 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> As for LEGOFan.org: it is in fact an official site, but I wouldn't mind to
> see it in both cats.
Maybe it's changed, but I believe LegoFan.org is not *really* an official site.
As I recall, LegoFan was a site that had the official "approval", and had
limited sponsorship/endorsement from the company. However, the actual site was
always supposed to be run by fans, so that the company wouldn't have to allocate
any dedicated resources to the project. Essentially, they didn't want to be
*responsible* for the site, so asked fans to do the job for them.
Hence, LegoFan was able to do as it pleased, but Lego holds *very* substantial
amount of weight over the site by offering it:
- Use of "Lego" in the domain
- Links from Lego.com (not sure if this ever happened? was certainly in the
original goals)
- Exclusive updates and Lego announcements that other sites don't get (or don't
get as primarily)
- Funding (this was always iffy, and hadn't happened last I knew, but was slated
to happen "someday, as warranted, maybe")
So, LegoFan was sort of leashed in those regards by the company. Fortunately,
I'm not aware of any differences in opinion between the site and the company
that ever forced the issue. I think the company and the site administration were
pretty much always on the same page anyway.
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Rene Hoffmeister wrote:
> > As for LEGOFan.org: it is in fact an official site, but I wouldn't mind to
> > see it in both cats.
>
> Maybe it's changed, but I believe LegoFan.org is not *really* an official site. • [...]
> So, LegoFan was sort of leashed in those regards by the company. Fortunately,
> I'm not aware of any differences in opinion between the site and the company
> that ever forced the issue.
I agree. However, though I doubt it was ever a point of disagreement, I believe
the company insisted there be no discussion of clone brands on the site. And I'm
fairly sure they didn't want negative coverage of the product there either, but
don't quote me. That would be teetering on censorship IMHO, though I don't know
what consequences there would have been, if any. The site was run by a LEGO
employee or two, albeit while "off-duty" (though they touted it to me as a
plus), and it certainly got some minor perks from the company. While none of
this makes it an "official" site in the legal definition, in my mind it's still
a tool. So I can see how Rene and other people are confused by its status,
despite the perfectly clear wording separating it from The LEGO Company proper.
Don't get me wrong; I mean no disrespect to its project leaders - I do not
believe they have -ever- tried to deceive anyone about the status or purpose.
And I'm very glad the project exists. I truly do wish it well! I always have. It
serves an important function and I'm all for anything that acomplishes its
goals. It's just ...I kinda wish it WAS an official site. But that's just
something in my own gut. I fully understand why it can't be that way.
[sorry to have brought this thread a bit off topic...]
BTW, thanks for the concise clarification, Kelly. :-)
-Suz
| | | | | | |
