes but not restrictive rules, the rules are to be found in the main UKAR forum page and how many members have even looked at them. The main reasons why the GB's didn't take off was 1/ There was too many. 2/ There was no breaks between them and the idea became stale. 3/ Subject matter on majority was too wide. 4/ Lack of commitment from most members and we don't have the numbers to guarantee future commitment.

Your ideas may be similar to ideas elsewhere, however the Modelling Section on UKAR is different from those sites and is more like you put it an Exclusive club due to our very small numbers and it's something that the members here enjoy so to copy from other sites is rather negative, several steps backwards and shows lack of imagination.

Since this is an open debate and opinions are required on how to improve the area how do you intend to get members interested in something that clearly hasn't worked in for nearly two years.

Some very interesting points, but not sure I agree with the two points highlighted. Yes the idea has become stale, but I think that is largely down to the last point about lack of participation rather than anything. As for subject matter being too wide, for a lot for me at least the opposite has been true, there's been such desire to accomodate the esoteric that many were excluded from the criteria required. Of course a theme is important, but if you look at the least supported GBs they've tended to be either the recent ones, or the very specific. I do honestly think the issue of leadership is the key one. Too many have been left to drift. I'm not apportioning blame here, but as I've said before without the encouragement and feedback interest can and will wane, and that's one thing we must all play our part in. On the whole, I do think Scott's suggestions are a good way of taking things forward, and while I see the "draconian" perspective, without leadership and support these things will die off. I would personally be prepared to take on a GB and all it entails, but only a modern RAF one as it's my "area". I think that basically is the key bit though.

[DerekF]

The whole idea behind GB's/SIB's is to involve a number of modellers building to the same topic/interest so they can learn from one another and in order to do so it's easier if everyone is talking about the same or similar subject, they had nothing to do about encouraging new modellers as a new modeller will want to discover their own level at their own speed. They also show and highlight the friendliness and knowledge available on here which will encourage new members to join in.

Encouraging new members/modellers is exactly what we should be trying to do. The biggest problem we have is a lack of support as the table shows. Yes the timetable should be longer but the main problem is lack of support.

Where are these restrictive rules you talk about at present or in my proposal, guidelines yes but not restrictive rules, the rules are to be found in the main UKAR forum page and how many members have even looked at them. The main reasons why the GB's didn't take off was 1/ There was too many. 2/ There was no breaks between them and the idea became stale. 3/ Subject matter on majority was too wide. 4/ Lack of commitment from most members and we don't have the numbers to guarantee future commitment.

No. Your rules are about requiring 5 to even start a GB, if those running the GB don't participate then they aren't allowed to run another one - hardly encouraging.
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the subjects chosen. They weren't too wide at all. Look at the most successful ones.
The main reasons they are failing are numbers and timescale. More encouragement to take part and make them longer.

Your ideas may be similar to ideas elsewhere, however the Modelling Section on UKAR is different from those sites and is more like you put it an Exclusive club due to our very small numbers and it's something that the members here enjoy so to copy from other sites is rather negative, several steps backwards and shows lack of imagination.

Since this is an open debate and opinions are required on how to improve the area how do you intend to get members interested in something that clearly hasn't worked in for nearly two years.

It is not and should not be treated as an exclusive club. You say this is an open debate and yet when I dare to disagree I am "negative, several steps backwards and shows lack of imagination". Well thanks for that.
We are trying to come up with ideas but it appears the only opinions you want are ones that agree with yours. Well, that isn't the case here and I think you are wrong about what needs to be done. Simple straightfoward GBs like the ones I suggest are the way to go to try and encourage a larger participation.

[Craig]

The whole idea behind GB's/SIB's is to involve a number of modellers building to the same topic/interest so they can learn from one another and in order to do so it's easier if everyone is talking about the same or similar subject, they had nothing to do about encouraging new modellers as a new modeller will want to discover their own level at their own speed. They also show and highlight the friendliness and knowledge available on here which will encourage new members to join in.

Encouraging new members/modellers is exactly what we should be trying to do. The biggest problem we have is a lack of support as the table shows. Yes the timetable should be longer but the main problem is lack of support.

