| |
Hi everyone,
For some time now, a group of us have been discussing the concept of a LEGO
site that the community could truly call its own-- community owned,
designed, and operated. To this end, we have been endeavoring for more than
half a year to bring that concept to life. After the recent announcement
concerning WorldLUG, we decided that it would be a good time to bring this
into the public eye.
Who are we? Presently, the group is made up of 9 people: Jacob Sparre
Andersen, Steve Bliss, Dan Boger, Jennifer Boger, David Eaton, Sean Kenney,
Jake Mckee, Richard Morton, and Calum Tsang.
What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that can act
as a central hub for the community. A site where LEGO fans worldwide can get
information, be directed towards resources, and interact. We also are
developing an infrastructure that will allow community members to be
involved with the running of the site, from administration tasks to
open-source code maintenance. We hope in this way to actually create a site
that is in all ways by fans, for fans.
Perhaps what excites us most about LEGOFan.net, however, is the involvement
of the LEGO Company itself. Presently, the LEGO Company works informally and
sporadically with multiple independent fan sites. LEGOFan.net will provide a
more centralized point for the LEGO Company to interact with the fan
community, thus increasing the frequency of their interaction, updates,
news, and releases.
We're working out the details of the agreement with TLC to allow LEGOFan.net
to do such things as use the word 'LEGO' in its domain name, as well as many
other benefits and surprises directly from the 'inside'!
For now, the site is still in its beginning stages, and it may still be a
while yet before LEGOFan.net is actually ready to be launched. Many aspects
such as language globalization and privacy issues present considerable
problems, and even more so as the LEGO Company wants to be especially
careful where certain issues are concerned. However, we look forward to
finally being able to present the community with LEGOFan.net.
We welcome and ask your thoughts and feedback. As you can certainly
understand, however, we need to stay focused for our initial launch to
actually get launched. We are listening and will continue to listen, even if
your suggestions and requests don't make it into the first release. One of
our main focuses in creating an initial structure that allows for and
encourages community participation well into the future.
Play Well,
The LEGOFan Team
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that
> can act as a central hub for the community.
I have to ask: Since Lego the company seems to be involved, does this
central hub exclude the use of bricks manufactured by other companies?
Don
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Don Heyse wrote:
> I have to ask: Since Lego the company seems to be involved, does this
> central hub exclude the use of bricks manufactured by other companies?
Well considering the name is LEGOfan.net, I somehow believe the answer is yes.
:P
Not that there couldn't be a seperate clone section though.
--SteveR
|
|
| |
-snip newsgroup flooding-
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> We're working out the details of the agreement with TLC to allow LEGOFan.net
> to do such things as use the word 'LEGO' in its domain name, as well as many
> other benefits and surprises directly from the 'inside'!
I would be very surprised if Lego let you use "Lego" in the URL for the site.
They are pretty tough on these things - and if they let you do it they will be
opening one heck of a can of worms. Because IF they let you do it they will be
"diluting the brand name" as is the popular term here on Lugnet.
One of the things that makes the Lego brand name so strong is how they fight to
keep it clean and not used by non-Lego people. I do not think they will go back
on everything they stand for, and fight for in any way.
Lego has bashed down the door of many sites that tried to do similar things.
But hey, if they want to go down that road and open up that pandora's box then
who am I to care? As long as they keep making bricks thats all I really care
about at the end of the day.
But on the other hand - what the heck do I know?
Good luck on it though.
Mark P
LoB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that can act
> as a central hub for the community. A site where LEGO fans worldwide can get
> information, be directed towards resources, and interact. We also are
> developing an infrastructure that will allow community members to be
> involved with the running of the site, from administration tasks to
> open-source code maintenance. We hope in this way to actually create a site
> that is in all ways by fans, for fans.
This sounds quite a bit like the WorldLUG concept discussed several days ago, in
essence. Is this a parallel type of project, or could the two be combined?
> Perhaps what excites us most about LEGOFan.net, however, is the involvement
> of the LEGO Company itself. Presently, the LEGO Company works informally and
> sporadically with multiple independent fan sites. LEGOFan.net will provide a
> more centralized point for the LEGO Company to interact with the fan
> community, thus increasing the frequency of their interaction, updates,
> news, and releases.
This almost sounds like an ILTCO-type organization, except it would encompass
all venues of LEGO fan communities, rather than being specific to trains. Is
that accurate, or am I missing the gist?
From what I've read about WorldLUG and LEGOFan.net, it sounds like the idea of
improving communication between existing LEGO fan sites is something that many
people are contemplating lately. Todd Lehman sounded positive about WorldLUG,
and LEGOFan.net has (at least) Peeron involved, so there are some heavy hitters
endorsing the concept. And it can't be bad if Jake is on board ;)
Has anybody done a poll of LEGO-oriented webmasters to see how interested they'd
be in participating? It sounds like a slam dunk, but you never know. It sounds
intriguing, and personally I'd like to know more and see how it would relate to
any of the online LEGO endeavors I'm involved with.
Regards,
Kelly
- BZPower
- PNLTC
- ILTCO
- BrickFest PDX 2004
- Bricksploration
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
| |
-snip newsgroup flooding-
I would be very surprised if Lego let you use “Lego” in the URL for the site.
They are pretty tough on these things - and if they let you do it they will be
opening one heck of a can of worms. Because IF they let you do it they will be
“diluting the brand name” as is the popular term here on Lugnet.
|
Mark, you are certainly correct that we have a policy of not allowing
unauthorized uses of “LEGO” in the domain name. It is very important that
consumers are clear who has developed the site, and using “LEGO” in the domain
tends to tell people that the site is supported by the LEGO Company. From our
Fair Play policy:
The LEGO trademark should not be incorporated into an Internet address.
Internet addresses have become useful tools for people to identify the source of
a homepage. Using “LEGO” in the domain name would be creating the misleading
impression that the LEGO Group sponsored the homepage.
However, in this case, we are indeed supporting this project. We still aren’t
quite clear what exactly the support will be, or whether the LEGOFan team will
actually accept our support. Assuming they do, one thing that have agreed to
offer is that domain name usage.
You can see a similar exception with the LEGOWorld.nl domain. This was a site
co-developed by the company and fans.
Hope this helps!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> Hope this helps!
Oh ya - it does. And more power to them. It *is* a good thing that Lego is
reaching out and helping.
Can you also address the points Kelly had here
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=45369
Seems like the 2 projects kinda mirror each other a bit.
Now something needs to be done about http://www.metrunui.com
Mark P
LoB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
>
> What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that can act
> as a central hub for the community. A site where LEGO fans worldwide can get
> information, be directed towards resources, and interact. We also are
> developing an infrastructure that will allow community members to be
> involved with the running of the site, from administration tasks to
> open-source code maintenance. We hope in this way to actually create a site
> that is in all ways by fans, for fans.
>
> Perhaps what excites us most about LEGOFan.net, however, is the involvement
> of the LEGO Company itself. Presently, the LEGO Company works informally and
> sporadically with multiple independent fan sites. LEGOFan.net will provide a
> more centralized point for the LEGO Company to interact with the fan
> community, thus increasing the frequency of their interaction, updates,
> news, and releases.
ok am I to understand that this is meant to bring all of the independent sites
together such as lugnet, bricklink ,peeron, ldraw, brickset, fbtb, brickshelf
and all of the other major sites onto one site similar to the iltco who is
bringing all of the train clubs together for one point of contact?
OnDrew
> Play Well,
>
> The LEGOFan Team
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For some time now, a group of us have been discussing the concept of a LEGO
> site that the community could truly call its own-- community owned,
> designed, and operated. To this end, we have been endeavoring for more than
> half a year to bring that concept to life. After the recent announcement
> concerning WorldLUG, we decided that it would be a good time to bring this
> into the public eye.
>
> Who are we? Presently, the group is made up of 9 people: Jacob Sparre
> Andersen, Steve Bliss, Dan Boger, Jennifer Boger, David Eaton, Sean Kenney,
> Jake Mckee, Richard Morton, and Calum Tsang.
>
> What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that can act
> as a central hub for the community. A site where LEGO fans worldwide can get
> information, be directed towards resources, and interact. We also are
> developing an infrastructure that will allow community members to be
> involved with the running of the site, from administration tasks to
> open-source code maintenance. We hope in this way to actually create a site
> that is in all ways by fans, for fans.
>
> Perhaps what excites us most about LEGOFan.net, however, is the involvement
> of the LEGO Company itself. • SNIP
> The LEGOFan Team
I'm not trying to be a wet towel, but I've always viewed LUGnet as the 'center
portal' or 'hub' of the lego community--it functions as exactly that, AND a
discussion site. Secondly, Lugnet already fits the "concept of a LEGO site that
the community could truly call its own." Thirdly, LUGnet already has "the
involvement of the LEGO Company itself." basically, LEGOFan.net seems totally
redundant and *almost* feels like a slap in the face to LUGnet & Todd. HOWEVER,
more Lego sites are a good thing. Good Luck.
Jeff
|
|
| |
"BrikTrak.com" <rjmorton@AT4imprintNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:Hsxwnq.1III@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> We welcome and ask your thoughts and feedback. As you can certainly
> understand, however, we need to stay focused for our initial launch to
> actually get launched. We are listening and will continue to listen, even • if
> your suggestions and requests don't make it into the first release. One of
> our main focuses in creating an initial structure that allows for and
> encourages community participation well into the future.
>
> Play Well,
>
> The LEGOFan Team
>
>
>
Having been down a similar path with ILTCO I can certainly appreciate the
"getting launched" aspect of an effort such as this. This effort is
probably a magnitude larger than the ILTCO effort so good luck as you get
v1.0 released!
I have a couple of questions, one from an ILTCO perspective, one from a
personal perspective.
1) ILTCO Q: Can you articulate how you envision interacting with the
various other sites (1000steine, BrickLink, ILTCO, Classic-Castle, etc.)?
Do you envision links to the various sites or actually incorporating and
sharing data?
2) Personal Q: This is probably more of a plea than a Q. :-) Will
LEGOfan.net incorporate dicussion forums? If so, please make them
accessible via NNTP. IMHO NNTP is the single best feature of LUGNET and one
I would like to see continue if the LEGO community migrates from LUGNET to
LEGOfan.net.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring.com
http://www.ncltc.cc - North Carolina LEGO Train Club
http://www.carolinatrainbuilders.com - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=mpw - CTB/Brick Depot
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> > What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that
> > can act as a central hub for the community.
>
> I have to ask: Since Lego the company seems to be involved, does this
> central hub exclude the use of bricks manufactured by other companies?
<tongue-in-cheek>
I'm sure LEGOFan.net will be at least as scrupulous about clone bricks as LEGO
Magazine is....
</tongue-in-cheek>
Steve
|
|
| |
Snippage
>
> I'm not trying to be a wet towel, but I've always viewed LUGnet as the 'center
> portal' or 'hub' of the lego community--it functions as exactly that, AND a
> discussion site. Secondly, Lugnet already fits the "concept of a LEGO site that
> the community could truly call its own." Thirdly, LUGnet already has "the
> involvement of the LEGO Company itself." basically, LEGOFan.net seems totally
> redundant and *almost* feels like a slap in the face to LUGnet & Todd. HOWEVER,
> more Lego sites are a good thing. Good Luck.
>
> Jeff
I agree. Why not make Lugnet the single point of contact for the LEGO fan base.
We all come here any way. LEGOfan.net sounds redundant or am I missing
something?
Mike
|
|
| |
Mike Walsh <mike_walsh@mindspring.com> wrote:
> 2) Personal Q: This is probably more of a plea than a Q. :-) Will
> LEGOfan.net incorporate dicussion forums? If so, please make them
> accessible via NNTP. IMHO NNTP is the single best feature of LUGNET and one
> I would like to see continue if the LEGO community migrates from LUGNET to
> LEGOfan.net.
I'd rather see this new site point to Lugnet for the discussion forums.
It's quite well done here, and there's little point in spreading everyone
out.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller wrote in message ...
> Mike Walsh <mike_walsh@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > LEGOfan.net incorporate dicussion forums? If so, please make them
> > accessible via NNTP.
>
> I'd rather see this new site point to Lugnet for the discussion forums.
> It's quite well done here, and there's little point in spreading everyone
> out.
Ditto to both. I don't what YAFGTR (Yet Another Fan Group to Read), but if I
have to, please PLEASE make it NNTP accessible. Take into account that the
posting rate on LUGNET goes WAY down when NNTP is out for some reason.
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Farmhouse kit: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/cat-farm.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGO TOWN PLANNING information:
http://www.lionsgatemodels.com/COntent/Townplan/townplan.htm
BrickLink Lego parts store: http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
The Guild of Bricksmiths(TM): http://www.bricksmiths.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Mike Kollross wrote:
> Snippage
> >
> > I'm not trying to be a wet towel, but I've always viewed LUGnet as the 'center
> > portal' or 'hub' of the lego community--it functions as exactly that, AND a
> > discussion site. Secondly, Lugnet already fits the "concept of a LEGO site that
> > the community could truly call its own." Thirdly, LUGnet already has "the
> > involvement of the LEGO Company itself." basically, LEGOFan.net seems totally
> > redundant and *almost* feels like a slap in the face to LUGnet & Todd. HOWEVER,
> > more Lego sites are a good thing. Good Luck.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> I agree. Why not make Lugnet the single point of contact for the LEGO fan base.
> We all come here any way. LEGOfan.net sounds redundant or am I missing
> something?
>
> Mike
As central as Lugnet is to portions of the online LEGO community, I believe
there are other audiences that consider themselves LEGO fans, who would benefit
from a more structured interconnected community than Lugnet provides. It would
makes sense that Lugnet play a pivotal role in any such structure, but I know of
other audiences that would appreciate an easy-to-use, centralized organization
of LEGO fan resources.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
This is all news to me.
I would like to talk w/you offline, Jake - because, AFAIK, Todd is also ignorant
of this Official shift off.
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
...
| |
However, in this case, we are indeed supporting this project. We still aren’t
quite clear what exactly the support will be, or whether the LEGOFan team
will actually accept our support....
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
I’ll be interested in learning more about The LEGO Company’s “support” of Team
LEGOF. Right now it all sounds pretty vague. It feels to me like you’re “sending
a message” without delivering information.
-Suz
...Todd’s probably still on an airplane right now.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Suzanne Rich Green wrote:
snip
snip
Indeed.
Dr. Terrible
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim Deering wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Suzanne Rich Green wrote:
snip
snip
|
It does seem that way to me as well. I was just wondering how long it can take
to become a Lugnet member these days...
-Tom McD.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For some time now, a group of us have been discussing the concept of a LEGO
> site that the community could truly call its own-- community owned,
> designed, and operated. To this end, we have been endeavoring for more than
> half a year to bring that concept to life. After the recent announcement
> concerning WorldLUG, we decided that it would be a good time to bring this
> into the public eye.
>
> Who are we? Presently, the group is made up of 9 people: Jacob Sparre
> Andersen, Steve Bliss, Dan Boger, Jennifer Boger, David Eaton, Sean Kenney,
> Jake Mckee, Richard Morton, and Calum Tsang.
>
> What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that can act
> as a central hub for the community. A site where LEGO fans worldwide can get
> information, be directed towards resources, and interact. We also are
> developing an infrastructure that will allow community members to be
> involved with the running of the site, from administration tasks to
> open-source code maintenance. We hope in this way to actually create a site
> that is in all ways by fans, for fans.
>
> Perhaps what excites us most about LEGOFan.net, however, is the involvement
> of the LEGO Company itself. Presently, the LEGO Company works informally and
> sporadically with multiple independent fan sites. LEGOFan.net will provide a
> more centralized point for the LEGO Company to interact with the fan
> community, thus increasing the frequency of their interaction, updates,
> news, and releases.
>
> We're working out the details of the agreement with TLC to allow LEGOFan.net
> to do such things as use the word 'LEGO' in its domain name, as well as many
> other benefits and surprises directly from the 'inside'!
>
> For now, the site is still in its beginning stages, and it may still be a
> while yet before LEGOFan.net is actually ready to be launched. Many aspects
> such as language globalization and privacy issues present considerable
> problems, and even more so as the LEGO Company wants to be especially
> careful where certain issues are concerned. However, we look forward to
> finally being able to present the community with LEGOFan.net.
>
> We welcome and ask your thoughts and feedback. As you can certainly
> understand, however, we need to stay focused for our initial launch to
> actually get launched. We are listening and will continue to listen, even if
> your suggestions and requests don't make it into the first release. One of
> our main focuses in creating an initial structure that allows for and
> encourages community participation well into the future.
>
> Play Well,
>
> The LEGOFan Team
That all sounds good. Just don't let Jake force you to focus on Trains and hog
up all the space for that theme! ;o)
I'd like to see something that has real news, focus on current and upcoming
product and the good product history. We also need a forum that encourages easy
posting, easy to follow threads and is good for all ages. I can think of a
couple of model sites that I like that I would like to see some elements
included for fan use and discussion.
Feel free to experiment, and bounce questions off me. :o)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> > What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that
> > can act as a central hub for the community.
>
> I have to ask: Since Lego the company seems to be involved, does this
> central hub exclude the use of bricks manufactured by other companies?
>
> Don
Bah! They wouldn't even know. With all the color variations, parts variations
and other smokescreen construction tidbits I could get away with a clone in
every MOC if I really put my brick to it. The Mania magazine doesn't even make
that distinction.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Mike Walsh <mike_walsh@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > 2) Personal Q: This is probably more of a plea than a Q. :-) Will
> > LEGOfan.net incorporate dicussion forums? If so, please make them
> > accessible via NNTP. IMHO NNTP is the single best feature of LUGNET and one
> > I would like to see continue if the LEGO community migrates from LUGNET to
> > LEGOfan.net.
>
> I'd rather see this new site point to Lugnet for the discussion forums.
> It's quite well done here, and there's little point in spreading everyone
> out.
True. Lugnet discussion forums are excellent. And the ability to access via
HTTP, SMTP, and NNTP is probably unique and not done anywhere else online.
Where Lugnet totally missed the boat was with _PRIVATE_ message boards. Lugnet
never created this function and so there are dozens and dozens of private
Lego-related message boards. EZBoard is nice; Yahoo Groups has its advantages,
too, as do other message board services, but it would have been ideal for Lugnet
to have developed private message boards.
Ideal in the sense of not having to rely on the other services for the various
message boards.
Ideal in the sense that I think Lugnet newsgroup functionality is superior to
all the others.
Ideal in not having to log in to a variety of sites and services to keep abreast
of all things Lego.
Ideal in that ALL discussion and news would be on ONE site--Lugnet.
__Kevin Salm__
LUCNY
|
|
| |
Aaron West <blacktron@earthlink.net> wrote:
> upcoming product and the good product history. We also need a forum that
> encourages easy posting, easy to follow threads and is good for all
> ages. I can think of a couple of model sites that I like that I would
In what ways do we not have that forum with Lugnet? Although I use the
NNTP interface, I find the web interface to be one of the best of any
www-discussion forum out there. *Especially* when it comes to threads.
[followup-to .general and admin.general]
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Kevin Salm <kdsalm@dreamscape.com> wrote:
> Where Lugnet totally missed the boat was with _PRIVATE_ message boards.
> Lugnet never created this function and so there are dozens and dozens of
> private Lego-related message boards. EZBoard is nice; Yahoo Groups has
> its advantages, too, as do other message board services, but it would
> have been ideal for Lugnet to have developed private message boards.
Not necessarily too late for this to be added....
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Hi everyone
Please forgive my ignorance but could someone explain what LUGNET is if it does
not meet the description of a LEGO fansite? I have read some of the posts
regarding WorldLUG and now LEGOFan.net but I may be missing something here.
Also, what is the relationship between LUGNET and LEGO? This is a little
unclear to me as we do have some direct input from LEGO staff, ie. Jake. I have
to say I am a relatively new member to LUGNET, although I have been "lurking"
for a few years, so I may be missing a vital point in this discussion.
This does not mean I will not support any new ventures. I am just curious.
Thanks
Chris
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
<snip>
> The LEGOFan Team
Wadda?
I'm sorry to say this, but this is the worst lack of respect towards Lugnet and
this community I've seen in a long time. What would your website do if not copy
what Lugnet does? Why come on Lugnet to advertise a website which has for
primary objective, the way you describe it, to replace Lugnet as the main LEGO
website?
It seems to me that some people are simply not happy not to be the ones running
THE major LEGO community website and want to create their own. Or maybe, like
many others, I simply don't get it? Tell me why not contribute to the already
existing great website that is lugnet and proposing to help maintaining it and
improving it as a moderator or something in those lines instead of creating a
competitive site, which you advertise freely here?
Maybe, like I said, it's just me. But I truly fail to see the point of your
group. I heard of a similar group when the BL community was split between the
Dan Jezek supporters and the others that weren't happy with the way things were
going. Some poeple started talking about creating a new community website for
sellers and buyers to trade without some rules that BL has. It failed
miserably. The way I see it, it failed because most people, like me, preferred
working with the imperfect but good BL system to improve it instead of
destroying a good system and not knowng what the results would be.
For my part, Lugnet satisfies my needs plenty. Brickshelf is great too. Add
Brickset, which I seldom visit but is nontheless a great website, BriskLink,
which I still use as a buyer even if I quit the selling business because I was
unhappy the way DanJ runs the business, add also MOCPages and a multitude of
fan-created theme-oriented websites and I truly don't see what your site would
bring more. lugnet already links to these websites. If not, Brickshelf does.
I think you need to explain how Lugnet is NOT the main hub. And if you think it
is, explain why you want to replace it instead of improving it with us. I
really don't want to see something like a competitive website happening. It
would only divide the community, not make it stronger.
Terry
Paying member of Lugnet.
|
|
| |
Trimmed lots of groups and moved to .general.
I agree with Terry, LUGNET is -in my world- the central place for all things
LEGO. Sure, there are a lot of sites that don't get much attention from LUGNET
and there are other issues, most beacuse Todd has other things to do then
babysitting LUGNET all the time.
I say, let's help fix the things that are not top-notch with LUGNET and carry
on.
I fail to see the need for another resource but I can see things that need
improving with LUGNET.
Of course I don't know all the inner politics of LUGNET and other resources, if
there are reasons there (or otherwise) that I fail to see, please explain them!
LUGNET, Peeron, Bricklink and Brickshelf have a pretty tight relationship today
via the Set Database.
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
<playing devils advocate here>
I think the main issue is fantastic resource tho it is, it is still a
privately owned website. Despite the huge fan involvement in the site it
remains private property.
Todd is at total liberty to do as he wishes with the site, which is correct,
it is his creation, his baby. I belive this is where the issue lies.
I wouldn't want this new site to destroy what Lugnet is, and I don't belive
it can, or would, looking at who is involved.
--
James Stacey
------
www.minifig.co.uk
Lugnet Member #925
I'm a citizen of Legoland travellin' Incommunicado
"Chris Paton" <chrisp@cliffhanger.com> wrote in message
news:HsyMq4.165E@lugnet.com...
> Hi everyone
>
> Please forgive my ignorance but could someone explain what LUGNET is if it • does
> not meet the description of a LEGO fansite? I have read some of the posts
> regarding WorldLUG and now LEGOFan.net but I may be missing something • here.
>
> Also, what is the relationship between LUGNET and LEGO? This is a little
> unclear to me as we do have some direct input from LEGO staff, ie. Jake. • I have
> to say I am a relatively new member to LUGNET, although I have been • "lurking"
> for a few years, so I may be missing a vital point in this discussion.
>
> This does not mean I will not support any new ventures. I am just • curious.
>
> Thanks
>
> Chris
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.build, Don Heyse wrote:
> I have to ask: Since Lego the company seems to be involved, does this
> central hub exclude the use of bricks manufactured by other companies?
It is not something that has been discussed so far, but I am pretty sure the
answer will be that it does not exclude clone bricks.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Bregnerod (a LEGO town):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Milj%F8er/Bregnerod/
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> This sounds quite a bit like the WorldLUG concept discussed
> several days ago, in essence. Is this a parallel type of
> project, or could the two be combined?
I agree that it seems to be quite a bit like WorldLUG. And yes,
I suppose the two projects could be combined. As far as I know,
both projects want to build an open structure, where everybody
can take part, so it is hard to see where the conflict would be.
And if the two projects want to compete, it is fine with me too,
as long as they stay open in such a way that they can include
data, articles and code from each other.
> Has anybody done a poll of LEGO-oriented webmasters to see how
> interested they'd be in participating?
I don't think so.
> It sounds like a slam dunk, but you never know.
A problem current site owners may have with projects like
WorldLUG and LEGOFan.net is that they will have to relax their
control they have over the content on their sites to get the
full benefits from the projects.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Experimental parallel cable-stayed bridge:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Broer/Skr%E5stagsbro-parallel/
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.general, Ondrew Hartigan wrote:
> ok am I to understand that this is meant to bring all of the independent sites
> together such as lugnet, bricklink ,peeron, ldraw, brickset, fbtb, brickshelf
> and all of the other major sites onto one site
To the extent that these sites are interested, yes.
Nobody should be - or feel - forced to join LEGOFan.net. I hope
there also in the future will appear new independent LEGO fan
sites. But they should now have to option of accessing all the
data and articles available through LEGOFan.net.
