The MOM rules allow for in flight models but not those built to specifically show a crashed aircraft. The problem here is that modelling a crashed aircraft without it being shown on a ground base would, in my opinion, look odd, but the rules don't allow a base in the voting gallery.

There is one entry at the moment

At the moment I would have to disallow it. However it is on a simple ground base and the modeller has posted in the gallery with as little of the base showing as possible.
Do I change the rules to allow this (remember that it is much more difficult to model a crashed aircraft than not), based on this entrant with a simple base and the very minimum of that base showing?

Hi Mal

I spotted the build too and wondered what your reaction would be.

I think something like that would count as a "simple base". Likewise, a floatplane built as a "water-line" model on something that depicts the water's surface would be fine by me. But that's where I'd draw the line - as soon as you start including figures or other vehicles, that's becoming a vignette or diorama.

All the best

Rowan

Hello,

I saw this too, and went immediately to the pic posted for voting. I saw that the bare minimum of a base was showing in that pic. I wondered what the ruling would be, but in my mind, if you have an exception for "in-flight" models, I don't see how you can not have one for ground to be involved in a "crashed" model.

I think it's a borderline case, but as the base is nothing more than a flat surface with some "grass" sprikled on it, I'm inclined to say it should be allowed. The base is not meant to enhance the scene, but just to give it context, I think.

Cheers,
Mike

What is the motivation for not allowing bases? I havent built a model without it since I was 12.

Cheers

I know this build to. It's not possible to show this airplane without the base. The base is absolute minimum. It's just like a small stand for the in-flight models. I think it should be allowed.

I would also consider further changes of the rules just as it is discussed on Armorama. One of the winner of the MOM has stolen a pics and submitted to the competition. Unfortunatelly he won so there's a big problem now because the owner of those pics discovered the fraud. Because it may be a potential problem also for Aeroscale in my opinion staff members should seriously discuss it. See the Armorama discussion here:

http://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/147630&page=1

Ummmm, didn't my Helldiver have a base in it's MOM pics? I will surrender the win if I've broken the rules....

Chuck, This was the picture you posted in the comp so I think your in the clear



But could the cutting mat be classed as a base and Giant Penny Abe be classed as a figure

But I did notice going through previous months that in May there was a plane on a base but I'm not sure if that was picked up on

Back to the point at hand, personally I don't see a problem with the crashed plane as long as it's on a plain base with no figures or vehicle

This model can stand alone without the base, and not much would change. The base is not the focal point, the model is. I think the base is not really what we as voters are going to be looking at. I would be inclined to allow it as it stands.

Hi Michal

There has to be an element of trust in every entrant's honesty, but Rule #1 does state that the model must be the contestant's own work. But if it's brought to light before the closing date of the voting that anyone has stolen somebody else's pictures, they should obviously be disqualified (and personally, I'd be in favour of banning them from taking part in future contests).

All the best

Rowan

I agree with the general concensus here, the base does not add to the kit build, it is only there for context, as if it were a stand for an in-flight build or simple water for a seaplane or floatplane. I have no problems with this being allowed, even though it is up against my first MOM entry.

Cheers, D

I was wandering if such picture is fine, i did crop as much the base as it was still looking well. If You will decide it can't be like that i just put another picture, where i will crop base out.

This can go either way I guess . It's fine with me . There's no fig's or vehicles or accessories added . It's very simple . Besides a down aircraft just doesn't look right with out one .
I say yes ! but there has to be limits to what the base can or should be and has to fit the subject matter .

Wow , some guy really did that with some ones else build pic's !! Here on this site , that was a lot of nerve on his part and just down right shame full .

I say let it in theres nothing to it really.
And as far as the guy who stole pics i think
he should be banned from the site period.

I think simple, basic base without figures or vehicles. Just my 2cents...

I think first you would have to specifically define what a simple base is. The example you posted to me would be fine. To tell you the truth I never really noticed the ground work. I just saw the plane itself. Now with a figure or two, bushes, or a vehicle driving up around the plane viewing the crash to me would be a diorama.

Under the current rule if someone built a modern jet with tied downs on a Carrier Deck with nothing around it would not qualify. Although the tie downs and chalks are part of the model it would make no sense w/o the Carrier Deck base.

So with that being said. I think if you specifically define a simple base ( not an easy task). I.E no vehicles, figures, or other "items" that detract from the plane itself you would be ok. (as the others have stated). Also emphasizing to judge the build of the plane itself and not the simple base its on.

I don't envy you on this one Mal. Its a tough one and open to a lot of interpetation.

Good Luck with this one.

Paul

I would say:

if brought to light anytime that anyone has stolen somebody else's pictures, they should be completely banned from the site.

What can we do with people that can't even be honest about something simple as having made, or not having made, a model airplane?

Hi Justin and Drabslab

I actually agree with you, but the reason I didn't suggest suspending the account of anyone caught cheating is that it's not within my Admin powers to implement it (only Jim can suspend accounts) - and I try not to promise what I can't personally deliver. Barring someone from taking part in future contests and most other site activities is something we can do ourselves - and the general reaction of other members would undoubtedly make a cheat feel so unwelcome, they'd effectively be ostracized from our community anyway.

All the best

Rowan

The reason for not allowing a base is simply so that only the model is judged. Way back in the mists of time, when this all started, the aim was simply to a). Get more pictures of aircraft models on to the site and b). To increase the standard of photography.
These 2 aims are still at the heart of the MOM but because of past cheating and accusations of cheating and the advent of a big player sponsor then the current rules were conceived to try and make it as fair as possible. I someone feels the need to cheat then I feel sorry for them and they really do need to get a life.
I will have a long think about wording the change (eeek ) and the present entrant may stand.
Good luck to all

Thanks!

I see the main thoughts and reasons. But I myself can never see or do a model without a apropiate base. Its a part of the object to me, thus excluding me from the element of contest. A model without a base will be looked upon as a toy far to often.

The base could be simple or advanced but to become a diorama other things has to be considered such as idea, action and storyline.

Cheers

The little patch of ground work that he used as a stand for the plane does not seem so bothersome. Can't see whats the big deal. What does bug me is the bit about the stolen pics and the bogus contest win. Give the win to the real owner and can the liar for good.