Where are these restrictive rules you talk about at present or in my proposal, guidelines yes but not restrictive rules, the rules are to be found in the main UKAR forum page and how many members have even looked at them. The main reasons why the GB's didn't take off was 1/ There was too many. 2/ There was no breaks between them and the idea became stale. 3/ Subject matter on majority was too wide. 4/ Lack of commitment from most members and we don't have the numbers to guarantee future commitment.

No. Your rules are about requiring 5 to even start a GB, if those running the GB don't participate then they aren't allowed to run another one - hardly encouraging.
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the subjects chosen. They weren't too wide at all. Look at the most successful ones.
The main reasons they are failing are numbers and timescale. More encouragement to take part and make them longer.

Your ideas may be similar to ideas elsewhere, however the Modelling Section on UKAR is different from those sites and is more like you put it an Exclusive club due to our very small numbers and it's something that the members here enjoy so to copy from other sites is rather negative, several steps backwards and shows lack of imagination.

Since this is an open debate and opinions are required on how to improve the area how do you intend to get members interested in something that clearly hasn't worked in for nearly two years.

It is not and should not be treated as an exclusive club. You say this is an open debate and yet when I dare to disagree I am "negative, several steps backwards and shows lack of imagination". Well thanks for that.
We are trying to come up with ideas but it appears the only opinions you want are ones that agree with yours. Well, that isn't the case here and I think you are wrong about what needs to be done. Simple straightfoward GBs like the ones I suggest are the way to go to try and encourage a larger participation.

So, to step back a little from this which appears to be getting a little heated, I see merit in both suggestions, and you're right in what you say Derek that widening participation, both in terms of numbers building and numbers commenting is important, but still not exactly sure how this is achieved. I do agree with Scott about leader participation though, if someone is to lead a GB there is a certain level oif responsibility behind that decision. OK life gets in the way, you can't be online 24/7, but advice and encouragement of those participating really ought to be a given...

[Deacon]

but advice and encouragement of those participating really ought to be a given...

Mr Craig sir, that is what is termed as "hitting a nail on the head".

A host has to be involved, even if they are only there to encourage and welcome. You can't be there as host 24/7, but you should be there to ensure that any new WIP on your GB/SIB is noted and the person made to feel welcome in acknowledging their thread as soon as possible.

Please, everyone, keep this thread about the matter of how UKAR modellers run their future GB's. Remember, this is a public forum. We can hardly talk about encouraging new members, or old members to join in the GB's if they see members 'having a go ' at each other.

It was always going to be difficult to find a common ground on this issue. But all of us who have been involved and are/want to be involved have to have an opinion that may, or may not, form the basis of future GB's.

I don't think we are that far from reaching a conclusion, from the input that you guys have done. But, there is still time to discuss the the issues in case there are others who would like to contribute to this, chat.

Alan

[DerekF]

Please, everyone, keep this thread about the matter of how UKAR modellers run their future GB's. Remember, this is a public forum. We can hardly talk about encouraging new members, or old members to join in the GB's if they see members 'having a go ' at each other.

But that is what the discussion is about. I think it's better to discuss it now than put something in place which is ill-conceived and counter-productive. If the only thing that this discussion achieves is putting a "leader" in place (I thought each GB already had one) and rearranging the forum then the whole point has been missed.

My idea was suggest some very generic themes that would encourage those from maybe outside the usual group to maybe have a go - that's all. I understand that that idea may not meet with universal approval but I expect it be discussed and not dismissed out of hand.

[ArabJazzie]

Geoff you leave me a bit confused here with regard s to your reference of the F16 GB. You mention "from another thread on here" but then refer to it as "a good proportion of the posters there have them" can you please clarify.

Scott i do hope you are taking this in the spirit it was intended as your reply doesnt reflect that. I have admitted to you in the past that i am hampered by my poor use of English and i expect this may be why.

I however cant see where the confusion is as im sure we have both posted in that thread. Just to clarify, its Craigs "Planned Builds" thread, and seen as you say it takes 5 to tango in a GB, these guys have F-16 builds planned
Mr Fibble has various F-16 builds
James V F-16I Sufa(in progress now?)
Some chap named Scott has a Greek F-16D
Deacon F-16MLU and AM/BM
Thommo F-16D 52+
Tom Twin F-16I
Fumbles F-16
And as i have a F-16B in the stash and an F-16I Sufa as a future purchase, that makes 8 potential participants.