We have discussed making both the software running the site _and_
the content of the site Open Source, to ensure that independent
sites will have the freedom to access the site and present its
content in new and innovative ways.
Putting the content under an Open Source license will of course
create some problems related to commercial information from LEGO,
so we will probably end up with some mixed situation, where not
all the LEGOFan.net content is under an Open Source license.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Sal Colibri (from Roger Leloup's "Yoko Tsuno"):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Fly/Colibri/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tom McDonald wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Tim Deering wrote:
|
Zing! “Well played” as Sandlin would say.
| |
It does seem that way to me as well. I was just wondering how long it can
take to become a Lugnet member these days...
|
D’Oh! Tom, are you still left hanging? As far as I’m aware, all the pending
applications are processed up through I think Tuesday (two days ago). Of
course, I may be unaware (ignorant!) of yours...? We switched the PayPal e-mail
address last fall and occasionally someone slips through the cracks (sending
payment to the old address) and they e-mail me and I am usually pretty good
about handling it right away but I definitely have dropped the ball a few times
and left people hanging for weeks accidentally.
Currently, I’m at Logan Airport -- on the plane, about to leave for Portland in
15 minutes -- but you can e-mail me at todd@lugnet.com if you’re still waiting
hopelessly and I’ll be able to help you out later after I arrive in Portland.
Any suggestions (anyone?) on automating PayPal payments? Ideally this should be
handled automatically and instantly, and not have a human bottleneck, especially
one who is absent minded.
--Todd
|
|
| |
Tobbe Arnesson wrote:
> LUGNET, Peeron, Bricklink and Brickshelf have a pretty tight relationship today
> via the Set Database.
Why there are duplicate set inventories on both Bricklink and Peeron?
Why the is no coordination between naming of parts between Bricklink and
Peeron?
Why there are still '?' in set database while there are existing
inventories on BL/P, so parts counts are known?
What's the difference between guide on Lugnet and BrickSet? Isn't that
just a mere duplication?
Why doesn't Brickshelf carry new catalogs? Don't they want them? Why is
Lugnet still linking to them?
Why aren't the set database/inventories publicly available for machine
processing?
Where is other language support? USA is not the only country on the
world.
I thought this were the ideas behind WorldLUG - to interconnect the LEGO
world. If the LEGOFan.net would do it, that would be great.
Today, to me, Lugnet is two things:
a) guide.lugnet.com
b) news.lugnet.com
So I don't see it as 'main hub'. And, as it was said in WorldLUG thread,
it doesn't look like it would be in the future.
I don't want to sound that negative. I would like to help, but I just
don't know how. [I have few ideas about peeron, but they seem they don't
need my witty comments :*) ]
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Terry Prosper wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> <snip>
> > The LEGOFan Team
<snip>
> Tell me why not contribute to the already
> existing great website that is lugnet and proposing to help maintaining it and
> improving it as a moderator or something in those lines instead of creating a
> competitive site, which you advertise freely here? • <snip>
> For my part, Lugnet satisfies my needs plenty. • <snip>
> Terry
> Paying member of Lugnet.
For my part, Terry, I disagree that this is being done with any disrespect
towards LUGNET. It doesn't seem to be some personal "Don't like the way you run
things" reasoning, like you have with Bricklink. I think consolidation and
resource sharing is the point.
You listed a number of sites that serves you well. Unfortunately, for a number
of more casual fans, that number is a few sites too high. From my personal
perspective, I would love have one site that contains (within the site itself)
everything I am looking for. I can't tell you how many times I write down 3 or
4 different sites to a customer looking for information on something, and have
to show them each different site so that they get the interface and terminology.
I'm all about standardization, and if I can say, "yeah, just go to this website,
it will let you find the piece you're looking for from the set you want, tell
you all about it, allow you to chat in discussions about it, host pictures of
it, and let you buy it, all on one site", then my life would be a touch easier.
I might be playing devil's advocate, but I also strongly believe that this is
not disrespect, and should not attacked as such. It is, after all, the
sincerest form of flattery.
Brian P. Gefrich
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.build, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
> I'm not trying to be a wet towel, but I've always viewed
> LUGnet as the 'center portal' or 'hub' of the lego
> community--it functions as exactly that, AND a discussion
> site. Secondly, Lugnet already fits the "concept of a
> LEGO site that the community could truly call its own."
> Thirdly, LUGnet already has "the involvement of the LEGO
> Company itself." basically, LEGOFan.net seems totally
> redundant
Reading the announcement, I must agree that LEGOFan.net
seems redundant. But some things didn't get into the
announcement; things _I_ believe will make LEGOFan.net (and
WorldLUG as I understand it) significantly different from
Lugnet:
* It is not just that we plan to use Open Source software.
Everybody (even Microsoft and IBM) does that nowadays.
We actually plan to have the whole software package used
to run the site available for download for anybody
interested in setting up a competing or complementary
site.
* Similarly we have also discussed making all of the
content (but of course not user data like e-mail
addresses) Open Source as well.
The reasons for doing this are:
+ LEGOFan.net will have to keep developing, to stay on top.
If development stops, any competent LEGO fan will be able
to grab a copy of the site software and the data and set
up a competing site. It the site software and content
isn't Open Source, there is a much higher treshold for
setting up a competing site, and development will thus
have to start from scratch, if LEGOFan.net development
stops or stagnates.
+ It will be easier for people to experiment with new
modules for the site, if they easily can set up a test
system on their own.
+ Local LEGO clubs may get an easy system for setting up
their own community site in a form that easily can
exchange data and articles with the LEGOFan.net site.
+ We may be able to attract developers, who can use the
core part of the site software for non-LEGO projects,
and thus attract a larger developer base, than with a
closed LEGO-only software development project.
> and *almost* feels like a slap in the face to
> LUGnet & Todd.
In a sense it _is_ a slap in the face to Lugnet and Todd.
Lugnet isn't open for anybody to experiment with the
software and try to develop new features. Nor is it
controlled by the LEGO fan community, it is controlled by
Todd, and even though Todd _is_ a LEGO fan that isn't quite
the same.
> HOWEVER, more Lego sites are a good thing.
> Good Luck.
Thanks.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Houses by Katrine, Caroline and Jacob:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/By/Huse/
|
|
| |
"Jindroush" <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz> wrote in message
news:402B7020.38BAFC84@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz...
Jindroush, you raise some good points, but to answer one in particular,
> What's the difference between guide on Lugnet and BrickSet? Isn't that
> just a mere duplication?
It is partly thanks to Brickset that the Lugnet guide is as good as it is
today. A few years ago there was a degree of 'friendly rivalry' between
Brickset and Lugnet, and following a major enhancemnet of Brickset, I
believe Todd felt the need to beef up the guide in response.
Competition is always a good thing...
At the moment the guide has some advantages over Brickset, and vice-versa.
Myself and Grahame Reid continue to maintain Brickset because it gives us
pleasure to do so and judging from the usage stats, an increasing number of
others are finding it a useful resource.
Of course, if LEGOFan.net provides high quality images and information on
every set produced since the year dot including promotional, regional and
other rare sets, and produces it in a timely manner on or before set
release, I'll be happy to throw in the towel, or maybe adapt Brickset to
take its data from a XML web service or whatever else is provided by
LEGOfan.net
Huw
Webmaster Brickset.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Mike Kollross wrote:
> I agree. Why not make Lugnet the single point of contact for the LEGO fan base.
> We all come here any way. LEGOfan.net sounds redundant or am I missing
> something?
The main reason is that LUGNET is not owned and run by the community. I love
LUGNET, and I think Todd (and Suz, before she retired) did a great job in
setting it up and running it. However, development on LUGNET can only be done
by invitation. And to date, there have been very few such invitations. That is
one of the main things we hope LEGOFan can improve on. By making the code that
runs the site accessible for anyone to download, modify, and submit updates, we
allow a much wider pool of developers to work on the site.
This means, that if someone has a great idea for a new way to, say, track
community events, they can just write a module, upload it, and everyone
benefits. Currently, they would have to just go set it up at yet another site,
and they would not have any way to integrate with the vast amount of data and
code that's already there.
I think that's one point that's being missed here.
Dan
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.build, Mike Walsh wrote:
> 1) ILTCO Q: Can you articulate how you envision interacting with the
> various other sites (1000steine, BrickLink, ILTCO, Classic-Castle, etc.)?
> Do you envision links to the various sites or actually incorporating and
> sharing data?
In the long run we hope to share data - or at least have a
stronger integration than just links - with other LEGO fan
sites. But the initial release will probably just link to
most of these sites.
> 2) Personal Q: This is probably more of a plea than a Q. :-) Will
> LEGOfan.net incorporate dicussion forums? If so, please make them
> accessible via NNTP. IMHO NNTP is the single best feature of LUGNET and one
> I would like to see continue if the LEGO community migrates from LUGNET to
> LEGOfan.net.
We expect that LEGOFan.net will incorporate discussion
forums. Probably in part as feeds from other LEGO fan
sites. And don't worry there are NNTP fans in the initial
working group _and_ we intend to have a relatively open
system for deciding which features to incorporate in the
site (as long as somebody cares to implement them).
Play well,
Jacob
--
City X'ers mail van (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/CityXers/Postbil/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Mike Walsh wrote:
> Having been down a similar path with ILTCO I can certainly appreciate the
> "getting launched" aspect of an effort such as this. This effort is
> probably a magnitude larger than the ILTCO effort so good luck as you get
> v1.0 released!
Thanks!
> I have a couple of questions, one from an ILTCO perspective, one from a
> personal perspective.
>
> 1) ILTCO Q: Can you articulate how you envision interacting with the
> various other sites (1000steine, BrickLink, ILTCO, Classic-Castle, etc.)?
> Do you envision links to the various sites or actually incorporating and
> sharing data?
The idea is that LEGOFan will be very closely integrated with the other sites.
We would love to both incorporate external data, and share any data we have
locally. Our goal is not to replace anyone, or push any other site out of the
way, but just bring ther various centers of the community closer together. As
Jacob said elsewhere, not only do we plan to make the code publicly available,
we'd love to make the _data_ as available as possible.
> 2) Personal Q: This is probably more of a plea than a Q. :-) Will
> LEGOfan.net incorporate dicussion forums? If so, please make them
> accessible via NNTP. IMHO NNTP is the single best feature of LUGNET and one
> I would like to see continue if the LEGO community migrates from LUGNET to
> LEGOfan.net.
It has not been decided if we actually need our own forums, but if we were to
set up any, I'd defenitely want to set up both NNTP and SMTP interfaces. Again,
the goal is to share as much of the data in as many different ways as possible.
Dan
|
|
| |
James Stacey <james@minifig.co.uk> wrote:
> <playing devils advocate here>
> I think the main issue is fantastic resource tho it is, it is still a
> privately owned website. Despite the huge fan involvement in the site it
> remains private property.
> Todd is at total liberty to do as he wishes with the site, which is correct,
> it is his creation, his baby. I belive this is where the issue lies.
So, to, I guess, play the *other* devil's advocate:
I'm concerned about how this new thing will be *both* genuinely
community-run _and_ Official Lego Company Sponsored. I don't know the
details -- and may even be completely wrong, but it's my understanding
that in the past, there'd been some offers from Lego about making Lugnet
more "official", and Todd and Suz preferred to keep the site an
*independent* one. I see an inherent contradiction in being simultaneously
a totally democratic site and a corporate mouthpiece. One of those roles
seems destined to not work out so well.
But maybe I'm just being pessimistic. The site is currently showing a
domain registrar advertisement, so its completely vaporware. We'll have to
wait and see how it develops. I just hope that it isn't aimed at causing a
split in the Lego fan community -- I've been out of the scene for a couple
of years, and I come back, and the world is falling apart -- old, basic
colors are gone, racist minifigs are in, and now this. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington wrote:
>
> "Jindroush" <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz> wrote in message
> news:402B7020.38BAFC84@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz...
>
> Jindroush, you raise some good points, but to answer one in particular,
>
> > What's the difference between guide on Lugnet and BrickSet? Isn't that
> > just a mere duplication?
>
> It is partly thanks to Brickset that the Lugnet guide is as good as it is
> today. A few years ago there was a degree of 'friendly rivalry' between
> Brickset and Lugnet, and following a major enhancemnet of Brickset, I
> believe Todd felt the need to beef up the guide in response.
>
> Competition is always a good thing...
>
> At the moment the guide has some advantages over Brickset, and vice-versa.
> Myself and Grahame Reid continue to maintain Brickset because it gives us
> pleasure to do so and judging from the usage stats, an increasing number of
> others are finding it a useful resource.
>
> Of course, if LEGOFan.net provides high quality images and information on
> every set produced since the year dot including promotional, regional and
> other rare sets, and produces it in a timely manner on or before set
> release, I'll be happy to throw in the towel, or maybe adapt Brickset to
> take its data from a XML web service or whatever else is provided by
> LEGOfan.net
Or better yet, perhaps Brickset (and others) is where much of the data for a
single, integrated set guide is pulled from!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
Brian Gefrich <webmaster@christinapetty.com> wrote:
> You listed a number of sites that serves you well. Unfortunately, for a
> number of more casual fans, that number is a few sites too high. From my
> personal perspective, I would love have one site that contains (within
> the site itself) everything I am looking for. I can't tell you how many
To spell out the concern directly: it seems like this new site will either
add yet one more new place to look, or else kill off one or more existing
ones. Or -- and this seems unfortunately possible -- *both*.
But as I said elsewhere, that's pessimism speaking. Maybe it'll be a very
good aggregator and bring *increases* to the other sites.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote:
> [ XFUT lugnet.org ]
[Okay, but leaving .general and putting in .admin.general]
> * It is not just that we plan to use Open Source software.
Which I'm a big fan of. What software, and how far along is it?
> * Similarly we have also discussed making all of the
> content (but of course not user data like e-mail
> addresses) Open Source as well.
Also good!
[snip]
> In a sense it _is_ a slap in the face to Lugnet and Todd. Lugnet isn't
> open for anybody to experiment with the software and try to develop new
> features. Nor is it controlled by the LEGO fan community, it is
> controlled by Todd, and even though Todd _is_ a LEGO fan that isn't
> quite the same.
So, sounds like you intend to duplicate a lot of the functionality of
Lugnet.
Have you discussed the possibility of sharing (NNTP seems ideal for this!)
newsgroup posts <-> Lugnet?
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Huw Millington wrote:
> > What's the difference between guide on Lugnet and BrickSet? Isn't that
> > just a mere duplication? • [snip]
> Competition is always a good thing...
Yeah, but if we have _defined_ environment (I mean there is _finite_
number of all LEGO sets out there), the final result _must_ be same. So
I don't see the need for competition. Of course, there may be
differences in 'value added', better pictures, more fields, different
presentation, but the core data _is_ same by the definition.
> Of course, if LEGOFan.net provides high quality images and information on
> every set produced since the year dot including promotional, regional and
> other rare sets, and produces it in a timely manner on or before set
> release, I'll be happy to throw in the towel, or maybe adapt Brickset to
> take its data from a XML web service or whatever else is provided by
> LEGOfan.net
The _cooperation_ is the thing LEGOFan.net (or WorldLUG) talks about,
methinks. There would be no need for you to 'throw in the towel'. You'd
just continue in your (BTW very good) work, but just share it with the
others. This would bring problems, of course. It's the thing I see in
LDraw community - it's full of standards, voting commitees etc.
resulting in slow updates and 'unofficial' parts ;) The database
wouldn't be 'yours' anymore and the write access to it by different
parties would have to be solved somewhat, to avoid the quality drop.
But the shared database would be great - for example, I would like to
give Czech users something like {very limited} guide.lugnet or Brickset.
I don't have enough resources to do it. But it's not a problem for me to
make czech ui, and create add-on xml databases with czech set names,
czech MSRPs and czech release dates.
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> [ XFUT lugnet.org ]
>
> In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
>
> > This sounds quite a bit like the WorldLUG concept discussed
> > several days ago, in essence. Is this a parallel type of
> > project, or could the two be combined?
>
> I agree that it seems to be quite a bit like WorldLUG. And yes,
> I suppose the two projects could be combined. As far as I know,
> both projects want to build an open structure, where everybody
> can take part, so it is hard to see where the conflict would be.
>
> And if the two projects want to compete, it is fine with me too,
> as long as they stay open in such a way that they can include
> data, articles and code from each other.
>
> > Has anybody done a poll of LEGO-oriented webmasters to see how
> > interested they'd be in participating?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> > It sounds like a slam dunk, but you never know.
>
> A problem current site owners may have with projects like
> WorldLUG and LEGOFan.net is that they will have to relax their
> control they have over the content on their sites to get the
> full benefits from the projects.
Open Source and Open Content licenses have similar goals but different
structures because of the focus of the license. I'm still unclear about what
control you are referring to here thay may need to be relaxed. Do Todd and Suz
own all the content on LUGNET ? The copyright notice from LUGNET reads ...
QUOTE
Except where otherwise noted or where implicitly understood (such as discussion
group content created by users or images owned by the LEGO Group), all material
on this site site is Copyright © by Todd S. Lehman and Suzanne D. Rich. All
rights reserved.
UNQUOTE
My read of this is that (in the great words of The WELL) 'I own my words'. I'm
sure that there are some things here (LUGNET Guide ?) which are not covered by
the above, but I'm not seeing a lack of open content here. Please help me to
understand your point of view.
Ray
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> [ XFUT lugnet.org ]
>
> In lugnet.build, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
>
> > I'm not trying to be a wet towel, but I've always viewed
> > LUGnet as the 'center portal' or 'hub' of the lego
> > community--it functions as exactly that, AND a discussion
> > site. Secondly, Lugnet already fits the "concept of a
> > LEGO site that the community could truly call its own."
> > Thirdly, LUGnet already has "the involvement of the LEGO
> > Company itself." basically, LEGOFan.net seems totally
> > redundant
>
> Reading the announcement, I must agree that LEGOFan.net
> seems redundant. But some things didn't get into the
> announcement; things _I_ believe will make LEGOFan.net (and
> WorldLUG as I understand it) significantly different from
> Lugnet:
>
> * It is not just that we plan to use Open Source software.
> Everybody (even Microsoft and IBM) does that nowadays.
> We actually plan to have the whole software package used
> to run the site available for download for anybody
> interested in setting up a competing or complementary
> site.
>
> * Similarly we have also discussed making all of the
> content (but of course not user data like e-mail
> addresses) Open Source as well.
>
> The reasons for doing this are:
>
> + LEGOFan.net will have to keep developing, to stay on top.
> If development stops, any competent LEGO fan will be able
> to grab a copy of the site software and the data and set
> up a competing site. It the site software and content
> isn't Open Source, there is a much higher treshold for
> setting up a competing site, and development will thus
> have to start from scratch, if LEGOFan.net development
> stops or stagnates.
>
> + It will be easier for people to experiment with new
> modules for the site, if they easily can set up a test
> system on their own.
>
> + Local LEGO clubs may get an easy system for setting up
> their own community site in a form that easily can
> exchange data and articles with the LEGOFan.net site.
>
> + We may be able to attract developers, who can use the
> core part of the site software for non-LEGO projects,
> and thus attract a larger developer base, than with a
> closed LEGO-only software development project.
(don't have much time, leaving for the airport momentarily)
You outline some very good principles for the project.
My interpretation of the WorldLUG project (which I have been involved in
discussion since its inception [1]) is now it is public domain. So, if
LEGOFan.net (LFN) "duplicates" those ideas, good for it - I see no need for the
projects to compete, rather I hope that the WorldLUG ideas presented complement
the energy being put forth into LFN.
I have (many) more thoughts, but I can't put the time into developing them at
the moment.
-Tim
[1] which that is what the overwhelming majority of it has been, talk. From my
POV its always been the goal to act, but various factors impeded that at
different times. So, its good that similar ideas are being acted on now.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Matthew Miller wrote:
> James Stacey <james@minifig.co.uk> wrote:
> > <playing devils advocate here>
> > I think the main issue is fantastic resource tho it is, it is still a
> > privately owned website. Despite the huge fan involvement in the site it
> > remains private property.
> > Todd is at total liberty to do as he wishes with the site, which is correct,
> > it is his creation, his baby. I belive this is where the issue lies.
>
> So, to, I guess, play the *other* devil's advocate:
>
> I'm concerned about how this new thing will be *both* genuinely
> community-run _and_ Official Lego Company Sponsored. I don't know the
> details -- and may even be completely wrong, but it's my understanding
> that in the past, there'd been some offers from Lego about making Lugnet
> more "official", and Todd and Suz preferred to keep the site an
> *independent* one. I see an inherent contradiction in being simultaneously
> a totally democratic site and a corporate mouthpiece. One of those roles
> seems destined to not work out so well.
I think that this is a real problem with the proposed new site. What are the
chances that a site with official TLC backing will allow discussion of pictures
in dealer catalogs? Or 'leaks'? Who knows if such a site would even allow
criticism of TLC policies? The discussion forum on the official TLC site
doesn't.
Even if TLC doesn't directly ban these kinds of actions, chances are that the
fans running the site will. They will see themselves as enforcers for TLC, and
feel that they have to act 'more LEGO than LEGO'. It will become like From
Bricks To Bothans, where a group of TLC-cheerleading mods enforces "respect for
the brick" by stopping discussion.
I prefer the freedom-bordering-on-anarchy of LUGNET to a place where you can say
anything you want, as long as it's nice to TLC.
Marc Nelson Jr.
> But maybe I'm just being pessimistic. The site is currently showing a
> domain registrar advertisement, so its completely vaporware. We'll have to
> wait and see how it develops. I just hope that it isn't aimed at causing a
> split in the Lego fan community -- I've been out of the scene for a couple
> of years, and I come back, and the world is falling apart -- old, basic
> colors are gone, racist minifigs are in, and now this. :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Matthew Miller wrote:
> James Stacey <james@minifig.co.uk> wrote:
> > <playing devils advocate here>
> > I think the main issue is fantastic resource tho it is, it is still a
> > privately owned website. Despite the huge fan involvement in the site it
> > remains private property.
> > Todd is at total liberty to do as he wishes with the site, which is correct,
> > it is his creation, his baby. I belive this is where the issue lies.
>
> So, to, I guess, play the *other* devil's advocate:
>
> I'm concerned about how this new thing will be *both* genuinely
> community-run _and_ Official Lego Company Sponsored. I don't know the
> details -- and may even be completely wrong, but it's my understanding
> that in the past, there'd been some offers from Lego about making Lugnet
> more "official", and Todd and Suz preferred to keep the site an
> *independent* one. I see an inherent contradiction in being simultaneously
> a totally democratic site and a corporate mouthpiece. One of those roles
> seems destined to not work out so well.
There are a couple of reasons that there isn't more "corporate" presence on
LUGNET.
First and most important, the owners of the site have by and large declined it.
Like you mentioned, the reason for this was to stay independent, and as far as
I'm concerned, that was a fine decision. Especially considering LEGO had no
track record when we first started coming to LUGNET several years ago. I would
hope that in the last 4 years, we've proven that we aren't going to spam you,
market to you (in ways you don't want), use you, or otherwise take advantage of
you. We have a track record now, and I’d say it’s pretty darn good.
Secondly, LUGNET is a site meant for adults. While the stray kid may wander in
from time to time, the purpose of the site is really directed to adults. Nothing
wrong with that at all, but since a vast majority of our audience is kids, it’s
a bit problematic, support-wise.
So the bigger question in my mind is this issue of LEGOFan being a “corporate
mouthpiece”. I can understand the concern, but that is not my intention in the
slightest. Far from it.
The LEGOFan concept is meant to be a hub, a place for new and old users alike to
keep up with all the amazing things happening in the community. It’s meant to
deliver age/interest appropriate content to you. It’s meant to capture
interested builders and turn them into hard core fans. And it’s meant to help
existing AFOLs keep up with the massive amounts of cool things happening in the
community.
In my mind it’s also meant to do something else: Provide a next step after
LEGO.com. We are currently getting around 4.5 million unique visitors a month to
LEGO.com (all ages), a number that has continued to climb nearly every month
since re-launching our Web site in September 2000. What happens to them and
their interest in the brick once they have “used up” the content on LEGO.com? Do
we let them slip away and move on to other activities? Or do we capture their
hearts and minds to ensure they transition into being AFOLs? If it’s the second
option, how do we do that?
And what about those people who read about fan movies in Wired magazine? Or see
a spot about a train show on their local evening news? How do we ease those
folks into the community?
The amazing thing about the community to me is how well you are doing on your
own. You don’t need me or anyone else to support you – you’re making things
happen on your own. Like Brad has said in the past, there are things that we
both can do that the other can’t. There may be things in the LEGOFan concept
that I can help support that you can’t get on your own. (The “LEGO” as part of
the domain, for instance) This doesn’t mean the site is, because of that
support, any type of mouth piece. I’ll be the first one to tell you that I’m
here for what you need me for and nothing more. My mantra for the last several
years has been “Everyone goes home happy”.
This site first and foremost will be and should be “owned” and run by the
community. Since the LEGO Company is a member of the LEGO community too, there
is certainly a place for them at the table. What that place is, or for that
matter, what table we’re talking about is still up in the air.
