| |
Todd and I will be discussing this issue with LD next month. I'm hoping there's
a good solution or alternative that we just haven't thought of yet. You can bet
we'll be open minded and reasonable. We very much *do* want to see LD happy,
and help TLC however we can. But our first real loyalty will be to do what's
best for LUGNET.
I won't speak for Todd here, but I would like to explain my views of
this issue. I have solid reasons for how I feel. I hope explaining them here
will help.
:-) For the record, I am not 'afraid TLC would take over LUGNET.' I do not
think 'marketing is bad.' And I'm not restricting TLC's participation here just
to be difficult.
---
LUGNET does not allow advertising in discussion groups.
---
Charters for discussion groups outside .market and .lego do not welcome
messages containing advertising, commercial promotion, marketing plugs, links
to auctions, announcements of sales, etc.
Now, I'm not making an assumption that people from TLC would fail to respect
that. But I'd like to avoid any need for us to define 'advertising' in a post
made on behalf of TLC. It could get pretty fuzzy when we're talking about
promoting sale of a product already in enthusiastic discussion. I want our
pre-existing rule to remain fair.
LUGNET is not just a fan site.
---
LUGNET is "The LEGO Users Group Network." It's a place for users, enthusiasts,
addicts, and fanatics. Lately I'm reading what I'd call, arguments for people's
favorite flavors. We may have a case where it's impossible to make everybody
happy. I am prepared for that. And however unfair it may seem, my personal
passions and hopes for the future direction of LUGNET will come into play,
because that's what drives me to continue with this project.
LUGNET is the Underground.
---
It's undeniable that posting here would be a different social experience if we
saw LC employees posting as such in the discussion groups with us. Already,
I've seen alarm expressed at the possibility of hurting LEGO employees'
feelings with our product-critical remarks. It is my strong belief that posters
here should feel comfortable expressing whatever they want to about TLC. The
Underground "feel" is really hard to describe. I think we had it in r.t.l. and
I do hope to continue it here. I also believe it's possible to maintain that
feel while receiving TLC's recognition of us as a community.
Potential for authorship confusion.
---
I expressed this last year. Basically, I'd want every reader, upon viewing a
post, to know immediately if the author was employed by TLC. I'm not suggesting
anything beyond that very simple thing, so please do not read into it. This
particular concern of mine is probably solvable.
Expectations.
---
I'm not sure it's possible for LUGNET, even with removal of the posting
restriction, to satisfy some folks' desires to be near TLC. Someone mentioned
recently that they'd "take whatever they can get," for contact from the
company. I don't feel comfortable working with that. I don't want us to open
all our doors and wait.
I'd like us all to review our expectations and be specific about what we crave.
We may find that what we really want can be gotten in a different way with TLC,
and maybe through different channels. Sometimes I worry that the community is
willing to settle for less than they deserve.
I'd rather we're not at the mercy of one or two individuals in the company, and
I don't think we need to be. This is me looking out for us, not me haphazardly
clashing with TLC. Please believe that LD will never just 'go away' from
interaction with AFOLs as a whole. I believe we should be very careful not to
sell ourselves short, even if that feels risky. I need you guys to make every
effort to trust me. The more cohesive we appear, the stronger we are.
That said, it's still very possible that the posting restrictions will be
lifted. I'm not completely unwilling to do it. Right now, I'm just not happy
about it.
That's all for now.
-Suz
Suzanne Rich
LUGNET Admin
www.lugnet.com
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Limiting placement of LC posts
|
| (...) Thanks for a thoughtful post on this subject. I wonder if there's room for a civilized discussion of what people would like to see from TLC and what people would not like to see. I think there have been lots of good ideas floating around, (...) (22 years ago, 19-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: Limiting placement of LC posts
|
| <Snip!> (...) Trust you will I. You have done a good service to all of us by maintaining this site and communicating with the suppliers of ABS. Without LUGNET, I'd be building alone, but together with others my hobby (addiction) has been a lot more (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: Limiting placement of LC posts
|
| In lugnet.admin.suggestions, Suzanne D. Rich writes: <Snip> (...) Hmmm...let's see... To be quite honest, I can't think of too many questions that I would have for TLC that they would be willing to answer. From what I've seen in FBTB.net, Jake can't (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
| | | Re: Limiting placement of LC posts
|
| (...) I've been reading a lot of the discussion late on this topic, and I've be think a lot about this. Ultimately I'm not against the idea of giving Lego the ability to post throughout Lugnet, but this is the one issue that does concern me. I'd (...) (22 years ago, 20-Jun-02, to lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