The reason for changing the name in my proposal is to reflect the idea better, we can hardly call it a Group Build when your lucky if 4 people join in.

A calendar as in the present format isn't needed and was/is too tying, a calendar showing what months/weeks are available to anyone wishing to host a subject would be beneficial. The may both be called calendars but their purpose is different. Again you refer to "Overlapping seems to be working somewhere else" can you please clarify where? The idea behind the no voting was that anyone wishing to host a GB had the opportunity to do so, hence bringing people into the modelling circle which was one of the main intentions behind the GB. Regards where the Arab Air Power GB was in the queue I don't see what you're getting at, at the end of the day it was a queue and something had to be last I've never had a problem with it being there.

On a personal level, seeing that calender, i knew what was coming up and gave me the chance to purchase kits if need be and plan in other builds. Ok, it didnt always work for me but hey ho! On Fighter Control, remember them Thunder, there are GBs running one at a time and as one comes to an end, another one starts with an overlap of 2(ish) weeks.
Your last bit, i think you are taking it a wee bit too seriously, but to expand, on FC a bunch of subjects were put forward and then voted on. The most popular GBs were put up as the first 5 with a timetable. Now taking that over here and applying it to the last time GBs were picked, AS AN EXAMPLE, if we voted, we might have seen what appears to be the popular Arab GB would have been high up the list and the more recent lesser attended GBs might have been dropped and we would not be having this thread! It is most certainly not about the Arab GB being last in the queue and i have never mentioned i though you had a problem with that. I have to ask though, and im sure i mentioned it at the time, you coming in and championing you GB as early as you did, could that have been detrimental to the GBs around that time and up till now? I am not knocking you her, just asking a question.

The reason behind the "harsh" rule of the host must play an active role is to make those aware that they are taking on a commitment not only to themselves but for the others that have supported him/her by buying kits and materials in order to partake in the subject. If people don't want the commitment then don't step forward. However with the idea that there won't be a 18 month pre booked calendar the likelihood of this happening is small, if for personnel reasons the host couldn't take part then I wouldn't for see any problem in re scheduling to a later date. If people just simply vanish with out explanation then the rule would apply. My Arab Air Power GB is a prime example of why 18 mth calendars don't work, at the time of suggesting the idea I had no idea my partner was going to be expecting our 2nd child bang in the middle of it, and with having to find a new home as well my time is going to be very tight, however I will take an active role including building but can't promise I'll finish it.

Im baffled by this last bit! Why would or should we ban you from hosting a future GB if your life takes a change as it is about to? I hope i have proved, and Deacon certainly has, that there are people prepared to jump in and take over running of GBs if need be! Banning hosts who have been fortunate as in your case, or less than fortunate would only lead to nobody willing to run GBs in the first place. I dont think the 18mth calender didnt work in this case as you describe. You could still host the Arab GB and guide people on, so what if you circumstance change!!! What we do here is only a hobby and its supposed to be fun!!! Life has to come first!
Arabest,
Geoff.

[scotthldr]

Derek as good as your table is it only showed what actual builds took place for each of those GB's it did not show the support that each GB received in the way of research or encouragement from those not building.

The guideline of having 5 members on board is exactly what is required, you said yourself the main reason for failure is lack of support so less than 5 is hardly great support. The idea behind the forfeiting of future builds if the host does a no show is exactly that, if the host doesn't show. If he/she came to the members and said " I'm sorry but this or that has came up and I'm not going to have the time to host" then fair enough re schedule I wouldn't want people banned for that, as Geoff says life get's in the way of our hobby. If a host just didn't turn up no with no excuse then that's hardly encouraging to those that have gone out and spent a smalll fortune on kits/materials and now left high and dry.

With regard to subjects being too wide or to restricted well at the end of the day everyone will have the opportunity to host what they see fit and wish to hold. That's personnel choice if it's a good idea then getting the 5 members on board wouldn't be a problem, if it was a rubbish idea then it won't get the 5 members and therefore wouldn't take place and therefore free up space for someone else if need be.