How this relationship between LEGOFan and the LEGO Company shakes out is still
up in the air. But I can assure you that I’d sooner withdraw LEGO support all
together than let the site become any kind of corporate mouthpiece.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.build, Matthew Miller wrote:
> James Stacey <james@minifig.co.uk> wrote:
> > <playing devils advocate here>
> > I think the main issue is fantastic resource tho it is,
> > it is still a privately owned website. Despite the huge
> > fan involvement in the site it remains private property.
> > Todd is at total liberty to do as he wishes with the
> > site, which is correct, it is his creation, his baby. I
> > belive this is where the issue lies.
Yes.
> So, to, I guess, play the *other* devil's advocate:
The devil seems to have plenty of legal representatives. :-)
> I'm concerned about how this new thing will be *both* genuinely
> community-run _and_ Official Lego Company Sponsored.
It _is_ also something that is hard to do. And hopefully we
can find a better solution than just depending on a LEGO
sponsorship. We have already started looking at other
sources of funding for the site. Depending on money from a
single source is just as dangerous for such a project as it
is having the project completely owned by a closed group of
people.
> I don't know the details -- and may even be completely
> wrong, but it's my understanding that in the past,
> there'd been some offers from Lego about making Lugnet
> more "official", and Todd and Suz preferred to keep the
> site an *independent* one. I see an inherent
> contradiction in being simultaneously a totally
> democratic site and a corporate mouthpiece. One of those
> roles seems destined to not work out so well.
You don't have to be "a corporate mouthpiece", just because
you are sponsored by a company, but unless we find
additional/alternative sources of funding, there definitely
is a risk.
> But maybe I'm just being pessimistic. The site is
> currently showing a domain registrar advertisement, so its
> completely vaporware. We'll have to wait and see how it
> develops.
Yes. It would - in a way - have been nicer to wait with the
announcement until we had something more solid to show, but
we would on the other hand like to be a bit open about the
project already at this stage.
> I just hope that it isn't aimed at causing a split in the
> Lego fan community -- I've been out of the scene for a
> couple of years, and I come back, and the world is
> falling apart -- old, basic colors are gone, racist
> minifigs are in, and now this. :)
The world _is_ falling apart, but it is not the goal of
LEGOFan.net to speed the process up.
Play well,
Jacob
--
LEGO furniture:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/By/M%F8bler/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
snip
> > What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that can act
> as a central hub for the community. A site where LEGO fans worldwide can get
> information, be directed towards resources, and interact. We also are
> developing an infrastructure that will allow community members to be
> involved with the running of the site, from administration tasks to
> open-source code maintenance. We hope in this way to actually create a site
> that is in all ways by fans, for fans.
>
> Perhaps what excites us most about LEGOFan.net, however, is the involvement
> of the LEGO Company itself. Presently, the LEGO Company works informally and
> sporadically with multiple independent fan sites. LEGOFan.net will provide a
> more centralized point for the LEGO Company to interact with the fan
> community, thus increasing the frequency of their interaction, updates,
> news, and releases.
>
> We're working out the details of the agreement with TLC to allow LEGOFan.net
> to do such things as use the word 'LEGO' in its domain name, as well as many
> other benefits and surprises directly from the 'inside'!
>
> For now, the site is still in its beginning stages, and it may still be a
> while yet before LEGOFan.net is actually ready to be launched. Many aspects
> such as language globalization and privacy issues present considerable
> problems, and even more so as the LEGO Company wants to be especially
> careful where certain issues are concerned. However, we look forward to
> finally being able to present the community with LEGOFan.net.
>
> We welcome and ask your thoughts and feedback. As you can certainly
> understand, however, we need to stay focused for our initial launch to
> actually get launched. We are listening and will continue to listen, even if
> your suggestions and requests don't make it into the first release. One of
> our main focuses in creating an initial structure that allows for and
> encourages community participation well into the future.
>
> Play Well,
>
> The LEGOFan Team
Please trim your newsgroups. This thread has nothing to do with trains or castle
and so on.
ondrew
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Brian Gefrich <webmaster@christinapetty.com> wrote:
> > You listed a number of sites that serves you well.
> > Unfortunately, for a number of more casual fans, that
> > number is a few sites too high.
I don't think you should expect LEGOFan.net to lower the
number of LEGO fan community sites. If we manage to release
some easy to use software for setting up a community site,
it will probably result in an increasing number of local
LEGO fan community sites. But we hope that LEGOFan.net will
help making both new and existing LEGO fan community sites
cooperate more.
> To spell out the concern directly: it seems like this new
> site will either add yet one more new place to look, or
> else kill off one or more existing ones. Or -- and this
> seems unfortunately possible -- *both*.
That is possible. :-(
But it is not the goal. On the other hand, we must admit
that we have started the project, because we found things
missing on the existing LEGO fan community sites, and thus
can't deny that we expect LEGOFan.net to at least supplement
and maybe also substitute some of the existing LEGO fan
community sites. But please don't expect too much, until we
have shown some working code.
> But as I said elsewhere, that's pessimism speaking. Maybe
> it'll be a very good aggregator and bring *increases* to
> the other sites.
We hope so, but it depends on figuring out how to get the
sites to cooperate. A part of the idea with LEGOFan.net is
to act as a channel for cooperation among and access to the
other sites, so we will not have done our job properly, if
we don't bring an increase in the activity and usefulness of
the LEGO fan community web sites.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Formula One Racers (with building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Biler/Formel-1/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Matthew Miller wrote: • snip
> > I'm concerned about how this new thing will be *both* genuinely
> > community-run _and_ Official Lego Company Sponsored. I don't know the
> > details -- and may even be completely wrong, but it's my understanding
> > that in the past, there'd been some offers from Lego about making Lugnet
> > more "official", and Todd and Suz preferred to keep the site an
> > *independent* one. I see an inherent contradiction in being simultaneously
> > a totally democratic site and a corporate mouthpiece. One of those roles
> > seems destined to not work out so well.
>
>
> There are a couple of reasons that there isn't more "corporate" presence on
> LUGNET.
>
> First and most important, the owners of the site have by and large declined it.
> Like you mentioned, the reason for this was to stay independent, and as far as
> I'm concerned, that was a fine decision. Especially considering LEGO had no
> track record when we first started coming to LUGNET several years ago. I would
> hope that in the last 4 years, we've proven that we aren't going to spam you,
> market to you (in ways you don't want), use you, or otherwise take advantage of
> you. We have a track record now, and I’d say it’s pretty darn good.
>
> Secondly, LUGNET is a site meant for adults. While the stray kid may wander in
> from time to time, the purpose of the site is really directed to adults. Nothing
> wrong with that at all, but since a vast majority of our audience is kids, it’s
> a bit problematic, support-wise.
I think you may be referring to a particular class of traffic here which (at
least in the past) has caused a maximum of issues (i.e. cf [1]). Those types of
messages *do* need to be moderated if you are operating in a sphere containing a
wide variety of ages in your primary market (KBOBs as opposed to AFOLs).
> So the bigger question in my mind is this issue of LEGOFan being a “corporate
> mouthpiece”. I can understand the concern, but that is not my intention in the
> slightest. Far from it.
>
> The LEGOFan concept is meant to be a hub, • a portal ?
> a place for new and old users alike to
> keep up with all the amazing things happening in the community. It’s meant to
> deliver age/interest appropriate content to you. It’s meant to capture
> interested builders and turn them into hard core fans. And it’s meant to help
> existing AFOLs keep up with the massive amounts of cool things happening in the
> community.
So, please correct any misconceptions here... if I understand this correctly
LEGOFan.net will be a hub, potentially hanging off of (or linked from) LEGO.com,
and will then offer pass-thru content (via links or otherwise) to other fan
sites where appropriate. A bridge between LEGO.com and existing (or soon to
exist) sites ?
Other places in this thread have mentioned BrickLink (or BL). This leads to an
interesting question... Can sales sites co-exist in this hub ? If so, then the
possibility exists that one or more of these sites will be offerring the same
items that S@H is currently offerring. To simple-minded me, that would seem to
be a conflict of sorts. As an example, 7111 Droid Fighter has been offered for
sale on BL almost since the first day that BL opened its doors. OTOH, 7111
dropped into the 'Sold Out' category at S@H only during the last month. This may
be an extreme example, but when you consider the variety of traffic in
.market.bst there may be a potential for conflicting goals.
> In my mind it’s also meant to do something else: Provide a next step after
> LEGO.com. We are currently getting around 4.5 million unique visitors a month to
> LEGO.com (all ages), a number that has continued to climb nearly every month
> since re-launching our Web site in September 2000. What happens to them and
> their interest in the brick once they have “used up” the content on LEGO.com?
An impressive number. Truly a result of the 'trust' that the parents put in LEGO
as a corporation to 'do the right thing' (which is not to be confused with
'picking the right themes').
> Do we let them slip away and move on to other activities? Or do we capture their
> hearts and minds to ensure they transition into being AFOLs? If it’s the second
> option, how do we do that?
Other recent threads have mentioned that one of the largest problems facing
TLC/TLG is that of children 'slipping away' (from LEGO) into the much wider
variety of activities available today. This would then appear to be an effort to
stem some of that tide (which, IMHO, is a wonderful idea as far as it goes).
> And what about those people who read about fan movies in Wired magazine? Or see
> a spot about a train show on their local evening news? How do we ease those
> folks into the community?
>
> The amazing thing about the community to me is how well you are doing on your
> own. You don’t need me or anyone else to support you – you’re making things
> happen on your own. Like Brad has said in the past, there are things that we
> both can do that the other can’t. There may be things in the LEGOFan concept
> that I can help support that you can’t get on your own. (The “LEGO” as part of
> the domain, for instance) This doesn’t mean the site is, because of that
> support, any type of mouth piece. I’ll be the first one to tell you that I’m
> here for what you need me for and nothing more. My mantra for the last several
> years has been “Everyone goes home happy”.
>
> This site first and foremost will be and should be “owned” and run by the
> community. Since the LEGO Company is a member of the LEGO community too, there
> is certainly a place for them at the table. What that place is, or for that
> matter, what table we’re talking about is still up in the air.
>
> How this relationship between LEGOFan and the LEGO Company shakes out is still
> up in the air. But I can assure you that I’d sooner withdraw LEGO support all
> together than let the site become any kind of corporate mouthpiece.
Which is wonderful, and I do believe everything your saying. It would be most
helpful to understand (as well as can be explained at this point) what that
support entails. I think many people are wary because of the appearance of
something being given for free and then wondering 'wheres the strings'. There
may be no-string attached, but that remains to be seen as folks in this age
group (AFOLs) tend to be a bit cynical (rightly or wrongly) when being
approached by a company whose sales are in the multi-billions of dollars. Let me
be clear, I'm not accusing TLC/TLG/LD of trying to slip something hidden past us
here, just trying to get a clear understanding of whats in the other guys head,
why they are doing this and what they expect to get from it at the end of the
day. Just trying to make sure that everyone cards are on the table face-up so
that we all see the real story.
> Jake
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Community Liaison
> LEGO Community Development
Ray
[1] http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=43716 (warning: profanity)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> Huw Millington wrote:
> > > What's the difference between guide on Lugnet and BrickSet? Isn't that
> > > just a mere duplication? [snip]
> > Competition is always a good thing...
>
> Yeah, but if we have _defined_ environment (I mean there is _finite_
> number of all LEGO sets out there), the final result _must_ be same. So
> I don't see the need for competition. Of course, there may be
> differences in 'value added', better pictures, more fields, different
> presentation, but the core data _is_ same by the definition.
My point exactly. No need for a third website copying the 2 already existing.
> > Of course, if LEGOFan.net provides high quality images and information on
> > every set produced since the year dot including promotional, regional and
> > other rare sets, and produces it in a timely manner on or before set
> > release, I'll be happy to throw in the towel, or maybe adapt Brickset to
> > take its data from a XML web service or whatever else is provided by
> > LEGOfan.net
>
> The _cooperation_ is the thing LEGOFan.net (or WorldLUG) talks about,
> methinks. There would be no need for you to 'throw in the towel'. You'd
> just continue in your (BTW very good) work, but just share it with the
> others. This would bring problems, of course. It's the thing I see in
> LDraw community - it's full of standards, voting commitees etc.
> resulting in slow updates and 'unofficial' parts ;) The database
> wouldn't be 'yours' anymore and the write access to it by different
> parties would have to be solved somewhat, to avoid the quality drop.
>
> But the shared database would be great - for example, I would like to
> give Czech users something like {very limited} guide.lugnet or Brickset.
> I don't have enough resources to do it. But it's not a problem for me to
> make czech ui, and create add-on xml databases with czech set names,
> czech MSRPs and czech release dates.
So why not work with Huw and Todd and make the already existing websites better?
I have yet to see a good thing come of this debate.
Terry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Brian Gefrich wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Terry Prosper wrote:
> > In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The LEGOFan Team
>
> <snip>
>
> > Tell me why not contribute to the already
> > existing great website that is lugnet and proposing to help maintaining it and
> > improving it as a moderator or something in those lines instead of creating a
> > competitive site, which you advertise freely here? <snip>
> > For my part, Lugnet satisfies my needs plenty. <snip>
> > Terry
> > Paying member of Lugnet.
>
> For my part, Terry, I disagree that this is being done with any disrespect
> towards LUGNET. It doesn't seem to be some personal "Don't like the way you run
> things" reasoning, like you have with Bricklink. I think consolidation and
> resource sharing is the point.
I mean it is insulting to see someone trying to replace a website by using its
ressources to publicize itself. I see this as insulting to Lugnet. To us, I
see it as an insult that some people would want to create a website and call it
the "central hub" or whatever while we are here, every day, building this huge
community, sharing info, showing MOCs, etc. It's like we don't exist. WE ARE
THE CENTRAL HUB. Here. At Lugnet. And mind you, i'm a paying member. Not a
sysop, nor a webmaster here. I'm 1659. Yet I prefer this status to the one of
a free member of a new website that aims at replacing this one.
> You listed a number of sites that serves you well. Unfortunately, for a number
> of more casual fans, that number is a few sites too high. From my personal
> perspective, I would love have one site that contains (within the site itself)
> everything I am looking for. I can't tell you how many times I write down 3 or
> 4 different sites to a customer looking for information on something, and have
> to show them each different site so that they get the interface and terminology.
> I'm all about standardization, and if I can say, "yeah, just go to this website,
> it will let you find the piece you're looking for from the set you want, tell
> you all about it, allow you to chat in discussions about it, host pictures of
> it, and let you buy it, all on one site", then my life would be a touch easier.
>
> I might be playing devil's advocate, but I also strongly believe that this is
> not disrespect, and should not attacked as such. It is, after all, the
> sincerest form of flattery.
The problem is, a single website is prone to mopre problems than many different websites. I'm in favor of decentralization. Go to an electronic store and say you want a fax, a phone, a scanner, a printer and an answering machine. The stupid seller who wants a quick commission will advise you to byt the all-in-one package, where if the printer goes kaboom on you 13 months later, you have to buy the whole machine again, costing a fortune. The smart seller will tell you that while buying individual machines is more costly at once and maybe a bit more complicated to wire together, in the long run, it's always better. They all can work if one gets busted. They all work indepandantly from one another.
To me, this situation is the mame. While the idea of a central website
containig everything is appealing at first, it's still a bad idea IMO. And if
people really want that, which I don't see a majority desiring it, then it MUST
be with Lugnet. Not over or behind Lugnet.
I still think that the way things were done, it's a group of people unhappy with
the fact they have no control over the main community hub.
And what is sooooo difficult with browsing through 3 different websites, all
linked together? This is not an obstacle.
> Brian P. Gefrich
Respectfully yours,
Terry
|
|
| |
Terry Prosper wrote:
> > Yeah, but if we have _defined_ environment (I mean there is _finite_
> > number of all LEGO sets out there), the final result _must_ be same. So
> > I don't see the need for competition. Of course, there may be
> > differences in 'value added', better pictures, more fields, different
> > presentation, but the core data _is_ same by the definition.
>
> My point exactly. No need for a third website copying the 2 already existing.
No, my point is: why to have two sets of data? I don't mind if two sites
use the same data, but I'd like to see one centralized database.
> > But the shared database would be great - for example, I would like to
> > give Czech users something like {very limited} guide.lugnet or Brickset.
> > I don't have enough resources to do it. But it's not a problem for me to
> > make czech ui, and create add-on xml databases with czech set names,
> > czech MSRPs and czech release dates.
>
> So why not work with Huw and Todd and make the already existing websites better?
Wasn't it told in previous debate about WorldLUG, that Lugnet doesn't
evolve anymore? Not to mention that it's a 'private property'.
I have no problem contributing to 'open' projects, though.
--
Jindroush <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz>
Remove both 'nospam's from the address to reply.
|
|
| |
Moved to lugnet.org
> I think that this is a real problem with the proposed new site. What are the
> chances that a site with official TLC backing will allow discussion of pictures
> in dealer catalogs? Or 'leaks'? Who knows if such a site would even allow
> criticism of TLC policies? The discussion forum on the official TLC site
> doesn't.
Those things are NOT allowed on LUGNET either, we just do it anyway - with some
discretion :)
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
No offense intended Terry, but yours was the latest post. Could we PLEASE trim
the number of groups that this discussion has snared?! I hate digging to find
the content that I want.
-Duane
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Jake McKee wrote:
> Secondly, LUGNET is a site meant for adults. While the stray kid may wander in
> from time to time, the purpose of the site is really directed to adults. Nothing
> wrong with that at all, but since a vast majority of our audience is kids, it’s
> a bit problematic, support-wise.
YES. Thank you, Jake. I have a problem with being too subtle, so I'll be more
blunt: Lugnet is targeted to a particular audience, an adult audience. This is
_not_ the ONLY audience interested in LEGO. For those whose online LEGO
experience revolves around Lugnet, that's excellent - but not everyone finds
this site the easiest or most informative to use. Children have been known to
play with LEGO sets as well, and be interested in finding out more about it
online. And let's face it, Lugnet is not terribly inviting to kids.
I'm not criticizing Lugnet, simply saying it's NOT a comprehensive hub. If it
were, sites like BZPower wouldn't exist.
The forums from BZP (originaly BZCommunity.com) were created as a direct result
of the lack of interest in Bionicle on Lugnet. It's got lots more graphics and
features that interest the Bionicle audience - primarily kids. And many members
there are as loyal to it as most Lugnet members are to this site.
So what happens when a newbie wanders into BZPower, looking for general LEGO
info? They find a few links, but they're mostly Bionicle-related. We don't go
out of our way to act as a hub for other interests. And what about somebody
interested in Bionicle who just found Lugnet? There is an average of about 1
message _per week_ in Lugnet/Technic/Bionicle. There are links to other sites on
that landing page (including to BZP), but there are a lot more Bionicle-related
resources available than are listed. If one were to gauge Bionicle's overall
popularity by Lugnet, you'd come away thinking it was one of the
least-successful of LEGO's product lines rather than one of its most successful.
Both the WorldLUG and LEGOFan.net concepts interest me specifically because BZP
would not only be able to more effectively direct people to other LEGO-related
resources that might interest them; BZP would also probably end up becoming a
destination for new fans interested in Bionicle, who found us from one of the
hubs or another site that shared content.
I've always avoided comparing BZP with Lugnet, because they don't really
compete, despite doing the same basic thing - forging a community and providing
news of interest to its audience. The audiences are simply different. What's
appropriate for one (NNTP for adults) wouldn't be for kids, and vice versa
(splashy graphics, avatars, "proto meters" and so on). I find Lugnet and BZPower
to be completely complementary to each other.
You can insert dozens, if not hundreds, of other site names where I've written
"BZPower" and it would still be accurate.
> The LEGOFan concept is meant to be a hub, a place for new and old users alike to
> keep up with all the amazing things happening in the community. It’s meant to
> deliver age/interest appropriate content to you. It’s meant to capture
> interested builders and turn them into hard core fans. And it’s meant to help
> existing AFOLs keep up with the massive amounts of cool things happening in the
> community.
I really like that idea. My LEGO interests are varied, and I have to check a
dozen sites to see cool new stuff. I would love to find a place that either
provides easy access to the content that interests me, or allows me to customize
my own view (e.g. news from BZPower, FBTB.net, press releases from LEGO.com,
anything new added to BrickFrenzy, keeping an eye on certain people's Brickshelf
or MOCPages galleries, possibly using matching algorithms to present links or
content based on previous choices, etc.).
The best of both worlds, in my opinion, would be a concerted effort by members
of the entire online LEGO community (including WorldLUG and LEGOFan.net) to
create a universal standard (Open Source is a good analogy) for various LEGO
online web resources to share content and code. It would need to be accepted by
a majority of LEGO webmasters to be successful.
It's apparent this would be an entirely different entity than a single site like
Lugnet. Because of its popularity and existing user base, obviously Lugnet
administration and a good portion of its members would probably need to at least
agree with the concept for it to be successful. And many others would need "buy
in" as well.
I truly do hope the concept gets off the ground and into implementation, not
only for myself but for the greater LEGO set of audiences. It would be pretty
ground-breaking from an Internet perspective too - I don't think I've heard of
something like this being done on the scale this could reach.
- Kelly
BZPower.com co-Administrator, News Editor
|
|
| |
> I think that this is a real problem with the proposed new site. What are the
> chances that a site with official TLC backing will allow discussion of pictures
> in dealer catalogs? Or 'leaks'? Who knows if such a site would even allow
> criticism of TLC policies? The discussion forum on the official TLC site
> doesn't.
>
> Even if TLC doesn't directly ban these kinds of actions, chances are that the
> fans running the site will. They will see themselves as enforcers for TLC, and
> feel that they have to act 'more LEGO than LEGO'. It will become like From
> Bricks To Bothans, where a group of TLC-cheerleading mods enforces "respect for
> the brick" by stopping discussion.
>
> I prefer the freedom-bordering-on-anarchy of LUGNET to a place where you can say
> anything you want, as long as it's nice to TLC.
>
> Marc Nelson Jr.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the current forum on www.LEGO.com have a
pretty hefty amount of modding? I remember reading when I first went there that
no links to outside websites would be allowed, and all forum posts would be
edited before they went public, or would be edited soon after they did,
something like that. I was going to selfishly post my website to the forum to
get more traffic, but found out I couldn't, which is why it stuck in my mind.
This is something that LEGO decided to impliment to keep the kids safe. As Jake
and several others have said several times throughout this thread, this new site
is something they want kids as well as adults to visit.
And if censorship and no linking to off-site pages is the way LEGO does it, I
surely hope that this isn't what LEGOfan is going to become. If it is, then
LEGOfan will be severing all ties to the community. This 'hub' won't lead
anywhere, you know, a one way door. And quite frankly I don't see how you'd
make a forum 'safe' for kids without doing that very thing.
But I'm just typically pessimistic when it comes to the new and different, so
I'll reserve my judgement to a wait and see attitude.
--Anthony
Lugnet Member 1312
|
|
| |
I really don't have a problem with the community trying to set up a web-site
and trying to get the community to come together.
I agree (with Terry) that saying that a certain site will be the one-stop shop
is insulting.
The one point I'd like to make is that doesn't matter what the
site looks like or how it runs, there's always going to be someone that isn't
happy with it.
the only flaw in Lugnet is that it is owned and operated by Todd Lehman.
He deserve a lot of credit for putting up with a lot of B/S. Its a flaw, in
that all decisions about site maintenance and updates must go through him.
The site is dependant on Todd.
A community site is organic. Its not dependant on one or more members to
keep it running.
Just some thoughts to think about.
Ben M.
|
|
| |
"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message
news:Hsz7A4.3Bx@lugnet.com...
> Or better yet, perhaps Brickset (and others) is where much of the data for • a
> single, integrated set guide is pulled from!
It seems a little strange that the community should need to provide the
supplier with information about its products, but I'm not adverse to the
idea.
In fact I already provide an XML web service to Peeron and would be happy to
make it available to others.
Huw
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Ray Sanders wrote:
> Open Source and Open Content licenses have similar goals
> but different structures because of the focus of the
> license. I'm still unclear about what control you are
> referring to here thay may need to be relaxed. Do Todd and
> Suz own all the content on LUGNET ?
Yes. Or rather; they own the copy of the content stored on
Lugnet and are free to do practically whatever they want to
do with it.
> My read of this is that (in the great words of The WELL)
> 'I own my words'.
You do. But you have given a copy away to Lugnet.
> I'm sure that there are some things here (LUGNET Guide ?)
> which are not covered by the above, but I'm not seeing a
> lack of open content here. Please help me to understand
> your point of view.
My point is that in case Lugnet is about to go off-line,
somebody can't just make a copy of the site, put it up and
keep all the content available. Having the content under a
free license removes a possible failure point that often
hits smaller LEGO fan sites, but also could hit a site like
Lugnet.
We, as individuals, own our respective articles posted on
Lugnet, but not as a collected structure. Lugnet owns the
collected structure. That is the problematic point as I see
it.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Experimental parallel cable-stayed bridge:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Broer/Skr%E5stagsbro-parallel/
|
|
| |
TRIM DOWN THE NEWSGROUPS IN THIS THREAD!
There. I did it. I screamed.
After reading all posted so far, there are things that exicte me and there are
things that turn me off.
The idea to be able to set up a Swedish (or other) club page that draws info
from a central place is cool.
To have one hub that binds togheter the data from several resources is another
great idea. As long as the other resources is not dependent on the hub. I don't
want the whole OnLine community grinding to a halt beacause someone messed up
one server.
The thought of becomming even more kid friendly is probably the worst thing
about this so far. Call me selfish, but I want my LEGO hobby to be a thing for
adults and I want to be able to express myself in ways that might not always be
a good way around kids. LUGNET is a notch to much of this today. Still, it keeps
the level of the discussions on a excellent level - comparing to other forums.
We'll see where this ends up.
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
"Jindroush" <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz> wrote in message
news:402B9401.52E66448@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz...
> Yeah, but if we have _defined_ environment (I mean there is _finite_
> number of all LEGO sets out there), the final result _must_ be same. So
> I don't see the need for competition. Of course, there may be
> differences in 'value added', better pictures, more fields, different
> presentation, but the core data _is_ same by the definition.
OK, agreed.
> The _cooperation_ is the thing LEGOFan.net (or WorldLUG) talks about,
Having re-read the original post, that's how I understand it now too. I
don't think there's any intention to replace anything or any site, just make
them work better together and accessible from one place, which I'm all for.
> methinks. There would be no need for you to 'throw in the towel'. You'd
> just continue in your (BTW very good) work, but just share it with the
> others.
I already provide a webservice:
http://www.brickset.com/webservices/brickset.asmx. It needs a bit of
refining, for example it returns all records in the database, but with a bit
of work I'd be happy to share it with others, as I do for Peeron. Indeed by
publishing this URL, I already have ;)
Huw
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For some time now, a group of us have been discussing the concept of a LEGO
> site that the community could truly call its own-- community owned,
> designed, and operated. To this end, we have been endeavoring for more than
> half a year to bring that concept to life. After the recent announcement
> concerning WorldLUG, we decided that it would be a good time to bring this
> into the public eye.
Perhaps it is time to have another revolution. After all, LUGNET was at least
partly founded as a response to user's dissatisfaction with some problems
inherent in r.t.l (one of them , ironically, being that r.t.l was too open a
system which led to abuse).
If it is time to throw down the old order, let's first consider what it is. To
me, when I think of LUGNET, there is the dream of what it was meant to be and
the reality of what it is.
For the first several years of its existance, I believe the reality of what
LUGNET was trying hard to capture the dream of what it could become. One of the
first implementations of the dream was the creation of the newsgroups and the
newsgroup structure. This formed, and I would argue *still forms*, the core of
what LUGNET is. The gathering of the LUGs into the newsgroup structure is also
what I consider part of the core of LUGNET. The taking over of the Pause Lego
set database and creation of the LUGNET Guide created yet another pillar for
LUGNET. And there are many supporting services that are great (such as the
integration of .dat file sharing) that makes LUGNET a hub of fan activity.
But, as has been said by Todd himself, certain parts of the dream have never
been implemented or come to fruition. When I look at LUGNET's failed or stunted
development, I think of the Marketplace that was never implemented, Brickwise
reports which never developed fully or became very useful, a practical and
useful repository of set inventories, an updated calendar, an up-to-date set of
links to fan sites, and the now defunct (although v. cool while it lasted)
CLSOTW.
There is some question, to me at least, whether LUGNET still *wants* to be all
the things it could have been. If not, perhaps it is time to reorganize and
refocus the site's mission. Central questions have to be asked and answered.
What are the core services LUGNET provides (from my perspective - newsgroups,
set reference guide). Is LUGNET willing to share this hugely valuable pool of
data and thereby give up the reins to a degree? How does it benefit LUGNET to
do so?
One of the disturbing elements of the proposed LEGOfan.net site is that its plan
developers did not consult with the owner of this huge data resource
collectively referred to as LUGNET. I seem to recall in the early days of
LUGNET, Todd wanted to host r.t.l but backed away when the users felt he was
trying to co-opt the competition (at the time).
Could LUGNET provide more easily accessible links to external websites and data
sources (thus diminishing the need for LEGOfan.net?) Could or does LUGNET want
to be an umbrella site?
In a lot of ways, it seems that LEGOfan.net would reap the rewards of others'
labor. Why should Todd maintain a server whose data is gathered at another
site? Why should any of the principle site and content deliverers? The only
answer I can come up with is "for the greater good of the community." Is this
sufficient reason to give up so much control?
I am undecided about what should happen. Certainly, LEGOfan.net will develop
and some sites will participate and some will probably not. It's a big risk for
that site's developers as well as the participants and even non-participants
(who risk being side-lined).
As for LUGNET, whether or not this issue becomes dominant in its future growth,
I would like to see some redefining and clarification in its purpose and goals.
Part of that process might include the trimming of rarely used services and more
concentration on the core services. I would like to see a trimmer and neater
package, especially if it does not want to be the panacea for all things adult
fan of Lego related anymore. It doesn't have to be to still be a great site!!
--
Thomas Main
thomasmain@myrealbox.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Benjamin Medinets wrote:
> I really don't have a problem with the community trying to set up a web-site
> and trying to get the community to come together.
>
> I agree (with Terry) that saying that a certain site will be the one-stop shop
> is insulting.
>
> The one point I'd like to make is that doesn't matter what the
> site looks like or how it runs, there's always going to be someone that isn't
> happy with it.
>
> the only flaw in Lugnet is that it is owned and operated by Todd Lehman.
> He deserve a lot of credit for putting up with a lot of B/S. Its a flaw, in
> that all decisions about site maintenance and updates must go through him.
> The site is dependant on Todd.
>
> A community site is organic. Its not dependant on one or more members to
> keep it running.
>
> Just some thoughts to think about.
>
> Ben M.
Well, chiming in on Ben's message, 'cause here's a good a place as any :)
A few things--
Any thread that gets Suz to post is okay in my books :)
So here's LUGNET, being run, as many people have stated, by Todd (and by Suz in
the past), and with moderation help from many, many people. I've been on other
public message boards and none have come close to the functionality and
'cleanness' of LUGNET. And LUGNET's been running (barring DNS name failures ;)
) for a long time, and, imho, been running pretty smoothly. Either it was set
up properly from the beginning, or Todd is spending an extra-ordinary effort in
keeping LUGNET running.
I prefer to think the former. LUGNETT was thought out thoroughly before
implemented. I'd come to expect that from any 'new' LEGO fan site that may show
up on the 'net, or seriously, I see it being doomed for "Oh, LUGNET was much
better..."
Yes LUGNET is deficient in areas. That can't be helped and the voids, to date,
have been filled by other sites. Beyond those deficiencies, can the efforts in
'new' Fan sites be redirected in improving LUGNET? Is that even an option?
Falls on the purview of Todd. Maybe he's just willing to maintain status quo on
LUGNET waiting for something else to supplant it so he can reach over and hit
the 'off' switch and go get a good night's sleep after many years of, well, not.
I don't know. Todd hasn't chimed in too much on these issues.
Other considerations would be if this site has 'LEGO' in the 'net name, and has
whatever related ties to TLC (big, small, we're all pretty much unsure as of
this time), a serious matter would be the clone bricks. At LUGNET, clones are
pretty much shunned to an obscure newsgroup where a few good friends talk about
the joys of other-than-TLC bricks. (Personally I have no vested interest in
clone brands, but there is an interest, obviously). As data is showing to
everyone, including TLC, the other manufacturers are gaining market shares. Do
these fans have to start their own site? Many here would say 'yes'. I'm not so
sure. An 8 year old (a general 8 year old--not a specific child of a parent
here who would chime up and say "Hey! I know the difference b/w LEGO bricks and
clone bricks!") just built a wonderful MOC using a mixture of clone and TLC
bricks and wants to share that with other fans. Can they do that without it
being in some dusty corner of the web site? Or being shunned by the masses? Do
I need to mention the Titanic MOC as an example? I fully support TLC's decision
in not publically doing, well, anything, for the builder--considering all the
clone bricks in the MOC, but would that builder be welcome to display said MOC
on the new site?
I dunno. It's worked thus far for LUGNET because the clone brands haven't been
that prevalent. I see this changing in the new future, especially when you
"open up" a site to the whole range of toy brick experiences. LUGNET gets a
'by' on ths because we're mostly AFOL's and we actually politely don't talk
about clone brands much. But the stink raised by Bionicle is such an example of
how kids react to others saying "oh you can't post that here 'cause that's not
really LEGO bricks!".
You bring in the kids you bring in the issue of clones. And if TLC is involved,
well, as I said before, I don't know. There aren't any easy answers.
I fully appreciate TLC (as I've stated numerous times) and I will never
personally send my money to any other brick manufacturer (excapt BBB ;) ).
I also want to voice my support of people looking at enhancing the on-line
experience of our chosen hobby--I will help where I am able.
I love my time at LUGNET and would like to see any transition, if wanted, to go
as smoothly and, well, diplomatically for lack of a better word, as possible.
Quick little example. I work for a company that has been around for many years.
Recently our parent company filed for bankruptcy and, due to restructuring, it
(the parent company) was eliminated. That said, there are still folks in this
very office who work for that parent company, and who are finalizing paperwork.
Basically, since the parent company has been eliminated, all the office space
'are belong to us', and we are allowed to do with as we please, includiong
moving the 'old folks' into spare cubicles. That said, it's an unwritten rule
that we don't walk into the old VP's office with a measuring tape and a notepad
whilst the old VP is finalising the elimination of his position--it's not nice
and shows a profound lack of respect to the person.
So if these discussions are to continue on LUGNET, bear in mind that, for many
people, related to these discussions is the potential elimination of LUGNET--our
home for numerous years for all things LEGO.
Please consider that.
Dave K
|
|
| |
[follow-to to .org, since that's where other people seem to be redirecting]
Anthony Sava <savatheaggie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the current forum on www.LEGO.com
> have a pretty hefty amount of modding? I remember reading when I first
It has a really funny "Moderated for safety; Cool!" logo. I printed it out
really big for our security team here. :)
<http://cache.lego.com/2057/images/play/img181x77playban1.jpg>
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote:
> > But maybe I'm just being pessimistic. The site is
> > currently showing a domain registrar advertisement, so its
> > completely vaporware. We'll have to wait and see how it
> > develops.
> Yes. It would - in a way - have been nicer to wait with the
> announcement until we had something more solid to show, but
> we would on the other hand like to be a bit open about the
> project already at this stage.
I'm surprised you guys haven't thrown up a splash page or something, at
least. Maybe with a "mission statement" and info on getting involved.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Tobbe Arnesson wrote:
> The thought of becomming even more kid friendly is probably the worst thing
> about this so far.
Creating a way for children to find out about the toys they love is the "worst"
thing about this? Enabling people of all ages to get involved in various
LEGO-related communities is not something that is desirable? I don't understand
how that could be. From what I read about all this, it would actually help
different audiences (e.g. kids vs adults) find the best venue for their
interests. So if Lugnet decides to be (or remain) an exclusively "over-18" web
site, this community effort could help steer kids to where they're more welcome
and they won't intrude where they're obviously not wanted.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Jake McKee wrote:
Let me first trim down the newsgroup list - it was fine for the general
annoucement, but would everyone responding take a moment to reduce the list to
something more appropriate?
> Secondly, LUGNET is a site meant for adults. While the stray kid may wander in
> from time to time, the purpose of the site is really directed to adults. Nothing
> wrong with that at all, but since a vast majority of our audience is kids, it’s
> a bit problematic, support-wise.
One of the tings that struck me about the Classic-Castle site is the greater
proportion of young people posting. And whereas I have to put up with a certain
amount of inane posting, I think it is good that they have enthusiasm, post in a
positive manner, and learn to write and communicate while sharing their
enjoyment of a hobby.
>
> So the bigger question in my mind is this issue of LEGOFan being a “corporate
> mouthpiece”. I can understand the concern, but that is not my intention in the
> slightest. Far from it.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, down the road, when someone
else changes the corporate mind for them? Or somebody wants to show their Mega
Bloks creation? Or make a disparaging comparison of MB (or some other
competitor) to Lego? I'm not saying that anyone (currently) wants this to
happen, or that it will happen, but it is a concern. What needs to be addressed
is what kind of support Lego might give, what strings are attached to that
support, and what will be the consequences if that suport is withdrawn, and
discussed in a calm and reasonable fashion by all - I am merely voicing concern,
not hurling accusations.
>
> The LEGOFan concept is meant to be a hub, a place for new and old users alike to
> keep up with all the amazing things happening in the community. It’s meant to
> deliver age/interest appropriate content to you. It’s meant to capture
> interested builders and turn them into hard core fans. And it’s meant to help
> existing AFOLs keep up with the massive amounts of cool things happening in the
> community.
Perhaps it is just me, but I'm not really getting a clear picture (I've only
waded through half this thread so far) of what LEGOFan is offering in the way of
something new and unique. BrickLink offers a way for buyers and sellers to
acquire/get-rid-of Lego, Brickshelf offers a picture hosting service, Lugnet
offers a ton of centralized forums, Classic-Castle offers a theme-specific
tailored site. A hub? Sounds like just a link service. News site? Lugnet
already serves as that. Age interest? Okay, that may work, though I don't
understand what LEGOFan will do that specifically addresses that.
>
> In my mind it’s also meant to do something else: Provide a next step after
> LEGO.com. We are currently getting around 4.5 million unique visitors a month to
> LEGO.com (all ages), a number that has continued to climb nearly every month
> since re-launching our Web site in September 2000. What happens to them and
> their interest in the brick once they have “used up” the content on LEGO.com? Do
> we let them slip away and move on to other activities? Or do we capture their
> hearts and minds to ensure they transition into being AFOLs? If it’s the second
> option, how do we do that?
I'm not sure whether that is a hobby concern or a corporate concern. All you
have to do is point them to existing sites, but they aren't on the corporate
leash. I understand Lego's concerns about recommending sites and then having
them confused with actual Lego endeavors, the muddying of the company trademark,
etc.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I'm surprised you guys haven't thrown up a splash page or something, at
> least. Maybe with a "mission statement" and info on getting involved.
I'm not. Until they have explicit permission from TLC to register a domain name
containing their trademarked brand name, it would be a blatant violation of
trademark rights to do so. Not a good way to start off this proposed
relationship with TLC, wouldn't you think?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Ray Sanders wrote:
> I think many people are wary because of the
> appearance of something being given for free and then wondering 'wheres the
> strings'. There may be no-string attached, but that remains to be seen as
> folks in this age group (AFOLs) tend to be a bit cynical (rightly or
> wrongly) when being approached by a company whose sales are in the
> multi-billions of dollars. Let me be clear, I'm not accusing TLC/TLG/LD of
> trying to slip something hidden past us here, just trying to get a clear
> understanding of whats in the other guys head, why they are doing this and
> what they expect to get from it at the end of the day. Just trying to make
> sure that everyone cards are on the table face-up so that we all see the
> real story.
My understanding is that LEGO would like to have a site that they can feel
comfortable sending traffic (kids and adults), but which they don't control and
aren't responsible for. This site (LEGOFan) could include content (such as
offsite links, etc) that couldn't be allowed on lego.com, but would still
provide safeguards for kids and adults.
This means that LEGOFan will need to provide these 'safeguards'. One idea we've
discussed is to flag different areas (or whatever) as kid-appropriate (or not).
Then members who are kids won't be able to access areas marked for adults. And
maybe some adult members would appreciate the option to hide the 'kid areas'. ;)
Steve
|
|
| |
[ -> .org ]
Steve Bliss <steve.bliss@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This means that LEGOFan will need to provide these 'safeguards'. One
> idea we've discussed is to flag different areas (or whatever) as
> kid-appropriate (or not). Then members who are kids won't be able to
> access areas marked for adults. And maybe some adult members would
> appreciate the option to hide the 'kid areas'. ;)
So what would be available to not-logged-in users? Greatest common factor?
From a pragmatic standpoint, that seems like that'll dramatically chop the
usefulness of the site -- imagine if Google only showed Kid-Safe-Verified
sites unless you logged in.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Dan Boger wrote:
> However, development on LUGNET can only be done
> by invitation. And to date, there have been very few such invitations. That is
> one of the main things we hope LEGOFan can improve on. By making the code that
> runs the site accessible for anyone to download, modify, and submit updates, we
> allow a much wider pool of developers to work on the site.
>
> This means, that if someone has a great idea for a new way to, say, track
> community events, they can just write a module, upload it, and everyone
> benefits.
What about when someone has a terrible or very misguided idea, writes a module,
uploads it, and everyone suffers?
An obvious danger of a community owned site is that only a certain percentage of
that community's ideas are going to be worth implementing. Who then decides
what does and does not get implemented? I can't imagine there would be a giant
vote for every possible change to LEGOfan.net...
It seems to me (though I admit little knowledge of 'open' projects) that there
will still have to be a certain set of people who make these decisions for the
rest of the users.
Currently with LUGNET, there is a very small number of people with control to
make such decisions. How exactly would LEGOfan be different? The original post
lists 9 names of people behind the project. Is this not simply an oligarchy to
replace a monarchy? Perhaps someone can better explain how LEGOfan could
actually function without putting control into the hands of only a select few...
I don't want to come off as overly negative or cynical about LEGOfan.net, but
like others who have replied to this thread, I am a huge fan of LUGNET, and very
much see it as *the hub* of the AFOL community. This is the *one place* where
AFOLs congregate to discuss and show their work.
Yes, there are other LEGO fan websites that are useful. If someone wants to
*buy* LEGO, I send them to Bricklink or LEGO.com. But if someone wants to be a
part of the AFOL community, I guide them to LUGNET.
There is not much additional need to guide a newbie to Brickshelf, becaue anyone
coming to LUGNET will quickly grasp the relationship between the two sites.
FBTB and BZ Power have a much more limited scope, and in my opinion, would have
been better off simply linking to the appropriate LUGNET discussion forums
rather than host their own lesser and competing forums.
So I can't say I see much of a need for a *new hub* for the AFOL community, and
unless LUGNET's forums are incorporated directly into LEGOfan, I have some
serious doubts that LEGOfan will come up with as elegant a forum.
I must admit a bias in all this, which is that personally, I am only interested
in being part of an AFOL community where the A is for adults. If part of the
impetus behind LEGOfan.net is to join together the adult and children fans of
LEGO into one community, that is not a goal I am interested in achieving.
I should also mention, that I too would worry about the "corporate sponsorship =
corporate mouthpiece" issue. Despite Jake's reassurances and even despite the
best intentions of all involved, I think this sort of thing just happens. I
admire LUGNET's independence. And I greatly value our ability to voice any
opinions here in the forums, whether pro or anti the policies and decisions of
the LEGO company. I offer FBTB as an example here. I don't go there too often,
so I'm operating with a certain level of ignorance, but I am aware that they
have a certain relationship with the LEGO company, and I also get the "corporate
mouthpiece" vibe from the site. Now, as far as I understand it, LEGO does not
*sponsor* FBTB, and let me be clear that FBTB doesn't completely come off like a
corporate mouthpiece. But one gets the sense that the two things are in
proportion to each other. So there is reason to be worried about LEGO
sponsorship and/or direct involvement with LEGOfan.net.
Finally, I also share the concern that LEGOfan.net, though created with the best
intentions, would become *yet another* LEGO fan site to visit instead of being
*the* LEGO fan site to visit.
All that said, I don't like to rain on people's parades. I know that people are
only doing what they honestly believe is best for the LEGO fan community as they
see it. So please don't take these concerns of mine personally. If, after
people's concerns have been raised and discussed here on LUGNET, you are still
motivated to create LEGOfan.net, I honestly wish you the best of luck, and hope
you create something wonderful that will win me and the rest of the LEGO
community over.
Regards,
-Brendan Powell Smith
|
|
| |
|Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
|
|"In a sense it _is_ a slap in the face to Lugnet and Todd. Lugnet isn't
|open for anybody to experiment with the software and try to develop new
|features. Nor is it controlled by the LEGO fan community, it is
|controlled by Todd, and even though Todd _is_ a LEGO fan that isn't
|quite the same."
|
|Maybe you could explain how this is not disrespectful.
|
|If someone wants to set up a different site directed more toward kids,
|that's fine. (I thought that's what TLC had done.) As someone earlier
|stated, Lugnet is an AFOL website and as an AFOL I would prefer to not
|have to wade through kid-related stuff to get to what I was interested
|in.
|
|TLC is a company that makes kid toys as so many people have pointed out
|over the years in response to complaints about them not taking AFOLs
|into account. Todd has been awesome in putting together this website
|and myself and many others are very grateful and will continue to be.
|Also as an AFOL, understanding that I have a job and a wife and kid
|that I don't have as much time to build as I'd like much less view
|multiple websites on Lego. Lugnet is by far the best for what I am
|interested in and another site would only be a competitor for me (and
|maybe other AFOLs, I don't know). Hmmm. Train of thought somewhat
|derailed.
|
|At any rate, Todd spent many hours and I imagine much of his own money
|getting Lugnet up and running and it is an awesome thing. At this
|point, many people are involved in moderating different sections etc.
|I personally don't see any huge advantage to setting up another all
|inclusive site that the community can run. Not only has it been
|implied, but it has been stated outright (see above) that this is a
|slap in the face to Todd. I notice that Todd is conspicuously absent
|from this thread and I wonder if anyone approached him first, out of
|respect, before attempting to start another break-off site or
|advertising for said site on his.
|
|Paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington wrote:
>
> "Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message
> news:Hsz7A4.3Bx@lugnet.com...
>
> > Or better yet, perhaps Brickset (and others) is where much of the data for a
> > single, integrated set guide is pulled from!
>
> It seems a little strange that the community should need to provide the
> supplier with information about its products, but I'm not adverse to the
> idea.
>
> In fact I already provide an XML web service to Peeron and would be happy to
> make it available to others.
Sorry, let me clarify. I was referring to the data, not necessarily how the data
is obtained.
Information like this is much easier for me to get out if I know that a) the
destination is a reliable source and b) that I'm not going to be flooded with a
slew of requests for the same data from others.
Much like ILTCO allows me to focus my attentions one place versus multiple
places, which means I spend more time doing new stuff and less time reiterating.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> [ -> .org ]
Good idea.
> So what would be available to not-logged-in users? Greatest common factor?
That's a very good question; I don't remember if it's been discussed.
> From a pragmatic standpoint, that seems like that'll dramatically chop the
> usefulness of the site -- imagine if Google only showed Kid-Safe-Verified
> sites unless you logged in.
True.
All of this needs to be worked out in detail, by the community.
But I'd expect that many areas of LF will be generally open, with a relative few
flagged as not available for kids. The 'open' areas might operate under more
restrictions on content posting (ie, no adult language) than restricted areas.
But that's just me thinking off the cuff.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Tobbe Arnesson wrote:
> The thought of becomming even more kid friendly is probably the worst thing
> about this so far. Call me selfish, but I want my LEGO hobby to be a thing for
> adults and I want to be able to express myself in ways that might not always be
> a good way around kids. LUGNET is a notch to much of this today. Still, it keeps
> the level of the discussions on a excellent level - comparing to other forums.
Totally makes sense, and personally I don't consider it "selfish". We are all in
this for varying individual reasons. You may want to simply bond with other
adults, while others greatly enjoy the interaction with kids. To each his own.
That said, I think it will be important for LFN that it is designed in a such a
way that everybody goes home happy. You should have areas/links/content that
skip over the kids. Others who want to interact with kids would be equally able.
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
> I don't want to come off as overly negative or cynical about LEGOfan.net, but
> like others who have replied to this thread, I am a huge fan of LUGNET, and very
> much see it as *the hub* of the AFOL community. This is the *one place* where
> AFOLs congregate to discuss and show their work.
Yes, for AFOLs... but I'm under the impression that the various integrated
community proposals encompass ALL LEGO fans, not just adults.
> FBTB and BZ Power have a much more limited scope, and in my opinion, would have
> been better off simply linking to the appropriate LUGNET discussion forums
> rather than host their own lesser and competing forums.
I can't speak for FBTB, but BZPower was created specifically because the target
audience didn't flock to Lugnet. The opportunity was there... Lugnet's Bionicle
forum was the first place I visited in 2001. But it was anemic, and there was a
level of hostility to the theme (since diluted) that made it difficult for
people to want to post there. BZCommunity, later BZPower, was born as a direct
result of Lugnet's lack of enticement for the core Bionicle audience - namely,
children.
So today BZPower has 16,000+ members and has amassed a million and a half posts
in the last 2 and a half years. It also has 2 million hits per DAY, with an
average of 14,000 daily visitors from 80+ countries. The scope is obviously
restricted to Bionicle, and in that sense it performs a service for both people
who are interested in that theme, and those who would rather not be associated
with it.
Lugnet, while serving the needs of the adult audience, obviously didn't fill
those of a separate large audience. From that example, I'd say there is
definitely room for a larger community, whether it's WorldLUG or LEGOFan.net or
something else.