"You say this is an open debate and yet when I dare to disagree I am "negative, several steps backwards and shows lack of imagination". Well thanks for that."

ill-conceived and counter-productive.

Derek it is an open debate, but as you have said above all you're are doing is disagreeing me with on everything, I've yet to see you come forward with any ideas of your own. Your are being negative as you cannot see any positive in what I'm saying yet another 6 members do. It isn't about what I want, far from it but so far I'm the only one to have put my ideas on the forum for discussion. Until you come up with better then I will defend my own.

Geoff, thanks for clearing up the F16 part, I see where you're coming from and yes that would've or indeed would be a good subject matter everyone on the same wavelength .

Overlapping of GB's/SIB's could work and I mentioned that format a couple of weeks back, the problem with it is you could end up with a pre planned calendar that people may not be able to commit to 6, 12 or 18 months down the line.

The problem with voting is everyone will vote for what suits them and will result is several similar themes being run at some point. Let the onus be on the individual to suggest their own subject and let them drum up the support for it.

The bit regards restricting members from hosting I've answered above and I agree with you things come up in life. If this is the case then a simple explanation is all that's required we don't need the details, but common courtesy to those that supported your idea is.


Guys rather than rubbish and nit pick at what I've came forward with, please post up your own proposals. We aren't Fighter Control, Britmodeller or anywhere else for that matter we are UKAR so please try and come up with something to reflect that we are a different forum.

[DerekF]

Derek it is an open debate, but as you have said above all you're are doing is disagreeing me with on everything, I've yet to see you come forward with any ideas of your own. Your are being negative as you cannot see any positive in what I'm saying yet another 6 members do. It isn't about what I want, far from it but so far I'm the only one to have put my ideas on the forum for discussion. Until you come up with better then I will defend my own.

Of course I'm disagreeing you! I think you're wrong! That's why. Perhaps if you actually contributed more to the GBs yourself then your thoughts might have a little more substance.
There are a few ideas in my posts but I'm not going to repeat my ideas and thought as they are for all (well at least those that can be bothered) to read.

I'll leave you to your "SIBs" but if want any progress then you need to listen to others that may have a different opinion to yours.

[scotthldr]

Perhaps if you actually contributed more to the GBs yourself then your thoughts might have a little more substance.
you need to listen to others that may have a different opinion to yours.

Just Choked on my morning coffee reading that Derek

Sorry but I didn't realise I had to bow to your obvious far greater knowledge and input on this subject . Just to make things clear you've contributed to 2 GB's and have finished 4 builds, I have contributed to 2 GB's and finished 2 but have offered up references and advice on numerous others, I for one have contributed a great deal more to the Modelling section than you ever will so don't ever talk to me about contributing, but if that's how you feel then carry on without any further assistance from me. The fact that another six members agree(one of them is the most prolific contributor to the GB section) in principal with what I'm saying doesn't hold weight with you as you obviously know better, yet you still fail to tell us your plans/ideas except for the ones you've nicked from other sites.

I will listen to different opinions but you haven't given any have you, all you've done is rubbish everything. Geoff on the other hand has raised some good points and I've replied to them, the one he mentioned last week about having a thread in the main section highlighting recent events/developments is a good idea, but needs more input and can only be done once we have something to shout about.

You moaned when people didn't respond to your posts and accused the section of operating in cliques etc... yet when they did and offered assistance and advice you didn't even have the courtesy to acknowledge them.

If this is the kind of thanks I'm going to get for trying to help the section and move it forward then I won't bother, yes I know it's in the minority but it's hardly encouraging for others to voice their opinions when you get idiots like above shooting everything down without backing it up with their own ideas.

[DerekF]

If this is the kind of thanks I'm going to get for trying to help the section and move it forward then I won't bother, yes I know it's in the minority but it's hardly encouraging for others to voice their opinions when you get idiots like above shooting everything down without backing it up with their own ideas.

Idiot eh? For daring to disagree? For coming up with actually workable ideas rather than draconian rules? I would suggest that if you cannot be receptive to other's ideas then maybe you are right - maybe you shouldn't bother to try and help.
I won't report the "idiot" remark as it is clear that you feel very strongly about maintaining the section as an exclusive section (your words I believe) but please don't repeat it.
There is so much of the rest of your rant that is untrue, embellished and frankly so wide of the mark that it barely warrants a mention far less a reply.

The section needs to encourage others to take part. This will be achieved by setting GBs that are easy, accessible and straightforward, not by making them exclusive and cliquey. I have repeated this probably 3 or 4 times so far and won't repeat it any more.

[scotthldr]

Derek report what you want to report I couldn't care less and for your workable ideas you haven't given any, and I see we're now back to the cliques again, if the place is run in cliques and you don't like it, then why do you keep posting on here?

I would suggest that if you cannot be receptive to other's ideas then maybe you are right - maybe you shouldn't bother to try and help.

I will listen to any ideas that are given and try along with my fellow members incorporate them all into a workable solution, again you haven't given any except for those from other sites, if these others sites are so good then why don't you go there. As for the "maybe I shouldn't bother" well at this moment I'm very tempted to say stick it, but I'll let the rest of the members decide, so if it's the general consensus that I "shouldn't bother to try and help" then I'll happily pack my tool box and move aside. Until then I have nothing else to say on this matter.

[Craig]

Gents please

It's a great shame to see two of the best respected and skilled modellers on this section taking lumps out of each other like this. This is the freindliest modelling forum on the web in my own humble opinion, and I'm proud to be a member of this community. Please lets not do lasting damage to the section as a whole in the name of revamping the GBs. I'd rather the whole thing be shelved altogether than go down that road

[DerekF]

Indeed. Calling someone an "idiot" didn't help in that at all.

I enjoy this forum but I do not want to see the section become like other forums with too many rules and criteria. Modelling is supposed to be fun and a hobby to escape from rules.

As I have said time after time, all that is needed is a more inclusive set of GB subjects, similar to the ones I suggested earlier. These would make it more open to others who perhaps maybe never thought of taking part before - in addition to the 20 odd who have taken part so far. What is needed is a sort of level playing field to encourage newcomers which is why I suggested a straightforward Airfix build or a OOB build.

That combined with a longer period of time would be massively helpful. One of the reasons I haven't taken part in too many is the timescale. I certainly don't go and buy kits for GBs, I see what I have in the stash that might fit and also if it fits with my own build programme. For example, I would have taken part in the USAF build earlier this year but it was over before I could get involved properly. 6 months would be reasonable.

The GB section does not, in my opinion need a radical overhaul, just a few tweaks here and there.

[Tug 747]

Gentleman please

Can we not all act like adults on here and have a discussion about proposals without the need to be quiet so abrupt with one another. Some good points have been raised by you all so far so may i suggest implementing a vote on what could be added or tweaked and let this vote run for a period of time say 1 or 2 weeks and at the end of the voting period the proposals that get the most votes are put into practise even if only on a trial basis to begin with.
Now some of you may not like my thoughts on this but in my opinion it must be better to get a result rather the see some of our better and more skilled modellers bickering at each other.

Doug

[Dragon Rapide]

As a new modeller or at least a "returning after 50 years" modeller, I can't say that much of the foregoing has been particularly inspiring or enlightening.

[Deacon]

If I was god (small 'g') I would transport all UKAR modellers to a pub set in beautiful surroundings and we would drink real ale, a dram
or soft drinks, if that is your poison, and we would talk man things and modelling things all night long. Then at the end, we would sit around and bring a conclusion
to this issue (no one would get drunk or have a hang over either ) But I'm not.

I like Tug77's (Doug) suggestion about a getting modellers to vote on the different aspects of the GB's/SIB's. If we could break down each aspect that has been put forward and see how people respond to each one, for instance duration, title, number of members to warrant a GB/SIB and so on. Then that way we can see how the members would like to see them go forward, if at all.

If we could help you Doug create the categories, could you sort out the voting system? I've never done it.



Alan

[Cimmerian]

I think the 'chat in a pub' is the best suggestion so far. I like it, but can't help feeling that it would end up in an argument , like so many other discussions on the forum. Kind of sad really, but I guess that's how it goes.