Regards,
Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
| |
FBTB and BZ Power have a much more limited scope, and in my opinion, would
have been better off simply linking to the appropriate LUGNET discussion
forums rather than host their own lesser and competing forums.
|
I’m not so sure that it shouldn’t be the other way around. Fans of specific
themes have gone out and organized their own sites because Lugnet wasn’t enough
for them, for whatever reason. I’d say well over half the original
lugnet.castle posts are later repeats of Classic-Castle.Com posts - it’s become
a mere duplication of effort. One starts to wonder if lugnet.castle shouldn’t
just be a link to Classic-Castle.Com. The reverse is that Lugnet, by
maintaining it’s own castle forum, retains the broad-based general information
link and still have the visiblity of the traffic flow, which helps
cross-pollination. There’s also a difference in tone - Lugnet is primarily for
AFOL, and for those that don’t really understand those initials, that’s Adult
fans of Lego. There’s a much higher young person participation in
Classic-Castle, so clearly Lugnet does not meet the desires of every fan.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.org, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > I'm surprised you guys haven't thrown up a splash page or something, at
> > least. Maybe with a "mission statement" and info on getting involved.
>
> I'm not. Until they have explicit permission from TLC to register a domain name
> containing their trademarked brand name, it would be a blatant violation of
> trademark rights to do so. Not a good way to start off this proposed
> relationship with TLC, wouldn't you think?
On a technical note, the domain is ALREADY registered. It has been since
august:
Domain Name: LEGOFAN.NET
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.tucows.com
Name Server: NS1.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
Name Server: NS2.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
Name Server: NS3.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 18-aug-2003
Creation Date: 18-aug-2003
Expiration Date: 18-aug-2004
It doesn't say WHO registered it, but my hope would be that it was someone
involved with the project in anticipation of being approved to use it.
Troy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
>
> I can't speak for FBTB, but BZPower was created specifically because the target
> audience didn't flock to Lugnet. The opportunity was there... Lugnet's Bionicle
> forum was the first place I visited in 2001. But it was anemic, and there was a
> level of hostility to the theme (since diluted) that made it difficult for
> people to want to post there. BZCommunity, later BZPower, was born as a direct
> result of Lugnet's lack of enticement for the core Bionicle audience - namely,
> children.
>
> So today BZPower has 16,000+ members and has amassed a million and a half posts
> in the last 2 and a half years. It also has 2 million hits per DAY, with an
> average of 14,000 daily visitors from 80+ countries. The scope is obviously
> restricted to Bionicle, and in that sense it performs a service for both people
> who are interested in that theme, and those who would rather not be associated
> with it.
>
> Lugnet, while serving the needs of the adult audience, obviously didn't fill
> those of a separate large audience. From that example, I'd say there is
> definitely room for a larger community, whether it's WorldLUG or LEGOFan.net or
> something else.
I do find it strange that this announcement was only posted to LUGNET and not
any of the other LEGO related boards. If this is meant to bring together all
online LEGO communities I would think that the announcement would be made on the
other sites as well so everyone in the LEGO online community could be in on the
topic.
jt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> >
> > I can't speak for FBTB, but BZPower was created specifically because the target
> > audience didn't flock to Lugnet. The opportunity was there... Lugnet's Bionicle
> > forum was the first place I visited in 2001. But it was anemic, and there was a
> > level of hostility to the theme (since diluted) that made it difficult for
> > people to want to post there. BZCommunity, later BZPower, was born as a direct
> > result of Lugnet's lack of enticement for the core Bionicle audience - namely,
> > children.
>
> I do find it strange that this announcement was only posted to LUGNET and not
> any of the other LEGO related boards. If this is meant to bring together all
> online LEGO communities I would think that the announcement would be made on the
> other sites as well so everyone in the LEGO online community could be in on the
> topic.
Maybe they assumed we'd see it here. I can kind of see the first announcement
being here, since Lugnet does act as a de facto hub, but future developments
will require a lot of serious outreach before anything goes much further - from
whatever group continues the process. By their very nature, these initiatives
require substantial buy-in from a variety of people in the community.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> In lugnet.org, David Laswell wrote:
> > In lugnet.org, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > I'm surprised you guys haven't thrown up a splash page or something, at
> > > least. Maybe with a "mission statement" and info on getting involved.
> >
> > I'm not. Until they have explicit permission from TLC to register a domain name
> > containing their trademarked brand name, it would be a blatant violation of
> > trademark rights to do so. Not a good way to start off this proposed
> > relationship with TLC, wouldn't you think?
>
> On a technical note, the domain is ALREADY registered. It has been since
> august:
>
> Domain Name: LEGOFAN.NET
> Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
> Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
> Referral URL: http://domainhelp.tucows.com
> Name Server: NS1.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
> Name Server: NS2.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
> Name Server: NS3.DOMAINDIRECT.COM
> Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
> Updated Date: 18-aug-2003
> Creation Date: 18-aug-2003
> Expiration Date: 18-aug-2004
>
> It doesn't say WHO registered it, but my hope would be that it was someone
> involved with the project in anticipation of being approved to use it.
>
> Troy
Not sure what whois info you are looking at - but here is the full report:
(same info as legofan.com)
Registrant: Dan Boger 243 White St Belmont, MA 02478 US
Domain name: LEGOFAN.NET
Administrative Contact: Boger, Dan domains@peeron.com
243 White St
Belmont, MA 02478
US
+1.6174892669
Technical Contact:
Domain, Direct dnstech@domaindirect.com
96 Mowat Avenue
Toronto, ON M6K 3M1
CA
+1.4165350123
Fax: +1.4165312516
Registration Service Provider: Domain Direct, help@domaindirect.com
1-416-531-2084
http://www.domaindirect.com
This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 18-Aug-2003.
Record expires on 18-Aug-2004.
Record created on 18-Aug-2003. D
omain servers in listed order:
NS1.DOMAINDIRECT.COM 216.40.33.21
NS2.DOMAINDIRECT.COM 216.40.33.22
NS3.DOMAINDIRECT.COM 204.50.180.58
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't speak for FBTB, but BZPower was created specifically because the target
> > > audience didn't flock to Lugnet. The opportunity was there... Lugnet's Bionicle
> > > forum was the first place I visited in 2001. But it was anemic, and there was a
> > > level of hostility to the theme (since diluted) that made it difficult for
> > > people to want to post there. BZCommunity, later BZPower, was born as a direct
> > > result of Lugnet's lack of enticement for the core Bionicle audience - namely,
> > > children.
> >
> > I do find it strange that this announcement was only posted to LUGNET and not
> > any of the other LEGO related boards. If this is meant to bring together all
> > online LEGO communities I would think that the announcement would be made on the
> > other sites as well so everyone in the LEGO online community could be in on the
> > topic.
>
> Maybe they assumed we'd see it here. I can kind of see the first announcement
> being here, since Lugnet does act as a de facto hub, but future developments
> will require a lot of serious outreach before anything goes much further - from
> whatever group continues the process. By their very nature, these initiatives
> require substantial buy-in from a variety of people in the community.
I think getting the buy-in should happen very early or else people in the other
groups are going to feel as if they are second class citizens in the process.
I think the fact that it was only posted to LUGNET just highlights the fact that
LUGNET already is the hub of the LEGO online community.
jt
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> lugnet.castle posts are later repeats of Classic-Castle.Com posts - it's
> become a mere duplication of effort. One starts to wonder if
> lugnet.castle shouldn't just be a link to Classic-Castle.Com. The
Classic-Castle is a nice site, but its forum software is nasty. How did
this "BB" style forum software take over the web? Ugh. It's a lot like a
trying to have a conversation using a *literal* bulletin board and post-it
notes. And Young People Today don't know any better. *sigh*. Anyway, I
appreciate that stuff gets posted to Lugnet too.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> > > In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I can't speak for FBTB, but BZPower was created specifically because the target
> > > > audience didn't flock to Lugnet. The opportunity was there... Lugnet's Bionicle
> > > > forum was the first place I visited in 2001. But it was anemic, and there was a
> > > > level of hostility to the theme (since diluted) that made it difficult for
> > > > people to want to post there. BZCommunity, later BZPower, was born as a direct
> > > > result of Lugnet's lack of enticement for the core Bionicle audience - namely,
> > > > children.
> > >
> > > I do find it strange that this announcement was only posted to LUGNET and not
> > > any of the other LEGO related boards. If this is meant to bring together all
> > > online LEGO communities I would think that the announcement would be made on the
> > > other sites as well so everyone in the LEGO online community could be in on the
> > > topic.
> >
> > Maybe they assumed we'd see it here. I can kind of see the first announcement
> > being here, since Lugnet does act as a de facto hub, but future developments
> > will require a lot of serious outreach before anything goes much further - from
> > whatever group continues the process. By their very nature, these initiatives
> > require substantial buy-in from a variety of people in the community.
>
>
> I think getting the buy-in should happen very early or else people in the other
> groups are going to feel as if they are second class citizens in the process.
I completely agree.
> I think the fact that it was only posted to LUGNET just highlights the fact that
> LUGNET already is the hub of the LEGO online community.
Well, Lugnet serves as A hub, certainly - for a subset of the total online LEGO
audience. That's not to say there couldn't be a more comprehensive one created.
Right now all I've seen are fairly vague proposals... I think a lot of things
will firm up once (if) specifics are developed and shared with the communities
involved. I like the _idea_ of a hub and connected sites, but it all depends on
the implementation and level of community involvement.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > lugnet.castle posts are later repeats of Classic-Castle.Com posts - it's
> > become a mere duplication of effort. One starts to wonder if
> > lugnet.castle shouldn't just be a link to Classic-Castle.Com. The
>
> Classic-Castle is a nice site, but its forum software is nasty. How did
> this "BB" style forum software take over the web? Ugh. It's a lot like a
> trying to have a conversation using a *literal* bulletin board and post-it
> notes. And Young People Today don't know any better. *sigh*. Anyway, I
> appreciate that stuff gets posted to Lugnet too.
"Lugnet is a nice site, but the forum software is ugly. How on earth are you
supposed to read all this text? It's ugly, there's no attempt to make it
interesting or highlight what's important..."
Not that I actually think that, but remember that not everybody has the same
tastes. That's why there are different sites for different audiences. What's
appropriate for Lugnet may not be appropriate for a site targeted toward younger
audiences, and vice versa. Kids like the visual cues and color.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> Wasn't it told in previous debate about WorldLUG, that Lugnet doesn't
> evolve anymore? Not to mention that it's a 'private property'.
Why yes, it was. By myself, in this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=45197
And also in Todds reply:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=45213
Lugnet is a great place. I like it very much and it has been very good to me
over the years. It is, however, not going forward. If it were, then there
would not be a need for anything new or different.
Troy
|
|
| |
"Huw Millington" <hmillington@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:HszEBF.1DF3@lugnet.com...
> "Jindroush" <jindroush@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz> wrote in message
> news:402B9401.52E66448@nospam.seznam.nospam.cz...
>
> > Yeah, but if we have _defined_ environment (I mean there is _finite_
> > number of all LEGO sets out there), the final result _must_ be same. So
> > I don't see the need for competition. Of course, there may be
> > differences in 'value added', better pictures, more fields, different
> > presentation, but the core data _is_ same by the definition.
>
> OK, agreed.
>
> > The _cooperation_ is the thing LEGOFan.net (or WorldLUG) talks about,
>
> Having re-read the original post, that's how I understand it now too. I
> don't think there's any intention to replace anything or any site, just • make
> them work better together and accessible from one place, which I'm all • for.
>
I think Hugh has hit the nail on the head here.
From a personal standpoint, the thing that really excites me about this
project is the fact that if it is done correctly, then we have a chance to
'glue' together all the fantastic resources out there and provide a more
enhanced user experience to the community as a whole. This is absolutely not
an exercise in trying to shut down Lugnet (a resource I use constantly) or
any other site.
The analogy I like to think of (and bear with me here!) is with my own
software application 'BrikTrak'.
As some of you know, BrikTrak is an inventory manager application for
windows - currently aimed mostly at users who buy and sell on Bricklink. One
of the things you can do with BT is download set inventories. Does this mean
BrikTrak is competing with Peeron? No, absolutely not. It is taking a
resource that is out there and using it in a slightly different way to
provide added services for interested parties. BrikTrak closely integrates
with Peeron, Bricklink, BI Portal and other sites. This is done to enhance
the user experience without threatening the existance of any of the other
sites.
This is exactly the type of thing I see LegoFan.net being - something
created for the common good of the community and NOT something designed to
take out other sites.
Now, one of BrikTrak's major problems is that it is closed development - ie,
only I am working on it. This means that BrikTrak 2004 which I am currently
working on is slipping purely because recently I have not had much spare
time to put into it due to work commitments. This is one of the things we
are trying to avoid with LegoFan - there should not be a single point of
failure/bottleneck. By having a community based structure, then anyone can
sign up and help create the resource that they want LEGOFan to be.
At the same time, obviously there does need to be some sort of approval
structure in place to help guide with functionality reviews and releases
that also doesn't get in the way of progress. This is pretty much what open
source is and that's why I think it makes sense for this project. (for the
record, I'm not generally a huge open source fan - I am a windows platform
developer after all! In this case though, I think it makes sense to me).
We're not saying that we currently have all the answers, but we have given
it a lot of thought over the last 6 months or so.
Personally, I'm excited about this project. I believe that it is for the
good of the community while also encouraging others outside of the AFOL pool
to take part.
Richard.
<snip>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> Not sure what whois info you are looking at - but here is the full report:
> (same info as legofan.com)
I went right to network solutions (netsol.com). One would think that the people
that run DNS would have the info, but apparently they don't. Or atleast they
don't feel like sharing it. :)
Troy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Matthew Miller wrote:
> From a pragmatic standpoint, that seems like that'll dramatically chop the
> usefulness of the site -- imagine if Google only showed Kid-Safe-Verified
> sites unless you logged in.
The Google image search does have a SafeSearch filter, which is on by default.
It's not actively moderated, but it does keep most of the porn out of the
results.
http://images.google.com/advanced_image_search?hl=en
--Bram
|
|
| |
Purple Dave <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote:
> > I'm surprised you guys haven't thrown up a splash page or something, at
> > least. Maybe with a "mission statement" and info on getting involved.
> I'm not. Until they have explicit permission from TLC to register a
> domain name containing their trademarked brand name, it would be a
> blatant violation of trademark rights to do so. Not a good way to start
> off this proposed relationship with TLC, wouldn't you think?
It wouldn't be a "blatant violation" at all. But it would go against
Lego's wishes, and you're right, no sense in getting off to the wrong
start. But as it is now, there's a very _blatant_ for-profit advertisment
at the URL -- that seems worse.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> Registrant: Dan Boger
> Domain name: LEGOFAN.NET
> [and LEGOFAN.COM]
LEGOFAN.ORG seems to be registered by domain.admin@lego.com ... I wonder why?
It expires in April, though, so maybe Dan is purchasing it.
--Bram
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Tobbe Arnesson screamed:
> TRIM DOWN THE NEWSGROUPS IN THIS THREAD!
>
> There. I did it. I screamed.
Thanks. The announcement should probably only have been
posted to "lugnet.announce" and "lugnet.org".
> After reading all posted so far, there are things that
> exicte me and there are things that turn me off.
>
> The idea to be able to set up a Swedish (or other) club
> page that draws info from a central place is cool.
Good. But one of the ideas behind having the site software
as Open Source is that local groups don't have to run their
site in a central site, even if they want some of the
benefits from using whatever (hopefully) cool solutions we
can come up with.
> To have one hub that binds togheter the data from several
> resources is another great idea. As long as the other
> resources is not dependent on the hub. I don't want the
> whole OnLine community grinding to a halt because someone
> messed up one server.
Neither do we. We want stability and reduction in the
number of serious/single points of failure.
> The thought of becomming even more kid friendly is
> probably the worst thing about this so far. Call me
> selfish, but I want my LEGO hobby to be a thing for adults
> and I want to be able to express myself in ways that might
> not always be a good way around kids.
Don't worry. We've expected that. And we think we have a
solution too (Dan will have to explain it in detail, he
knows it better).
Play well,
Jacob
--
City X'ers delivery van (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/CityXers/Kassevogn/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Paul Coombs wrote:
| |
| |
Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
“In a sense it is a slap in the face to Lugnet and Todd. Lugnet isn’t
open for anybody to experiment with the software and try to develop new
features. Nor is it controlled by the LEGO fan community, it is
controlled by Todd, and even though Todd is a LEGO fan that isn’t
quite the same.”
|
Maybe you could explain how this is not disrespectful.
If someone wants to set up a different site directed more toward kids,
that’s fine. (I thought that’s what TLC had done.) As someone earlier
stated, Lugnet is an AFOL website and as an AFOL I would prefer to not
have to wade through kid-related stuff to get to what I was interested
in.
TLC is a company that makes kid toys as so many people have pointed out
over the years in response to complaints about them not taking AFOLs
into account. Todd has been awesome in putting together this website
and myself and many others are very grateful and will continue to be.
Also as an AFOL, understanding that I have a job and a wife and kid
that I don’t have as much time to build as I’d like much less view
multiple websites on Lego. Lugnet is by far the best for what I am
interested in and another site would only be a competitor for me (and
maybe other AFOLs, I don’t know). Hmmm. Train of thought somewhat
derailed.
At any rate, Todd spent many hours and I imagine much of his own money
getting Lugnet up and running and it is an awesome thing. At this
point, many people are involved in moderating different sections etc.
I personally don’t see any huge advantage to setting up another all
inclusive site that the community can run. Not only has it been
implied, but it has been stated outright (see above) that this is a
slap in the face to Todd. I notice that Todd is conspicuously absent
from this thread and I wonder if anyone approached him first, out of
respect, before attempting to start another break-off site or
advertising for said site on his.
|
Ok, all this talk about a “slap in the face” or being “disrespectful” has got to
stop. Lugnet isn’t being improved/developed. It is stagnet. Furthermore Todd
has said that other sites being
created and providing resources to the community is a good thing.
As for Todd’s absense, instead of wondering, maybe all these people ought to do
some research instead. Todd is either still in the air or in Portland (quite possibly even having a good time at
BrickFest PDX right this minute).
Personally I am looking forward to what the LEGOFan.net team comes up with.
Cross-content between all the sites in the community has got to be a good thing.
It has already started in some places.
And look how cool that is. Also take a look at ILTCO.org see the trains sidebar? That is a small example of the kinds of
things that might be possible. Also take a look at
Classic-Castle.com, did it hurt Lugnet? No, It
drew some traffic away, yes, but attracted a whole new crowd to that wonderful
theme. It has grown into a fantastic resource.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Classic-Castle is a nice site, but its forum software is nasty. How did
> this "BB" style forum software take over the web? Ugh. It's a lot like a
> trying to have a conversation using a *literal* bulletin board and post-it
> notes. And Young People Today don't know any better. *sigh*. Anyway, I
> appreciate that stuff gets posted to Lugnet too.
The simple answer to that is that it took over the web because it is freely
available and easy to setup. phpBB, which classic-castle uses, comes with
cPanel (and possibly other such programs) which is used by hosting companies to
set up shared web hosting on their servers. As such, it is widely available and
thus widely used.
The same can probably be said for EZBoard that is used by such places as FBTB.
It's readily available and easy to set up.
Are these systems lacking? Sure. I'd love NNTP access. I'd love threaded
messages and cross posting. But as Todd has yet so share the code behind LugNET
(not saying that he is obligated too) and lacking the skills to program it
myself, I was left to use what was available.
That said, many, many people do seem to prefer the style used by phpBB and
EZBoard, where the entire topic is shown at once. I've not had any complaints
about how the forums work at CC.
Troy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> In a sense it _is_ a slap in the face to Lugnet and Todd.
Seriously, I think it is excellent that you are willing/able to take things in
directions that I couldn't/can't. I wish the best for you and your team.
--Todd
|
|
| |
| |
Personally I am looking forward to what the LEGOFan.net team comes up with.
Cross-content between all the sites in the community has got to be a good
thing. It has already started in
some places. And look how cool that is. Also take a look at
ILTCO.org see the trains sidebar? That is a small
example of the kinds of things that might be possible. Also take a look at
Classic-Castle.com, did it hurt Lugnet? No,
It drew some traffic away, yes, but attracted a whole new crowd to that
wonderful theme. It has grown into a fantastic resource.
|
Actually, in a lot of respects, Classic-Castle.com drew interes to Lugnet.
The goal of Classic-Castle was to improve the on-line experience of the
Lego Castle Community, not compete with Lugnet.
After Brickfest, there was a general consensus with the “active” users on
Lugnet.Castle to start a new website stemming from the discussion that occured
at Brickfest (and the personal correspondance of the users).
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
| |
After reading all the posts so far on this, and thinking about it some more I
came up with a few more questions/concerns.
First - TLC, allowing *any* site to have "Lego" in the main domain name is a
mistake. Unless Lego owns, the URL (which they do not in this case), makes the
content (which they will not), controls the content 100% (which they will not),
and has 100% access to the "off switch" - it should NOT have "Lego" in the
domain name.
There are countless other options out there as choice of domain names that will
not infringe upon the Lego name. I just see this as a blaring mistake that can
still be avoided -- you NEVER know whats going to happen down the line. Say Dan
Boger (I say Dan Boger because he is the one who the domain is registered to,
thus he is the only person with 100% control over the URL) becomes upset over
something and decides to put content on legofan.net that we rather not see
(could be anything from adult stuff to MB stuff). I know the chances are small -
but you never know, and you can't say that it will *never* happen.
Would Dan Boger (the registered owner) be willing to transfer the .com and the
.net of legofan over to TLC? IMHO thats the only "safe" option for Lego. The
same people could run it and all that - the only real difference is that TLC
would have 100% control over it and can "turn it off" if the need ever presents
itself.
TLC could still support and help out with a domain that does not have “Lego” in
the main part of the URL – example, BZPower.com, FBTB.net and Lugnet. I just do
not see why Lego would want to leave itself open to potential abuse in the
future when there is really no need for it.
Moving on - I have got the feeling that this new site is supposed to "cut down"
and/or "bring the community together, placing everything in one site" - how is
this so? Does this site plan to have everything on it? Will it have image
hosting like BS, stores like BL, forums like Lugnet? All I see this as is "just
another site to bookmark". I do not see how it is going to cut down on anything
or bring anything together. Can somebody explain this to me because I must be
missing something here...
Is this really going to be a site for "everybody"? Take the Bionicle fans on BZP
for example, would they be welcome on this new site? Remember, one of the
reasons there even IS a BZP is because the Bionicle fans were bashed and bashed
until they left Lugnet - and that was really the *adult* fans of Bionicle, are
you ready for the *kid* fans of Bionicle?
How is the community going to be brought together by this site? Is there going
to be links to all things Lego? Can I expect to find links to BS, BL, BZP, FBTB,
Lugnet, Peeron, Brickset among others to be listed there? Where do you draw the
line? What if a 10 year old kid makes a site on geocities? Will you include his
link - after all, he is part of the community correct? And how do you plan on
controlling what the sites you link to in turn link to? Where and how is the
line drawn?
Lastly, and prob the least important - why use .net? Boger owns the .com as well
so why not use that? Who thinks of .net as the default web addy? What is the
reason .net is being used over .com? Does it sound cooler or something?
Please do not read anything into my post, I an not trying to bash or halt
anything here. The idea is a good one, but something is telling me we do not
know the full, true motive behind it as of yet.
Oh ya -- one more thing.... how does my licence plate come into play here?
http://www.landofbricks.com/bz/plate.jpg
Just for the record - I had it long before the site was thought about ;)
http://news.lugnet.com/people/?n=3404
Mark P
LoB
|
|
| |
[ adding .general, .admin.general, follow-up to .admin.general ]
Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote:
> My point is that in case Lugnet is about to go off-line,
> somebody can't just make a copy of the site, put it up and
> keep all the content available. Having the content under a
> free license removes a possible failure point that often
> hits smaller LEGO fan sites, but also could hit a site like
> Lugnet.
Actually:
I've been worried about this for a very long time, ever since back when I
was worried that this fancy new Lugnet thing would kill RTL. [*] So, I've
asked Todd for access to mirror the newsgroup data, and to have all rights
automatically transfer under section 7ii of the ToU in the event of a
disaster.
And he didn't give me any trouble about it. :)
So there's at least that contingency plan in the works. If something Bad
were to happen, I'd plan to take the posts and release them under a
relatively open license. (In fact, this part might go in writing.)
[*] Which it arguably did. See this thread:
<http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=8265>
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Troy's Surplus Lego <legosales@tcphoto.net> wrote:
> I went right to network solutions (netsol.com). One would think that
> the people that run DNS would have the info, but apparently they don't.
> Or atleast they don't feel like sharing it. :)
Other way around -- tucows doesn't share it with Network Solutions, to
reduce spamming.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Kelly McKiernan <kelly@anagrafyxx.com> wrote:
> "Lugnet is a nice site, but the forum software is ugly. How on earth are you
> supposed to read all this text? It's ugly, there's no attempt to make it
> interesting or highlight what's important..."
Oddly, the things you pick out are exactly the reasons I think Lugnet's
design is superior. It uses color well to pick out meaningful information,
and it's got a very clever graphical representation of each thread.
> Not that I actually think that, but remember that not everybody has the
> same tastes. That's why there are different sites for different
> audiences. What's appropriate for Lugnet may not be appropriate for a
> site targeted toward younger audiences, and vice versa. Kids like the
> visual cues and color.
Plently of color, few _meaningful_ visual cues. Well, not even plenty of
color, really -- mostly, a big blue grid.
The literal bulletin board covered in notes is a totally apt analogy. I
strongly believe computer bulletin boards shouldn't be like that.
Obviously it works for some people, but I don't think it's *completely* a
matter of different tastes. I think some serious usability research would
demonstrate all manner of deficiencies. About the only thing I like about
it is the way each user has an identity-image.
I'm mostly just being grumpy -- all sorts of sites I visit routinely use
this terrible BB thing. And I've actually got a friend who argues about
how wonderful it is. Clearly, he has something wrong with his brain. :)
Really, the ideal situation is multiple ways to access the data -- which
Lugnet provides, and I hope anything else major adopts as well.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Troy's Surplus Lego <legosales@tcphoto.net> wrote:
> The simple answer to that is that it took over the web because it is freely
> available and easy to setup. phpBB, which classic-castle uses, comes with
Yeah, fair enough. I didn't really mean to slam your work; I just wouldn't
like a BB-style forum to "replace" the Lugnet group.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For some time now, a group of us have been discussing the concept of a LEGO
> site that the community could truly call its own-- community owned,
> designed, and operated. To this end, we have been endeavoring for more than
> half a year to bring that concept to life. After the recent announcement
> concerning WorldLUG, we decided that it would be a good time to bring this
> into the public eye.
>
> Who are we? Presently, the group is made up of 9 people: Jacob Sparre
> Andersen, Steve Bliss, Dan Boger, Jennifer Boger, David Eaton, Sean Kenney,
> Jake Mckee, Richard Morton, and Calum Tsang.
<snip>
What exactly does it mean to be "community owned"? Is the site going to be like
a WIKI and anyone can change the content? Is there going to be a controlling
body (say, for example, of 9 people) who are going to make all the decisions for
the community? Is every change going to be done by a community vote?
The fact that this new website is going to be "community owned" seems to come up
in many of the posts and I just don't understand what it means. Would folks
like to clarify this? Thanks.
Abe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Kelly McKiernan <kelly@anagrafyxx.com> wrote:
> > "Lugnet is a nice site, but the forum software is ugly. How on earth are you
> > supposed to read all this text? It's ugly, there's no attempt to make it
> > interesting or highlight what's important..."
>
> Oddly, the things you pick out are exactly the reasons I think Lugnet's
> design is superior. It uses color well to pick out meaningful information,
> and it's got a very clever graphical representation of each thread.
I like the thread thing, but I haven't really missed it at Classic-Castle. I
imagine that more specific topic areas and enforcement keeps threads from
becoming wandering safari hunts sometimes strewn over numerous forums. The
graphic avatars and sig pics makes it easy to find who you are looking for, and
getting at the messages themselves seems to be easier. Perhaps this wouldn't be
so for a huge forum like Lugnet, though.
>
> > Not that I actually think that, but remember that not everybody has the
> > same tastes. That's why there are different sites for different
> > audiences. What's appropriate for Lugnet may not be appropriate for a
> > site targeted toward younger audiences, and vice versa. Kids like the
> > visual cues and color.
I'm a kid? Wow, thank you! (hiding the "Just for Men" beard color)
;-)
>
> Plently of color, few _meaningful_ visual cues. Well, not even plenty of
> color, really -- mostly, a big blue grid.
In a word: boring.
>
> The literal bulletin board covered in notes is a totally apt analogy. I
> strongly believe computer bulletin boards shouldn't be like that.
> Obviously it works for some people, but I don't think it's *completely* a
> matter of different tastes. I think some serious usability research would
> demonstrate all manner of deficiencies. About the only thing I like about
> it is the way each user has an identity-image.
Two-Tonic Knights of the Round Keg unite!
>
> I'm mostly just being grumpy -- all sorts of sites I visit routinely use
> this terrible BB thing. And I've actually got a friend who argues about
> how wonderful it is. Clearly, he has something wrong with his brain. :)
Text adventures died, is all that I can say. :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > Plently of color, few _meaningful_ visual cues. Well, not even plenty of
> > color, really -- mostly, a big blue grid.
> In a word: boring.
Sure. And worse. Like I said, *BB isn't very nice.
> Text adventures died, is all that I can say. :-)
Now there's a non sequitur. Are you suggesting that virtual reality
immerse chatrooms will replace discussion boards? Probably eventually, but
not completely -- and, y'know, not in a timeframe either discussion forum
really has to consider right now.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
Plently of color, few meaningful visual cues. Well, not even plenty of
color, really -- mostly, a big blue grid.
|
In a word: boring.
|
I don’t need my newsgroups to be pretty. Boring can be ok. (1) I need them to be
usable, full of content (ie text) and provide me links to the pretty pictures I
want to look at.
(1)Apparently LEGO thinks old grey and realistic castles are boring. I tend to
think they are neat.
Jason Spears | BrickCentral | MichLUG
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > > Plently of color, few _meaningful_ visual cues. Well, not even plenty of
> > > color, really -- mostly, a big blue grid.
> > In a word: boring.
>
> Sure. And worse. Like I said, *BB isn't very nice.
And like I said, I disagree (but at least we agree on the boring part). :-)
>
>
> > Text adventures died, is all that I can say. :-)
>
> Now there's a non sequitur.
What part of "boring" didn't you parse? :-)
I shall be more forceful in my comparison, Maximum Borosity.
(all those who never saw the phrase "maximum verbosity" are left wondering at
this conversation)
Oh, alright - text adventures gave way to graphic adventures. Time marches on.
Visually boring is left along the way side. It's happened before - it just
struck me as to the similiarity of your comments to the old text/graphic
adventure debate.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Troy's Surplus Lego <legosales@tcphoto.net> wrote:
> > The simple answer to that is that it took over the web because it is freely
> > available and easy to setup. phpBB, which classic-castle uses, comes with
>
> Yeah, fair enough. I didn't really mean to slam your work; I just wouldn't
> like a BB-style forum to "replace" the Lugnet group.
I'm secretly hoping these LEGOfan.net guys come up with a better system! I'm
already looking to upgrade the chat system at CC, so it wouldn't be a problem
for me to upgrade the Forums as well. Assuming that something BETTER then what
we have comes along.
Troy
|
|
| |
Hi all,
One website to rule them all
One website to find them
One website to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them
in the land of Denmark, where the LEGO lie.
Sorry, just had to do that. ;)
Okay, on to the thread. These are random thoughts spurred by various of the 111
posts in this thread so far. Rather than post a ton of different replies, I'll
include them all here.
--Language? If this new site intends to be the one worldwide center for on-line
LEGO doings, what will be the language? Lugnet is mostly English (yes, there
are .loc groups in Swedish and Italian that seem to have a fair amount of
traffic) (at least I seem to see posts in those on the .news page). OTOH,
German-speaking (writing) AFOLs post largely on 1000steine.de, and there are
other sites with other languages. BTW, does anyone know of a comparable site in
Japanese? Some of my favorite builders are from Japan (think of "Tony's
Creations" for military or Onishi Shinji's castle stuff, plus others)?
Different languages often involve different character sets (especially
considering the Japanese fan community here), and would these be included?
--Hub vs web. Some in this thread see this new site as the proposed "one hub"
for LEGO activity, others say "No! Lugnet is and always will be the one hub."
I'd say wrong on both counts. This "one hub" theory ignores places like
BZpower, the LEGO Club pages, 1000Steine.de, etc. Lugnet is the "one hub" of
adult, primarily English language, cross-themed as long as it isn't Bionicle,
on-line LEGO activity, but that's not the same thing. I expect that a new site
would end up being the same. Life on-line is not about having one hub, it's
about a bunch of interconnected hubs, with all kinds of spokes going off in all
directions. In this sense I could claim that my own site is the "one hub" in
that I have links to many of the major sites.
--It seems to me that the movement in the past year or so has been to spin off
more themed sites (classic-castle, ILTCO, Scibrick, FBTB, BZpower) rather than
to move towards one new centralized system. I see this decentralization as a
Good Thing, personally, allowing for some real focus. I still track Lugnet,
though, because I can always learn techniques from other themes, so I go both
ways on this.
--Some people have said that having different message boards at different sites
is wasted, but I would contend that this is not how you live your RL life. You
don't take all your acquaintences and put them in one big room (or even one
building with many individual rooms) to have your conversation. You go to work,
and have groups of people you talk to there, then you have the guys you play
basketball with, then you have your family, your LUG, your church, your
neighbors, etc. Multiple different forums at multiple different websites allow
for this, and give people the flexibility to make groups of on-line friends,
rather than feeling they have to address the whole world each time they speak.
To take three quick examples: 1) Lugnet is not very open to kids, whereas other
forums are. This is a Good Thing in that it allows for different audiences to
find their different comfort zones. 2) The whole Bionicle example has been
mentioned several times in this thread. Lugnet wasn't a welcome place for
Bionicle, so now there is this huge(!!!) BZ community. And God bless 'em. I
don't want to build in their theme, but if they do I will gladly let them. 3)
Personality conflicts happen. I'm not going to take sides as sometimes I've
thought one or the other party had their heads up their butts, but there have
been people who felt dissed in Lugnet.space and found their home at FBTB, while
others have felt dissed at FBTB and found their home at Lugnet.space. Again,
more forums allow for different audiences.
--"Corporate mouthpiece". Jake says he doesn't want this, and I completely
believe him. But. A few months ago Brad Justus would probably have said the
same thing, and I would have believed him, but since then he has taken off his
corporate LEGO hat in favor of an AFOL hat (and presumably better pay at his new
job). Someday Jake might do the same. I don't know the other "suits" at TLC.
Maybe I can believe they won't want a corporate mouthpiece, maybe not. Concerns
include: controversial material (e.g. the Holocaust art exhibit and Brendan's
Brick Testament) (and no, I'm not equating them at, but both have had some
detractors), brick sales - does this conflict with official TLC sales, leaks -
would LEGOfan "respect the brick" as per the FBTB policy, or be more anything
goes like Lugnet (both aspects have their advantages), discussion of
controversies like minifig skin tone or the new grays, etc. I can't link my
own, very kid friendly, website off of my LEGO Club page. While I understand
why TLC doesn't want to allow off-site linking, would they someday, under some
non-Jake liason, seek to limit links from a LEGOfan site?
--Todd's ownership vs community. Yes, there is the possibility that one day
Todd could shut us all down. Go to the FBTB page right now and you'll see a
note that Tim Saupe is stepping down as the admin of that site. At one point he
thought of taking it down, but in the end agreed to turn over control to some of
the other admins. This is a concern, but I don't anticipate Todd dumping this
site. I can't say I've ever directly corresponded with him, but I suspect if he
were to leave the Brick forever he'd turn the reins of this site over to someone
else rather than dump it.
--TLC involvement, part two. Richard writes "Presently, the LEGO Company works
informally and sporadically with multiple independent fan sites. LEGOFan.net
will provide a more centralized point for the LEGO Company to interact with the
fan community, thus increasing the frequency of their interaction, updates,
news, and releases."
This year we have seen TLC increase their involvement, posting high quality
pre-release photos on classic-castle, ILTCO, 1000Steine.de, FBTB, and Brickset.
Does the potential LEGOfan site mean that TLC will stop interacting with these
others (bad idea, IMO)? Or would they increase involvement (best situation,
IMO)?
--Open source. This is the most exciting part of this whole thing. If this
allows people to modify code to easily create sub-sites (theme based, language
based, age based), this could increase the flexibility of the LEGO-web (like
MOCPages allows people to make their own sites fairly easily), which would be a
Good Thing.
Anyway, good luck. I suspect that this will become Yet Another Site to Visit,
rather than the definitive one-size-fits-all hub, but more sites is always a
Good Thing.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Mike Kollross wrote:
> > Snippage
> > >
> > > I'm not trying to be a wet towel, but I've always viewed LUGnet as the 'center
> > > portal' or 'hub' of the lego community--it functions as exactly that, AND a
> > > discussion site. Secondly, Lugnet already fits the "concept of a LEGO site that
> > > the community could truly call its own." Thirdly, LUGnet already has "the
> > > involvement of the LEGO Company itself." basically, LEGOFan.net seems totally
> > > redundant and *almost* feels like a slap in the face to LUGnet & Todd. HOWEVER,
> > > more Lego sites are a good thing. Good Luck.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> >
> > I agree. Why not make Lugnet the single point of contact for the LEGO fan base.
> > We all come here any way. LEGOfan.net sounds redundant or am I missing
> > something?
> >
> > Mike
>
> As central as Lugnet is to portions of the online LEGO community, I believe
> there are other audiences that consider themselves LEGO fans, who would benefit
> from a more structured interconnected community than Lugnet provides. It would
> makes sense that Lugnet play a pivotal role in any such structure, but I know of
> other audiences that would appreciate an easy-to-use, centralized organization
> of LEGO fan resources.
>
> - Kelly
why not just add a few new links/rearranging the front/homepage of LUGnet to
make the central portal for the community?
Jeff
|
|
| |
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Paul Coombs wrote:
> At any rate, Todd spent many hours and I imagine much of his own money
> getting Lugnet up and running and it is an awesome thing. At this
> point, many people are involved in moderating different sections etc.
Incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, the only person who has the
stated right to moderate anything (specifically, newsgroup posts, since I
can't figure out to what else the verb could apply) is Todd Lehman, who
has only used that power to cancel (not edit) posts that leak future set
information from unauthorized sources.
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.morfydd.net/twsg/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > Sure. And worse. Like I said, *BB isn't very nice.
> And like I said, I disagree (but at least we agree on the boring part). :-)
Hey, if you like boring, that's fine with me. To each his own, and all.
> > > Text adventures died, is all that I can say. :-)
> > Now there's a non sequitur.
> What part of "boring" didn't you parse? :-)
> I shall be more forceful in my comparison, Maximum Borosity. (all those
> who never saw the phrase "maximum verbosity" are left wondering at this
> conversation)
So, basically, you think BB style forums will die out? Or do you mean that
both BB and Lugnet will be replaced by the futuristic VR chatrooms I
mentioned?
> Oh, alright - text adventures gave way to graphic adventures. Time
> marches on. Visually boring is left along the way side. It's happened
> before - it just struck me as to the similiarity of your comments to the
> old text/graphic adventure debate.
But there isn't an analogue to the graphical adventure in anything we
talked about. Unless you meant Lugnet, and I don't think you did.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Bruce Hietbrink <bnh@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
> --Some people have said that having different message boards at
> different sites is wasted, but I would contend that this is not how you
> live your RL life. You don't take all your acquaintences and put them in
> one big room (or even one building with many individual rooms) to have
> your conversation. You go to work, and have groups of people you talk to
> there, then you have the guys you play basketball with, then you have
> your family, your LUG, your church, your neighbors, etc. Multiple
On the counterpoint -- I like it all in once place, since, for example, I
haven't done much train building, but I like to follow the cool stuff the
train people are doing. The centralized discussion area makes it easy to
quickly skim what's going on, without having to track a whole bunch of
differenct sites. And of course there's the synergy aspect -- classic
castle isn't *really* all that different from classic space. (Oh, the
blasphemy!)
> I don't anticipate Todd dumping this site. I can't say I've ever
> directly corresponded with him, but I suspect if he were to leave the
> Brick forever he'd turn the reins of this site over to someone else
> rather than dump it.
<http://news.lugnet.com/org/?n=663>
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
SNIP
> The literal bulletin board covered in notes is a totally apt analogy. I
> strongly believe computer bulletin boards shouldn't be like that.
> Obviously it works for some people, but I don't think it's *completely* a
> matter of different tastes. I think some serious usability research would
> demonstrate all manner of deficiencies. About the only thing I like about
> it is the way each user has an identity-image.
>
> I'm mostly just being grumpy -- all sorts of sites I visit routinely use
> this terrible BB thing. And I've actually got a friend who argues about
> how wonderful it is. Clearly, he has something wrong with his brain. :)
>
>
> Really, the ideal situation is multiple ways to access the data -- which
> Lugnet provides, and I hope anything else major adopts as well.
I don't like the one-post-under-the-other-all-on-one-page bulletin boards if
that's what you're talking about-they are AWEFUL. LUGnet posting/thread setup
is FAR superior in the fact that it is FAR more intuitive to read, respond, &
see thread structure, and now, with ftx, you CAN post your own I.D. picture-many
people do!
Jeff
|
|
| |
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Terry Prosper wrote:
> To us, I see it as an insult that some people would want to create a
> website and call it the "central hub" or whatever while we are here,
> every day, building this huge community, sharing info, showing MOCs,
> etc. It's like we don't exist. WE ARE THE CENTRAL HUB. Here. At
> Lugnet.
I suspect Rene Hoffmeister would disagree.
I will not believe that there is a central hub of the online Lego
community until both Rene and Todd say that there is, and point to the
same site. And even then I would be suspicious if that hub did not have
clear links to BrickInside, Peeron, BrickLink, BrickSet, BrickShelf,
BZPower, FBTB, ldraw.org, plestore.com. . . . and those are just the sites
I visit frequently.
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.morfydd.net/twsg/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
|
|
| |
Jeff Szklennik <jeffszklennik@usaexpress.net> wrote:
> I don't like the one-post-under-the-other-all-on-one-page bulletin
> boards if that's what you're talking about-they are AWEFUL. LUGnet
Yup, them's the ones.
> posting/thread setup is FAR superior in the fact that it is FAR more
> intuitive to read, respond, & see thread structure, and now, with ftx,
> you CAN post your own I.D. picture-many people do!
Yeah, but it's neat for them to show up right next to everyone's posts.
Or are people doing that in their sigs? I guess I hadn't really noticed
since I read/post via NNTP 97% of the time because I *do* like text
adventures. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > > Sure. And worse. Like I said, *BB isn't very nice.
> > And like I said, I disagree (but at least we agree on the boring part). :-)
>
> Hey, if you like boring, that's fine with me. To each his own, and all.
You seem confused - I was refering to Lugnet's visual appearance.
>
>
> > > > Text adventures died, is all that I can say. :-)
> > > Now there's a non sequitur.
> > What part of "boring" didn't you parse? :-)
> > I shall be more forceful in my comparison, Maximum Borosity. (all those
> > who never saw the phrase "maximum verbosity" are left wondering at this
> > conversation)
>
> So, basically, you think BB style forums will die out? Or do you mean that
> both BB and Lugnet will be replaced by the futuristic VR chatrooms I
> mentioned?
Yup, confused. Sorry if I wasn't clear along the way. I meant Lugnet was a
step up visually from r.t.l., as newer boards are a step up visually from
Lugnet.
>
>
> > Oh, alright - text adventures gave way to graphic adventures. Time
> > marches on. Visually boring is left along the way side. It's happened
> > before - it just struck me as to the similiarity of your comments to the
> > old text/graphic adventure debate.
>
> But there isn't an analogue to the graphical adventure in anything we
> talked about. Unless you meant Lugnet, and I don't think you did.
Defintely confused - I meant exactly that (another respondent knew I meant
Lugnet, so I didn't think myself unclear, but such is the written word).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
| |
In lugnet.org, Tobbe Arnesson screamed:
| |
The thought of becomming even more kid friendly is
probably the worst thing about this so far. Call me
selfish, but I want my LEGO hobby to be a thing for adults
and I want to be able to express myself in ways that might
not always be a good way around kids.
|
Don’t worry. We’ve expected that. And we think we have a
solution too (Dan will have to explain it in detail, he
knows it better).
|
Being a young teen myself, I know what you mean. LUGNET has definently been a
better place because kids don’t come and make posts about their 5-minute bloched
Star Wars Jedi Starfighter that looks more like a old hippie vehicle- just to
name an example. Yet I don’t think kids should be entirely kicked out, either.
Lugnet has no policy against kids- I was under 14 when I became a member here
and yet people visiting my (slightly unfinished)site-
http://deepspace.jhkruer.com/
probably wouldn’t be able to tell. And yet
the forums here, although sometimes frequented by kids haven’t suffered in
result. Kids seem to be able to tell when their input is wanted and when it
isn’t- kindly speaking, of course. I think one thing that Lugnet has that
perhaps some of the other sites don’t have is maturity. A clean interface, no
flashing banners or off-topic signatures. (Generally) no flaming and insults.
Its a good place to exchange ideas, and while in a way a new site would help
refresh the community, I don’t think Lugnet is doing all that bad. Heck, Lugnet
could be the place for grown-ups/ mature kids to discuss, with other forums for
the younger crowd.
Just some ideas... It’ll be interesting to see this solution you talk about. I
sense that this site is trying to get past the AFOL boundaries- perhaps to get
new people and ideas?
|
|
| |
[ followup-to .publish.html, since this isn't generally interesting. :) ]
Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > > And like I said, I disagree (but at least we agree on the boring part). :-)
> > Hey, if you like boring, that's fine with me. To each his own, and all.
> You seem confused - I was refering to Lugnet's visual appearance.
And that is indeed why I'm confused. I was referring to the phpBB on
Classic-castle in the paragraph you quoted. Like all such BB forums, it
basically has a big monotone ugly spreadsheet as the first level forum
list, an even worse one as the second level "topic" listing. When you get
down below that, the id pictures and the various icons on the posts
suddenly give a bunch of color, but it's still in that spreadsheet format
-- and the color is just decoration devoid of meaning.
news.lugnet.com, while arguably "boring" in some ways, doesn't suffer from
this. It uses different color codings to draw attention in meaning. And
the different forums often have their own little distinctive logo or
graphic -- and underneath that, the "hot" posts in that area.
And when you click on a post, you get a nice *graphical* tree showing its
relation to others. Within the post itself, different levels of quoting
are subtly but clearly color-coded, and of course there's the FTX stuff.
And if you want to see all of the replies on one page, you can, again with
color-coding and a clear spacial representation. No spreadsheet here!
> Yup, confused. Sorry if I wasn't clear along the way. I meant Lugnet was a
> step up visually from r.t.l., as newer boards are a step up visually from
> Lugnet.
You must be looking at some yet newer board of which I am not aware....
The web "bulletin board" style forums (which bear little resemblance to
the old-school BBS systems despite the similar name, btw) predate Lugnet
by at least two years. And that was the dot-com times, so two years in the
then-current Internet Time is like, 25 real years. :)
Pretty much they sucked back then too -- spreadsheet-based forums, leave
your message as a post-it note in the appropriate cell.
Of course, they've evolved some, and one neat thing the newer BB systems
(like phpBB used by Classic-Castle) often have is the id picture -- the
"avatar". So at least it's easy to tell the post-it-note-posters apart at
a glance. Adding that to Lugnet would be cool. So much so that I might
harrass Todd about it, in fact. :)
> > But there isn't an analogue to the graphical adventure in anything we
> > talked about. Unless you meant Lugnet, and I don't think you did.
> Defintely confused - I meant exactly that (another respondent knew I meant
> Lugnet, so I didn't think myself unclear, but such is the written word).
Well, you replied directly to something that was clearly a description of
BB -- Kelly said something about "Kids like the visual cues and color" of
not-Lugnet. But if you actually look, most BB style sites have plenty of
flash but few actual visual cues -- that's one of my complaints -- and
generally color only to set the overall tone of the site. Classic-castle's
formum has a big blue grid -- there's not really such a thing on Lugnet at
all. (Lists, yes, but there's not much by way of grids.)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
John Henry Kruer <jhk@jhkruer.com> wrote:
> Lugnet has no policy against kids- I was under 14 when I became a member here
> and yet people visiting my (slightly unfinished)site-
> ¬¬<http://deepspace.jhkruer.com/>¬¬ probably wouldn't be able to tell. And yet
Dude, the place where you forget the ; in *totally* gives it away.
Obvious kiddy-stuff.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> And that is indeed why I'm confused. I was referring to the phpBB on
> Classic-castle in the paragraph you quoted. Like all such BB forums, it
And let me be super-clear here for anyone just jumping in --
Classic-Castle is a nifty site and I have nothing against them. I'm just
mentioning their forum as an example. And I understand that phpBB is nice
and open source and free and easy to set up and I am not, actually, aware
of anything that meets those criteria and is better.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote:
> [ followup-to .publish.html, since this isn't generally interesting. :) ]
>
> Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> > > > And like I said, I disagree (but at least we agree on the boring part). :-)
> > > Hey, if you like boring, that's fine with me. To each his own, and all.
> > You seem confused - I was refering to Lugnet's visual appearance.
>
> And that is indeed why I'm confused. I was referring to the phpBB on
> Classic-castle in the paragraph you quoted. Like all such BB forums, it
> basically has a big monotone ugly spreadsheet as the first level forum
> list, an even worse one as the second level "topic" listing. When you get
> down below that, the id pictures and the various icons on the posts
> suddenly give a bunch of color, but it's still in that spreadsheet format
> -- and the color is just decoration devoid of meaning.
Well, heck, maybe I'm confused and that confused you in turn.
I don't spend that much time at the two levels you mention at C-C, so they don't
bother me. They give me the minimum clutter to move on to where I want to go.
Not that I actually go and look at them, yes, you critcisms are certainly valid,
but they are only a way station while spending most of the time at the messages
themself. Lugnet is more professionally set up in many ways, but rather sparse
at all levels. I think it could move on, but I thought it clear Todd either
doesn't have the time, energy, or interest to upgrade Lugnet. He has done the
community a great service, and I have had the distinct impression (pretty much
confirmed by him in recent messages) that he is quite content to let other take
things to the next level.