Makes me think that I might just keep my newly re-discovered enjoyment of the hobby to myself. Helpful criticism is always useful, but I get the feeling that from some it would just be "That's a piece of $%*&". For a while it looked this might go somewhere useful.

[Deacon]

Makes me think that I might just keep my newly re-discovered enjoyment of the hobby to myself. Helpful criticism is always useful, but I get the feeling that from some it would just be "That's a piece of $%*&". For a while it looked this might go somewhere useful.

I don't think anyone has expressed an opinion like that on this forum Ken and they never will, I'm sure.

Let's see how we get on with the vote mate. You're input there would be useful.

Alan

[Cimmerian]

I'll give it a go still, but the aggression appearing in this thread isn't that necessary considering this is supposed to be a hobby.

[Jamesv9820]

Guys,


I have not had the chance to post anything on here for various reasons over the last few days - as you say, life and work gets in the way.

It appears I have missed out on some "debate" from the floor and some valid points have been raised.

So lets all take a step back shall we? To me the idea and the whole point of a SIB/GBis to try something a little different and out of your comfort zone. The reasons why these are so useful and why it is better to do it with others:

1). To learn new techniques (Drybrushing/ Working with pastels/ Pre/post shading and where to use it /Hairspray Technique/Achieving a high standard with feathering camouflague with an airbrush etc... ) - the list goes on and on. We may not all be as skilled as some others on here but these to me are about upping our game and improving and not staying at the same level. But why not learn from others to improve - If you want to carry on that way, please just post in the WIP section or just post elsewhere - there are many other forums that do the norm. I for one want something different where help is constructive

2). To provide support through a nominated "host" who has an interest in the group, utilising their knowledge on the subject. For example, Derek and Geoff know a lot more about Spitfires than I do, Scott can tell you everything you need to know about the Hellanic Airforce, F-4's and F-16's. I have a lot of info on Tornado, so why not use it! I think the "banning" comment has been taking out of all proportion but the purpose of saying that is to make the person responsible for running the group, saying that if the host is someone who has a passion for the subject, I am sure it will work well.

3). Encouraging others and giving honest feedback. We all want to improve - I am a bit reluctant sometime to say what I think as it will be blown out of all context but I always try and give alternative "have you tried...." advice, rather that "nice build, mate". Sorry that helps no one! I think you will also find that people also react better to the truth, so long as it is constructive, rather than putting a generic comment down as you think it helps - I also think that this will not scare new members off, but probably help them improve.

4). Sharing of ideas - materials, guides. Spare decals or old schemes we will never use.

5). To be different from the rest.... Need I say more.

So in short can we get this debate back on track.

Thoughts?

[Cimmerian]

+1

I agree, James.

[Logster]

I also agree.

I have found the forum so useful and everyone has been very friendly to me. The difficulty is that the written word can often be taken out of context - particularly in this instant format - and so people can see the worst in comments that started out as perfectly innocent. I expect we have all done it over email at work (I know I have - the 6.30 on a friday evening email rant at my boss was not my wisest move!!). I don't think really there was any real disagreement here - just the phrasing - some people use more forceful language than others.

I really hope we can sort out the GB thing as having never tried one (or a WIP of any kind I am quite keen to give it a go), and I hope that Derek and Scott do continue to post on here as i respect both their views very much.

All the best

Matt

[Deacon]

I always try and give alternative "have you tried...." advice, rather that "nice build, mate". Sorry that helps no one! ?

The comments on someone's build has to be in line with you own experience and skills, so in my case, in the main, "nice build mate" is all I can sometimes offer because what they have produced is, in my opinion, a nice build and their skill level matches my own.

Also, there have been new members who post on here who don't get any kind of feedback on their builds. I may not say 'nice build mate' but I will try to find something to encourage them with "not a trace of glue where it shouldn't be, well done, nice and tidy" so that they will at least post again on this forum rather than thinking "What a load of snobs. They could have at least acknowledged I exist!".

Perhaps you're right James. Such comments as these are just a reflection of my own poor self esteem and I'm kidding myself that others find them useful.

Right, back to the thread as James suggested.