>
> news.lugnet.com, while arguably "boring" in some ways, doesn't suffer from
> this. It uses different color codings to draw attention in meaning. And
> the different forums often have their own little distinctive logo or
> graphic -- and underneath that, the "hot" posts in that area.
>
> And when you click on a post, you get a nice *graphical* tree showing its
> relation to others. Within the post itself, different levels of quoting
> are subtly but clearly color-coded, and of course there's the FTX stuff.
> And if you want to see all of the replies on one page, you can, again with
> color-coding and a clear spacial representation. No spreadsheet here!
As I mentioned, with the cross-posting here, following a thread can be difficult
and the graphical tree helps (until it gets to the 100 message "dots" and then I
just find it almost useless), but over at C-C I haven't felt the need for it.
>
>
> > Yup, confused. Sorry if I wasn't clear along the way. I meant Lugnet was a
> > step up visually from r.t.l., as newer boards are a step up visually from
> > Lugnet.
>
> You must be looking at some yet newer board of which I am not aware....
> The web "bulletin board" style forums (which bear little resemblance to
> the old-school BBS systems despite the similar name, btw) predate Lugnet
> by at least two years. And that was the dot-com times, so two years in the
> then-current Internet Time is like, 25 real years. :)
>
> Pretty much they sucked back then too -- spreadsheet-based forums, leave
> your message as a post-it note in the appropriate cell.
Plain blah text messages are what I would call "post-it" notes and that defines
Lugnet, so I'm of the opposite opinion. If this was a less visual hobby then
Lego, maybe it would matter as much to me.
>
> Of course, they've evolved some, and one neat thing the newer BB systems
> (like phpBB used by Classic-Castle) often have is the id picture -- the
> "avatar". So at least it's easy to tell the post-it-note-posters apart at
> a glance. Adding that to Lugnet would be cool. So much so that I might
> harrass Todd about it, in fact. :)
I love the avatars, but as mentioned, this is about as far as Lugnet is going to
go, so bugging Todd probably won't have an effect. I still like Lugnet as is -
something better has to come along before I'll move on.
>
>
>
>
> > > But there isn't an analogue to the graphical adventure in anything we
> > > talked about. Unless you meant Lugnet, and I don't think you did.
> > Defintely confused - I meant exactly that (another respondent knew I meant
> > Lugnet, so I didn't think myself unclear, but such is the written word).
>
> Well, you replied directly to something that was clearly a description of
> BB -- Kelly said something about "Kids like the visual cues and color" of
> not-Lugnet. But if you actually look, most BB style sites have plenty of
> flash but few actual visual cues -- that's one of my complaints -- and
> generally color only to set the overall tone of the site. Classic-castle's
> formum has a big blue grid -- there's not really such a thing on Lugnet at
> all. (Lists, yes, but there's not much by way of grids.)
It's a big white grid with blue borders. :-)
I don't know how customizable C-C is, but I know they are working at refining
it.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
Hello!
> It’s meant to capture
> interested builders and turn them into hard core fans.
Well, most AFOLs already have been LEGO fans as kids and - after a periode of
neglecting the brick, the so called 'dark ages' - found back to their old love.
That means: For the purpose of growing hard core LEGO fans it's necassary to
inoculate the LEGO virus into kids. I know TLC is trying to attract kids with
their products, but I'm not at all certain if the kids attracted by these days'
LEGO products will become hard core fans when they are adults.
I consider myself a hard core fan, and I am a hard core fan because I got sets
like 6374 ( http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6374 ), 6080 (
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6080 ) or 6285 ( http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6285 ),
each embedded into a whole line of complementing sets. Sure, the Black Seas
Barracuda has been re-released, but where is the complete line that belongs to
this set?
The sets that I (quite randomly) mentioned along with the lines they belonged to
breathed the spark of the LEGO-idea into me, that is: Building, combining parts
with other parts and let your fantasy flow. Everything fits to anything. That's
what hooked me to LEGO, none of all the competing toys I had got me hooked like
LEGO.
I doubt that todays kids feel this LEGO idea when they see or play with recent
LEGO products. They can't let their fantasy flow because the storylines are
predetermined. They can't build as much as we were able to because the sets
contain less parts and much worse: less multifunctional parts. They still can
combine anything with everything but the outcome is most likely not as appealing
as it used to be due to the two previously mentioned aspects.
I know there are many kids (and adults) attracted by the Bionicle line, the
Bionicle fan forum has myriads of members, and I do not at all intend to start
another flamewar against Bionicles. Bionicle may have its place, I don't mind.
However, will kids that are Bionicle fans now still be die hard LEGO fans if TLC
eventually decides not to continue the Bionicle line? Are those kids attracted
by the "Bionicle" idea with its (quite interesting as I have to admit) storyline
or are they attracted by the "LEGO" idea? I guess the first.
To cut a long story short, I don't believe that anybody will become a hard core
LEGO fan due to any web site in the world wide web, unless he already has the
LEGO virus in himself. So TLC should concentrate on their product to get kids
(coming adults) hooked on LEGO, hooked on LEGO that will still be the same LEGO
they used to be hooked on when they eventually discover their old love again in
a couple of years. (Hm... this would be the place to throw in a little comment
regarding the colour changes that caused a big loss of confidence into the
perpetuity of the LEGO company and their products....)
Interested builders will become hard core fans as long as they find sufficient
amounts of the material they build with, that is bricks.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> I'm surprised you guys haven't thrown up a splash page or something, at
> least. Maybe with a "mission statement" and info on getting involved.
Hey, looks like someone actually reads the stuff I post. Well, that's
encoraging. *big grin*
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish.html, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller wrote: • * big big big snip *
> >
> > Of course, they've evolved some, and one neat thing the newer BB systems
> > (like phpBB used by Classic-Castle) often have is the id picture -- the
> > "avatar". So at least it's easy to tell the post-it-note-posters apart at
> > a glance. Adding that to Lugnet would be cool. So much so that I might
> > harrass Todd about it, in fact. :)
> > Well, you replied directly to something that was clearly a description of
> > BB -- Kelly said something about "Kids like the visual cues and color" of
> > not-Lugnet. But if you actually look, most BB style sites have plenty of
> > flash but few actual visual cues -- that's one of my complaints -- and
> > generally color only to set the overall tone of the site. Classic-castle's
> > formum has a big blue grid -- there's not really such a thing on Lugnet at
> > all. (Lists, yes, but there's not much by way of grids.)
>
> It's a big white grid with blue borders. :-)
>
> I don't know how customizable C-C is, but I know they are working at refining
> it.
I hadn't actually intended to weigh the pros and cons of text vs. graphical
community systems; what I was really trying to get across was there are
different presentations for different audiences. The audience of Lugnet mainly
prefers a sophisticated text-based threaded message board, which is great. But
other audiences prefer other presentations. I mentioned kids liking the flash
and splash of colorful graphics (and more than a few adults do too)... each
group should have access to content and design that fits their preference. So
adults like Lugnet and many consider it their hub; while younger (as a rule)
audiences tend to go for more colorful and interactive presentations like at
BZPower. Neither would be comfortable at the other's "hub".
Of course, that's only one example. Train aficionados would probably not be
comfortable on a SPACE! landing page, and vice verse. Or European fans visiting
an American-specific web site. And so on. Different audiences, different
requirements, and all are valid. As central to many fans' lives as Lugnet is, I
simply wanted to point out that it does not serve all available audiences.
There's room for others, and some method of steering people to the right place
(as I understand both community proposals would do) can only help in the long
run. Unless I'm mistaken about what is actually being proposed.
- Kelly
|
|
| |
In lugnet.publish.html, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> I hadn't actually intended to weigh the pros and cons of text vs. graphical
> community systems; what I was really trying to get across was there are
> different presentations for different audiences. The audience of Lugnet mainly
> prefers a sophisticated text-based threaded message board, which is great.
Without saying that you are wrong in that assessment, let me ask on what basis
do you make that claim? If Lugnet is the final answer, why do other sites
start? Do those that prefer it do so simply because Lugnet is all they know?
Is it really graphics or text-only that they prefer or content, organization,
and emphasis?
Of course, with more choices people will gravitate to what they prefer, and
eventually I think you statement will prove true, regardless of whether it is
true or not now. Honestly, I think Todd is quite happy to let others take up
the torch.
But
> other audiences prefer other presentations. I mentioned kids liking the flash
> and splash of colorful graphics (and more than a few adults do too)... each
> group should have access to content and design that fits their preference. So
> adults like Lugnet and many consider it their hub; while younger (as a rule)
> audiences tend to go for more colorful and interactive presentations like at
> BZPower. Neither would be comfortable at the other's "hub".
Like I said before, thanks for considering someone who remembers Annette in
mouse ears a "kid". :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Paul Coombs wrote:
>
> > At any rate, Todd spent many hours and I imagine much of his own money
> > getting Lugnet up and running and it is an awesome thing. At this
> > point, many people are involved in moderating different sections etc.
>
> Incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, the only person who has the
> stated right to moderate anything (specifically, newsgroup posts, since I
> can't figure out to what else the verb could apply) is Todd Lehman, who
> has only used that power to cancel (not edit) posts that leak future set
> information from unauthorized sources.
There's also Larry P and that other guy (whom I can't remember and am to lazy to
search for).
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
| |
-snip newsgroup flooding-
I would be very surprised if Lego let you use “Lego” in the URL for the
site. They are pretty tough on these things - and if they let you do it they
will be opening one heck of a can of worms. Because IF they let you do it
they will be “diluting the brand name” as is the popular term here on
Lugnet.
|
Mark, you are certainly correct that we have a policy of not allowing
unauthorized uses of “LEGO” in the domain name. It is very important that
consumers are clear who has developed the site, and using “LEGO” in the
domain tends to tell people that the site is supported by the LEGO Company.
From our Fair Play policy:
The LEGO trademark should not be incorporated into an Internet address.
Internet addresses have become useful tools for people to identify the source
of a homepage. Using “LEGO” in the domain name would be creating the
misleading impression that the LEGO Group sponsored the homepage.
However, in this case, we are indeed supporting this project. We still aren’t
quite clear what exactly the support will be, or whether the LEGOFan team
will actually accept our support. Assuming they do, one thing that have
agreed to offer is that domain name usage.
|
Jake can you clarify this? I expect ‘support’ and use of the word “lego” in the
url has been given subject to assurances or limitations with regard the content
of the site. If possible, I’d be interested to know what those assurances or
limitations are. For instance, will users see:
a) ‘controversial’ content (or links to it)? (The work of Brendan Powell Smith
comes to mind.)
b) condemning reviews of new & upcoming lego product lines or sets?
Please forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere in this sprawling thread.
Scott A
Have you had a look at Arthurs Seat Yet?
 
| |
You can see a similar exception with the LEGOWorld.nl domain. This was a site
co-developed by the company and fans.
Hope this helps!
Jake
---
Jake McKee
Community Liaison
LEGO Community Development
|
|
|
| |
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Tobbe Arnesson wrote:
> In lugnet.org, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Paul Coombs wrote:
> >
> > > At any rate, Todd spent many hours and I imagine much of his own money
> > > getting Lugnet up and running and it is an awesome thing. At this
> > > point, many people are involved in moderating different sections etc.
> >
> > Incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, the only person who has the
> > stated right to moderate anything (specifically, newsgroup posts, since I
> > can't figure out to what else the verb could apply) is Todd Lehman, who
> > has only used that power to cancel (not edit) posts that leak future set
> > information from unauthorized sources.
>
> There's also Larry P and that other guy (whom I can't remember and am to lazy to
> search for).
As I recall, Larry and Frank Filz have the power to cancel a user's posts
at the request of that user, but do *not* have the authority to cancel
them as a moderator would (i.e., because the content violates the ToS).
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.morfydd.net/twsg/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Jindrich Kubec wrote:
> > Wasn't it told in previous debate about WorldLUG, that Lugnet doesn't
> > evolve anymore? Not to mention that it's a 'private property'.
>
> Why yes, it was. By myself, in this post:
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=45197
>
> And also in Todds reply:
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=45213
>
> Lugnet is a great place. I like it very much and it has been very good to me
> over the years. It is, however, not going forward. If it were, then there
> would not be a need for anything new or different.
>
> Troy
I had not realize that Todd himself approved of such a situation. That changes
everything from my point of vue. I no longer see it the way I did.
However, some people have brought the argument that WorldLUG aims to do a
similar thing. Maybe the whole community, here on Lugnet, should talk about
achiving something like that before some people try to make their own version of
what WorldLUG was about to do.
I still think the way thiws project was brought to us is the wrong way. It's
nice to plan to do something, but before saying you want to create a central hub
for this community, I feel you should have talked to us before. And it kind of
short-circuits the WorldLUG projects, which was meant to be a community open
project, not a few select people's project.
Terry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Duane Hess wrote:
> No offense intended Terry, but yours was the latest post. Could we PLEASE trim
> the number of groups that this discussion has snared?! I hate digging to find
> the content that I want.
>
> -Duane
I totally agree and I highlighted your other post about trimming the groups.
Terry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Koudys wrote:
> You bring in the kids you bring in the issue of clones. And if TLC is involved,
> well, as I said before, I don't know. There aren't any easy answers.
>
> I fully appreciate TLC (as I've stated numerous times) and I will never
> personally send my money to any other brick manufacturer (excapt BBB ;) ).
>
> I also want to voice my support of people looking at enhancing the on-line
> experience of our chosen hobby--I will help where I am able.
>
> I love my time at LUGNET and would like to see any transition, if wanted, to go
> as smoothly and, well, diplomatically for lack of a better word, as possible.
>
> Quick little example. I work for a company that has been around for many years.
> Recently our parent company filed for bankruptcy and, due to restructuring, it
> (the parent company) was eliminated. That said, there are still folks in this
> very office who work for that parent company, and who are finalizing paperwork.
> Basically, since the parent company has been eliminated, all the office space
> 'are belong to us', and we are allowed to do with as we please, includiong
> moving the 'old folks' into spare cubicles. That said, it's an unwritten rule
> that we don't walk into the old VP's office with a measuring tape and a notepad
> whilst the old VP is finalising the elimination of his position--it's not nice
> and shows a profound lack of respect to the person.
>
> So if these discussions are to continue on LUGNET, bear in mind that, for many
> people, related to these discussions is the potential elimination of LUGNET--our
> home for numerous years for all things LEGO.
>
> Please consider that.
>
> Dave K
Well said Dave K. Well said...
I might also add that I would rather NOT see LEGO involved in any central
website for this community. This is because LEGO would thn have some power over
content, which can't be a good thing because they already have their own website
to advertise. I'd rather have LEGO as a paying advertiser, if they want to, and
a contribution like Jake does here, which is limited to some announcements and
replying to any message he wants. That gives us AFOL total freedom over the
content of our messages and it also gives us autorithy to criticize plenty, even
if we mostly talk about how great LEGO is :-)
Terry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Terry Prosper wrote:
>
> > To us, I see it as an insult that some people would want to create a
> > website and call it the "central hub" or whatever while we are here,
> > every day, building this huge community, sharing info, showing MOCs,
> > etc. It's like we don't exist. WE ARE THE CENTRAL HUB. Here. At
> > Lugnet.
>
> I suspect Rene Hoffmeister would disagree.
>
> I will not believe that there is a central hub of the online Lego
> community until both Rene and Todd say that there is, and point to the
> same site. And even then I would be suspicious if that hub did not have
> clear links to BrickInside, Peeron, BrickLink, BrickSet, BrickShelf,
> BZPower, FBTB, ldraw.org, plestore.com. . . . and those are just the sites
> I visit frequently.
Who is Rene? (I don't mean to be rude, i truly don't know)
Half the website you mentionned are not on my frequently visited websites.
fbtb.net, however, would be there, but it's not on yours.
As for the central hub, it doesn't have to link clearly to every site YOU visit
frequently. Lugnet is the home of many AFOL, as David Koudys said in another
post. It's mine for sure. Even if it doesn't link to my own
www.minifigville.com or to fbtb.net.
Terry
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Huw Millington wrote:
> [...]
> following a major enhancemnet of Brickset, I
> believe Todd felt the need to beef up the guide in response.
What major enhancement was that?
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> For some time now, a group of us have been discussing the concept of a LEGO
> site that the community could truly call its own-- community owned,
> designed, and operated. To this end, we have been endeavoring for more than
> half a year to bring that concept to life. After the recent announcement
> concerning WorldLUG, we decided that it would be a good time to bring this
> into the public eye.
>
> Who are we? Presently, the group is made up of 9 people: Jacob Sparre
> Andersen, Steve Bliss, Dan Boger, Jennifer Boger, David Eaton, Sean Kenney,
> Jake Mckee, Richard Morton, and Calum Tsang.
I have been reading quite a few defensive posts from Lugnet fanatics, so I
thought I would chime in. I totally support what you guys are doing. I think
it is the right direction. I think the community is in some places stagnating,
and in other places fracturing, and i think this could help.
I do think it would be neat if Lugnet were actually part of this process, but my
understanding is that it won't (at least as far as the code that runs Lugnet).
However, the Lugnet community has come up with a lot of cool ideas, and well, I
hope you take a careful look at what it was trying to do. Well, I bet you will.
Mostly, I wanted to say I believe in what you are doing, and hope it all turns
out well.
-Alfred
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Terry Prosper wrote:
> In lugnet.org, Thomas Garrison wrote:
> > I suspect Rene Hoffmeister would disagree.
> >
> > I will not believe that there is a central hub of the online Lego
> > community until both Rene and Todd say that there is, and point to the
> > same site. And even then I would be suspicious if that hub did not have
> > clear links to BrickInside, Peeron, BrickLink, BrickSet, BrickShelf,
> > BZPower, FBTB, ldraw.org, plestore.com. . . . and those are just the sites
> > I visit frequently.
>
> Who is Rene? (I don't mean to be rude, i truly don't know)
I don't read German, so I can stand to be corrected, but I believe Rene is the
admin of 1000steine.de.
>
Lugnet is the home of many AFOL,
Even if it doesn't link to my own
> www.minifigville.com or to fbtb.net.
FBTB is the first link in the lugnet.starwars sidebar, which seems fairly
logical.
Bruce
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> - big snip -
>
> The LEGOFan Team
Finally! I've been waiting forever for some sort of international, LEGO users
group network!
Oh wait. There is one. And I'm using it right now.
Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Jake McKee wrote:
- lots of snips -
To me, several statements in this message show how TLC is on the wrong track.
> It’s meant to capture
> interested builders and turn them into hard core fans.
I remember when well-designed sets served this function, not branded websites.
Maybe kids have changed, but I don't really think so.
> What happens to them and
> their interest in the brick once they have “used up” the content on LEGO.com? Do
> we let them slip away and move on to other activities? Or do we capture their
> hearts and minds to ensure they transition into being AFOLs? If it’s the second
> option, how do we do that?
By manufacturing and selling great building toys. When I'm done looking at a
website, I still have my bricks to play with. I don't need another website to
go to.
> And what about those people who read about fan movies in Wired magazine? Or see
> a spot about a train show on their local evening news? How do we ease those
> folks into the community?
See above.
Bryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Bryan Beckwith wrote:
> Finally! I've been waiting forever for some sort of international, LEGO users
> group network!
>
> Oh wait. There is one. And I'm using it right now.
>
> Bryan
Finally! Someone made the completely ignorant statement I was waiting for! w00t!
Ok, I'll put my piece in here I guess.
I think this whole idea is a good one, but it's going to take a LOT of work and
participation from the other sites.
What some people don't seem to understand, is that this isn't just about forums
and links.
Imagine if you will, you have a homepage that you can configure, however you
want, that can give you the latest threads FROM Lugnet, FBTB, Classic Castle,
etc. Imagine it shows you the latest MOCs from your favorite builders and/or
catagories. Imagine it also shows you the latest pics for new sets. Imagine it
would tell you when something on your BrickLink wishlist appears. Imagine just
how limitless this could be if it actually happens! And that's just the
homepage...
And this isn't about replacing ANYTHING, when you click the links on such a
homepage it would take you to the places you know and love now. And this would
allow NEW sites to join in much easier without being forced to pull people away
from the other sites. Everything would be interconnected and make finding what
you actually want to see much easier.
Like I said however, it will take a lot of work. And I'm not sure that it really
would ever happen, but it's nice to dream.
--SteveR
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Bryan Beckwith wrote:
> > Finally! I've been waiting forever for some sort of international, LEGO users
> > group network!
> >
> > Oh wait. There is one. And I'm using it right now.
> >
> > Bryan
>
> Finally! Someone made the completely ignorant statement I was waiting for! w00t!
>
> Ok, I'll put my piece in here I guess.
>
> I think this whole idea is a good one, but it's going to take a LOT of work and
> participation from the other sites.
>
> What some people don't seem to understand, is that this isn't just about forums
> and links.
>
> Imagine if you will, you have a homepage that you can configure, however you
> want, that can give you the latest threads FROM Lugnet, FBTB, Classic Castle,
> etc. Imagine it shows you the latest MOCs from your favorite builders and/or
> catagories. Imagine it also shows you the latest pics for new sets. Imagine it
> would tell you when something on your BrickLink wishlist appears. Imagine just
> how limitless this could be if it actually happens! And that's just the
> homepage...
>
> And this isn't about replacing ANYTHING, when you click the links on such a
> homepage it would take you to the places you know and love now. And this would
> allow NEW sites to join in much easier without being forced to pull people away
> from the other sites. Everything would be interconnected and make finding what
> you actually want to see much easier.
>
> Like I said however, it will take a lot of work. And I'm not sure that it really
> would ever happen, but it's nice to dream.
>
> --SteveR
All that is fine & well, but:
a) why can’t LUGNET perform that role?
b) I’m concerned about the Lego Group’s involvement; it is still not clear what
they expect for their ‘13 pieces of silver’? ;)
If Jake wants to capture the “hearts and minds” (1) of consumers, I’d suggest
the Lego Group starts by looking at its product lines and customer service.
I must admit to being cynical even about the Lego Group’s involvement with
LUGNET. After all, I’m not clear what this thread achieved:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=672
Scott A
(1) Where did you last hear that phrase! ;)
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller wrote:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote:
> > * It is not just that we plan to use Open Source
> > software.
>
> Which I'm a big fan of. What software, and how far along
> is it?
Dan will start throwing heavy stuff across the Atlantic, if
I claim it is vapor-ware at the moment, but it is at least
not in a usable state yet.
Basically (and possibly not quite correctly) it is a content
management system with access control lists designed(?)
primarily for use in the LEGO fan community. But since it
isn't up and running in a usable state yet, don't trust my
words too much.
I feel a little bit uncomfortable with all the talk there is
about the project, even before we have something usable to
show.
> So, sounds like you intend to duplicate a lot of the
> functionality of Lugnet.
Yes.
> Have you discussed the possibility of sharing (NNTP seems
> ideal for this!) newsgroup posts <-> Lugnet?
Yes (but not with Todd, yet). We are considering how we can
feed discussion group articles between existing sites in a
practical way. This will of course involve agreements with
the various site owners and some kind of system for
exchanging user validation (preferably without exchanging
actual user data).
Play well,
Jacob
--
Bison (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Dyr/Bison/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur wrote:
> Jake can you clarify this? I expect ‘support’ and use of the word “lego” in
> the url has been given subject to assurances or limitations with regard the
> content of the site.
Actually not. What we _have_ discussed is to make it possible for parents to
decide that some classes of content is unsuitable for their children, and for
users of the site to decide some age limits for access to content/discussion
groups they create. The implementation is not fixed yet, but I hope we will get
around to publish the current specification soon.
> If possible, I’d be interested to know what those
> assurances or limitations are. For instance, will
> users see:
>
> a) ‘controversial’ content (or links to it)? (The
> work of Brendan Powell Smith comes to mind.)
Yes (if they want to).
> b) condemning reviews of new & upcoming lego product lines or sets?
Yes (unless LEGO starts improving the quality of their sets and lowering their
prices :-).
I doubt that we would accept that LEGO imposed editorial limits on the site.
Then I would at least prefer to go elsewhere for sponsorships.
Play well,
Jacob (not Jake :-)
--
City X'ers delivery van (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/CityXers/Kassevogn/
|
|
| |
"Jacob Sparre Andersen" <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:
> Basically (and possibly not quite correctly) it is a content
> management system with access control lists designed(?)
> primarily for use in the LEGO fan community. But since it
> isn't up and running in a usable state yet, don't trust my
> words too much.
That sounds like mostly server-side stuff. Have you figured out
yet what you are going to require from clients (users)? The
reason I ask is that I'm an old-fashioned soul, and am unlikely
to use discussion groups that are not NNTP-reachable, and am
unlikely to visit web pages that require Javascript. (And yes,
the LEGO.COM pages bug me because of that, and I typically end
up visiting the site only a few times per year.)
--
Experience should guide us, not rule us.
Chris Gray cg@ami-cg.GraySage.COM
http://www.GraySage.COM/cg/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
(snip)
> What some people don't seem to understand, is that this isn't just about forums
> and links.
>
> Imagine if you will, you have a homepage that you can configure, however you
> want, that can give you the latest threads FROM Lugnet, FBTB, Classic Castle,
> etc. Imagine it shows you the latest MOCs from your favorite builders and/or
> catagories. Imagine it also shows you the latest pics for new sets. Imagine it
> would tell you when something on your BrickLink wishlist appears. Imagine just
> how limitless this could be if it actually happens! And that's just the
> homepage...
>
> And this isn't about replacing ANYTHING, when you click the links on such a
> homepage it would take you to the places you know and love now. And this would
> allow NEW sites to join in much easier without being forced to pull people away
> from the other sites. Everything would be interconnected and make finding what
> you actually want to see much easier.
>
> Like I said however, it will take a lot of work. And I'm not sure that it really
> would ever happen, but it's nice to dream.
>
> --SteveR
Excuse my ignorance, but what about those websites, like FBTB and
Classic-Castle, that want their visitors to physically visit their forums to see
the latest threads so that they could also visit the main website, to view the
main page and see the news that has been posted there at the expense of time and
effort by the websites administrators?
What about those websites who want to show off the latest pics of the newest
sets, like FBTB and Classic-Castle, who would like the traffic to their sites,
and who want deals with LEGO to display the latest and greatest pictures?
How is taking this information away from these websites not replacing them?
Why bother posting to the website at all if the forum topics are taken to
another website? Why not just post to that website? Why would LEGO give their
preview set images to other websites, when these nonreproducable nonrepostable
images could just be given to this new website to which they already have deep
partnership, and severe all contact with the old ones?
Why not go a step further and take the news items on those websites' main pages
and link them to this new website, thus removing any point to the old websites?
If none of the above is to happen, then how is it not about just forums and
links?
Of course, these are all just questions, read into them as you like.
--Anthony
Lugnet member #1312
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Chris Gray wrote:
> "Jacob Sparre Andersen" <sparre@nbi.dk> writes:
>
> > Basically (and possibly not quite correctly) it is a content
> > management system with access control lists designed(?)
> > primarily for use in the LEGO fan community. But since it
> > isn't up and running in a usable state yet, don't trust my
> > words too much.
>
> That sounds like mostly server-side stuff. Have you figured out
> yet what you are going to require from clients (users)? The
> reason I ask is that I'm an old-fashioned soul, and am unlikely
> to use discussion groups that are not NNTP-reachable, and am
> unlikely to visit web pages that require Javascript. (And yes,
> the LEGO.COM pages bug me because of that, and I typically end
> up visiting the site only a few times per year.)
I think any standards compliant browser should work for the website, oh, and IE.
We do want to implement an NNTP interface as well as an SMTP, for as much
content as possible.
My personal philosophy is that javascript can be used only to enhance, but
should never be required. Many options should be made available to the users,
but none should forced on them. I often use text based browsers, and as you
said, consider myself to be an "old fasioned soul".
The site (or any site, really) should lend itself to power-users as well as to
newbies. If you want to customize the way the site works for them, they should
be able to. If someone doesn't want to bother with it, the site should have
some intelligent defaults.
Dan
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.general, Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Dan Boger wrote:
> > However, development on LUGNET can only be done
> > by invitation. And to date, there have been very few such invitations.
> > That is one of the main things we hope LEGOFan can improve on. By
> > making the code that runs the site accessible for anyone to download,
> > modify, and submit updates, we allow a much wider pool of developers to
> > work on the site.
> >
> > This means, that if someone has a great idea for a new way to, say, track
> > community events, they can just write a module, upload it, and everyone
> > benefits.
>
> What about when someone has a terrible or very misguided idea, writes a
> module, uploads it, and everyone suffers?
It will not happen. We will still have to have a competent group of system
administrators checking if new modules are up to par, before they can go into
the central LEGOFan.net site.
But if a developer creates a really cool module, and the LEGOFan.net system
administrators are some jerks that will not put his module into the central
site, he has all the code and data needed to set up a competing and (due to his
new module) much cooler site.
Just like with Linux, it being Open Source doesn't mean that you can force the
original developer to use your work, but you still have access to all the work
of the original developer, so if your work really _is_ better, you will either
out-compete the original developer or force him to incorporate your work in his
version.
> An obvious danger of a community owned site is that only a
> certain percentage of that community's ideas are going to
> be worth implementing. Who then decides what does and
> does not get implemented?
Those who do the work. If somebody feels like implementing a feature, it will
be implemented. If nobody feels like implementing a feature, it will not be
implemented. (in addition to this there will probably be a security audit by
the site system administrator before an implementation will be activated on the
central site)
> I can't imagine there would be a giant
> vote for every possible change to LEGOfan.net...
Everybody votes all the time - with their abilities as programmers.
> It seems to me (though I admit little knowledge of 'open'
> projects) that there will still have to be a certain set
> of people who make these decisions for the rest of the
> users.
Yes. But due to the licenses covering the software and data it is always easy
for a better (measured in user satisfaction) development team to dethrone the
current one. Open Source projects are generally managed as dictatorships - with
one important difference - you can always run away _with_ all the treasures of
the old dictator.
> Currently with LUGNET, there is a very small number of
> people with control to make such decisions. How exactly
> would LEGOfan be different?
In that it will be trivial to dethrone us if we don't do our job well enough.
> The original post lists 9 names of people behind the
> project. Is this not simply an oligarchy to replace a
> monarchy?
Yes. But with different rules for the game. Rules that (as I have explained
above) mean that it is an unusual kind of oligarchy. Having all the software
and data on the site available for any of its users to copy and use to run a
competing site means that if somebody has just a single good implementation that
we reject, then he will be able to set a complete LEGOFan.net clone _plus_ his
improvement up overnight. And if it really is an improvement people will swich
over. Since we don't keep our software and data locked down there isn't the
swiching barrier of having to manage without (or reenteren) all the previously
entered data.
> Perhaps someone can better explain how LEGOfan could
> actually function without putting control into the
> hands of only a select few...
The daily operation of the site _will_ be in the hands of a select few. What
makes the difference is how easy it is to swap out one select few for a better
select few.
> I don't want to come off as overly negative or cynical
> about LEGOfan.net, but like others who have replied to
> this thread, I am a huge fan of LUGNET, and very much
> see it as *the hub* of the AFOL community.
So do I. But I can't do everything I want to with Lugnet. With an open system
it will be easier for me to experiment and try to improve my on-line LEGO
experience. (that sounds a bit too much like marketing buzzwords, sorry)
> This is the *one place* where AFOLs congregate to
> discuss and show their work.
No. But it is probably the most important and popular one.
> So I can't say I see much of a need for a *new hub*
> for the AFOL community, and unless LUGNET's forums
> are incorporated directly into LEGOfan, I have some
> serious doubts that LEGOfan will come up with as
> elegant a forum.
Since the Lugnet software is Closed Source, you shouldn't expect it to show up
anywhere else. But yes, it is certainly an enormous challenge to create a
better discussion group system than Lugnet.
> I must admit a bias in all this, which is that
> personally, I am only interested in being part of
> an AFOL community where the A is for adults. If
> part of the impetus behind LEGOfan.net is to join
> together the adult and children fans of LEGO into
> one community,
It is to a certain extent one of our goals.
> I should also mention, that I too would worry
> about the "corporate sponsorship = corporate
> mouthpiece" issue. Despite Jake's reassurances
> and even despite the best intentions of all
> involved, I think this sort of thing just happens.
If LEGOFan.net ends up relying completely on LEGO for funding, I can understand
your worry, but that is not our intent. We have already spent a bit of time
thinking about alternative ways of funding the operation of the site. And if
the corporate sponsorship damages LEGOFan.net, anybody interested (and with
better ideas for funding) can grab the good parts of LEGOFan.net and launch a
clone of LEGOFan.net which is independent of corporate sponsorship.
> I admire LUGNET's independence.
Has Lugnet never received a sponsorship from LEGO?
> Finally, I also share the concern that LEGOfan.net,
> though created with the best intentions, would
> become *yet another* LEGO fan site to visit instead
> of being *the* LEGO fan site to visit.
That risk exists.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Bison (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Dyr/Bison/
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.general, James Trobaugh wrote:
> I do find it strange that this announcement was only posted to LUGNET and not
> any of the other LEGO related boards. If this is meant to bring together all
> online LEGO communities I would think that the announcement would be made on
> the other sites as well so everyone in the LEGO online community could be in
> on the topic.
Once there is something to show, it should of course be announced widely to the
online LEGO fan community. But this was (at least from my point of view) more
thought as a follow-up to the WorldLUG discussion than a full announcement of
the project.
Play well,
Jacob
--
LEGO furniture:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/By/M%F8bler/
|
|
| |
Chris Gray wrote:
> That sounds like mostly server-side stuff.
It is.
> Have you figured out
> yet what you are going to require from clients (users)?
As little as possible. We want to make the content accessible in as many
different ways as possible, but preferably using existing protocols like NNTP,
SMTP and NNTP.
> The reason I ask is that I'm an old-fashioned soul,
> and am unlikely to use discussion groups that are not
> NNTP-reachable, and am unlikely to visit web pages
> that require Javascript.
You sound like a Jacob clone. :-)
But it could be fun to make data accessible in a way so people can write costum
client software.
Play well,
Jacob
--
City X'ers delivery van (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/CityXers/Kassevogn/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote:
> > I'm surprised you guys haven't thrown up a splash page or something, at
> > least. Maybe with a "mission statement" and info on getting involved.
>
> Hey, looks like someone actually reads the stuff I post.
Yes. :-)
> Well, that's encoraging. *big grin*
We are a bit slow occasionally, but you risk that we react at some point. :-)
We hadn't exactly _planned_ go announce the project this early in the process,
but it seemed unreasonable to keep quiet, now that the talk about WorldLUG
started up again. That we actually _had_ a domain name was not something we
thought about while writing the announcement. Thanks for reminding us.
Play well,
Jacob
--
A LEGO construction site:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/By/Huse/Skyskraber/
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.off-topic.geek ]
In lugnet.org, Matthew Miller wrote:
> John Henry Kruer <jhk@jhkruer.com> wrote:
> Dude, the place where you forget the ; in
> *totally* gives it away. Obvious kiddy-stuff.
LoL
But if I am not mistaken, John got his SGML entities right.
As I remember the SGML standard, you don't have to close a
SGML entity with a semicolon.
Play well,
Jacob
--
LEGO Purists' Fighter (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Fly/Purists_fighter/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Abe Friedman wrote:
> What exactly does it mean to be "community owned"?
1) That the site software will be published under
an Open Source license.
2) That the content (or at least as much as
possible of it) will be available as a whole
under an Open Source license.
3) Probably also that we will set up a formal
organization with a democratically elected
board and all that stuff (although I personally
don't consider that important).
> Is the site going to be like
> a WIKI and anyone can change the content?
Parts of it may be.
> Is there going to be a controlling body (say, for
> example, of 9 people)
Couldn't we manage with fewer? :-)
Making both the software and the content available
under an Open Source license means that even the
most totalitarian and undemocratic leadership will
have to make all the users happy. Otherwise they
can just take all the interesting stuff and set up
a new site with a better leadership elsewhere.
> Is every change going to be done by a community
> vote?
In the traditional sense of the word, no.
But in another sense, yes. If the leadership of
the site (please don't point at me for that job)
doesn't make the right decisions, somebody else
can without much work copy the whole site, minus
the wrong decisions. And since the look, feel and
content of the copied site practically will be the
same, the leadership will be forced to do a good
job, if it really wants to keep the site popular.
> The fact that this new website is going to be
> "community owned" seems to come up in many of
> the posts and I just don't understand what it
> means.
It was also totally unclear from the announcement.
My only excuse is that I was sleeping while it was
sent out.
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Bregnerod (a LEGO town):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Milj%F8er/Bregnerod/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> Excuse my ignorance, but what about those websites, like FBTB and
> Classic-Castle, that want their visitors to physically visit their forums to see
> the latest threads so that they could also visit the main website, to view the
> main page and see the news that has been posted there at the expense of time and
> effort by the websites administrators?
>
> What about those websites who want to show off the latest pics of the newest
> sets, like FBTB and Classic-Castle, who would like the traffic to their sites,
> and who want deals with LEGO to display the latest and greatest pictures?
>
> How is taking this information away from these websites not replacing them?
>
> Why bother posting to the website at all if the forum topics are taken to
> another website? Why not just post to that website? Why would LEGO give their
> preview set images to other websites, when these nonreproducable nonrepostable
> images could just be given to this new website to which they already have deep
> partnership, and severe all contact with the old ones?
>
> Why not go a step further and take the news items on those websites' main pages
> and link them to this new website, thus removing any point to the old websites?
>
> If none of the above is to happen, then how is it not about just forums and
> links?
>
> Of course, these are all just questions, read into them as you like.
>
> --Anthony
> Lugnet member #1312
Oh, I understand this. That's part of the "lot of work" that would be involved.
How exactly do you implement something like this to the other sites
satisfaction? *I* don't know exactly. Yet at the same time I can't help but
think this would actually bring traffic to those sites. I don't visit FBTB, or
Classic-Castle EVER at this point. But I would, if I had a portal straight to
the good stuff. At which point I would be inclined to browse around the rest of
the site.
--SteveR
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So, down the road,
> when someone else changes the corporate mind for them? Or somebody
> wants to show their Mega Bloks creation? Or make a disparaging
> comparison of MB (or some other competitor) to Lego? I'm not saying
> that anyone (currently) wants this to happen, or that it will happen,
> but it is a concern. What needs to be addressed is what kind of
> support Lego might give, what strings are attached to that support,
> and what will be the consequences if that suport is withdrawn, and
> discussed in a calm and reasonable fashion by all - I am merely
> voicing concern, not hurling accusations.
We already discussed most of this with Jake, and agreed we would have to
have no strings attached. The LEGO company would be a welcome visitor
and participant in the site, but they will NOT run it, or dictate how
the site should be run. I believe that at least with the current team,
we would rather severe all connections with LEGO before allowing that to
change. The goal of this project is to create a resource for the
community.
> Perhaps it is just me, but I'm not really getting a clear picture
> (I've only waded through half this thread so far) of what LEGOFan is
> offering in the way of something new and unique. BrickLink offers a
> way for buyers and sellers to acquire/get-rid-of Lego, Brickshelf
> offers a picture hosting service, Lugnet offers a ton of centralized
> forums, Classic-Castle offers a theme-specific tailored site. A hub?
> Sounds like just a link service. News site? Lugnet already serves as
> that. Age interest? Okay, that may work, though I don't understand
> what LEGOFan will do that specifically addresses that.
There are a few main issues that we're trying to address here. One, all
of these sites you mention are run by individuals, and could disappear
without a trace. There is no site that is run and owned by the
community, that is not at the mercy of any particular person. LEGOFan is
designed to be just that. Once there's an organization with a charter, a
governing body, etc, the controls are not in the hands of any particular
individual.
The other issue is that all of the current community sites are closed
sourced. This means if the current developers lose interest in the
project, they have to choose to hand it off to others, who then need to
jump into the middle of a lot of unfamiliar, and often cryptic code.
With an open source project, anyone can contribute content (don't even
have to be a developer, or an AFOL!), and if the current maintainers
lose interest, others that are already familiar with the code can just
get the additional access (from the org) to become the new maintainers.
Also, since all new code is reviewed before it's entered into the
system, the quality of the code would also improve, making for faster,
cleaner, and better code.
The last issue that comes to mind right now, is that there are a lot of
features that would be great to have in the community, and they are not
currently offered by ANY site. Many were mentioned at some point on one
of the discussion groups, but no one ever implemented them, even where
there was active support in the community. With an Open Source project,
if someone has an idea, he doesn't need to convince "The Developer" to
implement it, instead, he just needs to convince someone to implement it
for him (if he can't implement it himself). Accepting code that will
add new functionality to the site is a whole lot easier than writing
it.
> I'm not sure whether that is a hobby concern or a corporate concern.
> All you have to do is point them to existing sites, but they aren't on
> the corporate leash. I understand Lego's concerns about recommending
> sites and then having them confused with actual Lego endeavors, the
> muddying of the company trademark, etc.
I agree that this might be LEGO's incentive to support LEGOFan, but it's
not the reason we're building LEGOFan. It is a case where LEGO's
interest happens to align with the community's.
Anyway, this is a somewhat long reply, help it helps!
Dan
--
Dan Boger
dan@peeron.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
> I don't visit FBTB, or
> Classic-Castle EVER at this point. But I would, if I had a portal straight to
> the good stuff. At which point I would be inclined to browse around the rest of
> the site.
>
> --SteveR
So you won't visit Classic-Castle unless another site links to it? Ok.
http://www.classic-castle.com
There you go. Now you don't even have to wait till LEGOFan.net is launched. I
believe there is also a link to this castle site in the castle section of
Lugnet.
--Anthony
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
> > I don't visit FBTB, or
> > Classic-Castle EVER at this point. But I would, if I had a portal straight to
> > the good stuff. At which point I would be inclined to browse around the rest of
> > the site.
> >
> > --SteveR
>
> So you won't visit Classic-Castle unless another site links to it? Ok.
>
> http://www.classic-castle.com
>
> There you go. Now you don't even have to wait till LEGOFan.net is launched. I
> believe there is also a link to this castle site in the castle section of
> Lugnet.
>
> --Anthony
Yeah, thanks, Assthony.
The point I was trying to make is that I'm not a castle fan in general. I'm NOT
going to root through the entire site to find the *few* things I find
interesting. Now if you wanted to give me some links to the best stuff and keep
doing that every single day. And then do the same for every catagory. Then
that's cool. Who needs LEGOfan?
--SteveR
|
|
| |
-----Original Message-----
From: news-gateway@lugnet.com [mailto:news-gateway@lugnet.com]On Behalf
Of Steve Runnels
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 5:24 PM
To: lugnet.general@lugnet.com
Subject: Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of
the LEGO community.
In lugnet.general, Anthony Sava wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
> > I don't visit FBTB, or
> > Classic-Castle EVER at this point. But I would, if I had a portal • straight to
> > the good stuff. At which point I would be inclined to browse around the • rest of
> > the site.
> >
> > --SteveR
>
> So you won't visit Classic-Castle unless another site links to it? Ok.
>
> http://www.classic-castle.com
>
> There you go. Now you don't even have to wait till LEGOFan.net is • launched. I
> believe there is also a link to this castle site in the castle section of
> Lugnet.
>
> --Anthony
Yeah, thanks, Assthony.
The point I was trying to make is that I'm not a castle fan in general. I'm
NOT
going to root through the entire site to find the *few* things I find
interesting. Now if you wanted to give me some links to the best stuff and
keep
doing that every single day. And then do the same for every catagory. Then
that's cool. Who needs LEGOfan?
--SteveR
I'm sorry, it's exactly that kind of response and attitude that isn't needed
here and has chased off a lot of people, me included.
I might or might not like the idea of this, or another idea down the road,
though I have NO right to tell someone how to spend their time and money.
You won't find me getting rude though.
If you want someone to spoonfeed you, go elsewhere. We are adults here.
Tamy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tamyra Teed wrote:
> I'm sorry, it's exactly that kind of response and attitude that isn't needed
> here and has chased off a lot of people, me included.
>
> I might or might not like the idea of this, or another idea down the road,
> though I have NO right to tell someone how to spend their time and money.
> You won't find me getting rude though.
>
> If you want someone to spoonfeed you, go elsewhere. We are adults here.
>
> Tamy
Just what "attitude" is that?
The only thing negative I said was the "Assthony" crack. And that's because his
entire post was a sarcastic, excuse my french, ASSHOLE remark. Oh ok thanks, I
have a link now, WOOHOO! Give me a break, that's childish right there. And maybe
he got the best of me, because I fed it right back to him.
I'm really not sure why you took that so harsh from me, Tamara. Maybe it's
because I don't care for castle and you somehow mistook that for me putting
castle down. That's not the case at all. Castle just simply isn't my thing. But
I enjoy good building techniques, cool ideas, or whatever, no matter what
catagory it's from. And I'd like to see more of those things. But as it is, I
don't and that's because I don't want to dig through a genre I don't care for to
find them. It's got nothing at all to do with needing to be spoonfed. I'm
prefectly willing to actualy help develop the entire concept.
Some claim that such a thing would take traffic away from the participating
sites. I claim that I would not, and in fact would only DRIVE traffic to those
sites.
The people who already look at everything on that site will continue to do so.
The people, like myself, who don't care for castle or whatever, but enjoy a
really good MOC will now all of a sudden be going there too, if only for a few
pages. I'm not going to visit the site as it is because there is just too much
that I don't really care for personally. I'm not going to go out of my way to
seek the best of it out because the majoritiy of it I'm not interested in AT
ALL.
Now lets say that the best of the breed is presented to me in a way that I don't
have to go out of my way to see. I'm much more inclined to actually look at it.
THAT my friends, is what it's all about, it's not about replacing anything, it's
not about forums, it's not about links, it's about bringing the whole community
together even across genres, age-groups, etc.
P.S. Remember, it's hard to impossible to tell *tone* from text, I never meant
for any of this to a flame or bad tempered or whatever. The sarcastic remarks
aren't meant to hurt anyone, but they help make the point.
--SteveR
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
> Yeah, thanks, Assthony.
Well now, that was pretty low and uncalled for Steve! I guess that I should
consider us lucky that you are too lazy to come to Clssic-Castle on your own, as
we really don't need such childish behavior.
Troy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Tamyra Teed wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> I'm sorry, it's exactly that kind of response and attitude that isn't needed
> here and has chased off a lot of people, me included.
>
> I might or might not like the idea of this, or another idea down the road,
> though I have NO right to tell someone how to spend their time and money.
> You won't find me getting rude though.
>
> If you want someone to spoonfeed you, go elsewhere. We are adults here.
>
> Tamy
I have to agree with Tamy. Anthony may be too blunt now and then, but think
your reaction was inappropriate.
Please check out classic-castle.com You will notice that the latest news for
each section is featured on the main page, much like lugnet. There are so many
areas of castle that a person can choose to go to specific sections at CC to
learn more.
I do like the concept of LEGOfan.net and I hope that it will happen. However, I
believe it should encorporate exiting theme related sites, not force these sites
to conform to a new standard. Of course, if someone else wanted to form a
castle website, they would be welcome.
At this point, I and other admins at CC have not been contacted to work on this
project. I believe that the LEGOfan team should actively work with people
running sites like fbtb, cc, etc at this early planning stage.
I also think that a new site should have limited featured content of each theme
and then link to that theme's website. LEGOfan should work with these sites,
not replace them.
Ben E.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
>
> (something crude and uncalled for that we really didn't need)
Sorry, but I've gotta agree with Tamy-that was totally uncalled for.
I don't often make mention of such things, but it seems like all
day you've been posting really combative things ("just the ignorant
statement I was waiting for!" in response to the suggestion that
LUGNET provides, for many of us, the purpose you claim LEGOfan
is needed to fulfill), and now something that's outright profane.
Excellent. You're making an excellent case, but I don't think
it's the case you think you're making.
Take 24 hours, relax, breathe deeply, and focus. Then come back
and respond to those who have raised some pretty salient issues
with respect to duplication of effort, and maybe you'll score some
points instead of alienating everyone.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Troy Cefaratti wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
>
> > Yeah, thanks, Assthony.
>
>
> Well now, that was pretty low and uncalled for Steve!
It was, wasn't it? I'm so proud I've made it down to Anthony's level.
Oh wait, I forgot. Jabbin at someone's name is worse than jabbin at their ideas.
So I guess I'm lower than him afterall. Oh darn. [Insert sarcastic face here,
since people are too uptight around here to tell otherwise.]
> I guess that I should consider us lucky that you are too lazy to come to Clssic-Castle on your own,
Why should I? I don't care for Castle as a whole. Maybe if I had an
automatically generated list of the best stuff, I would though. Oh well, less
traffic for CC.
Maybe I can get the idea across with an example. Imagine if everytime Lugnet or
any other site gave you a link to Peeron's inventory for a specific set, it only
took you to the main page... That's kinda cuts half the usefullness of the site,
doesn't it?
--SteveR
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
> >
> > (something crude and uncalled for that we really didn't need)
>
> Sorry, but I've gotta agree with Tamy-that was totally uncalled for.
> I don't often make mention of such things, but it seems like all
> day you've been posting really combative things ("just the ignorant
> statement I was waiting for!" in response to the suggestion that
> LUGNET provides, for many of us, the purpose you claim LEGOfan
> is needed to fulfill), and now something that's outright profane.
> Excellent. You're making an excellent case, but I don't think
> it's the case you think you're making.
>
> Take 24 hours, relax, breathe deeply, and focus. Then come back
> and respond to those who have raised some pretty salient issues
> with respect to duplication of effort, and maybe you'll score some
> points instead of alienating everyone.
>
> best
>
> LFB
I've managed to get attention, for sure. Unforunently people don't seem to be
reading past the controversy at all. So I've dug myself a hole, as usual. Maybe
I'm too used to saying derogatory things to friends and on the internet, which
btw are always in jest I don't certainly don't mean them anything more
ribjabbers, that I neglected to remember that Lugnet is the most uptight place
I've ever posted to.
And on the subject, I seem to recall that being the exact reason
Classic-Castle.com and FBTB was made in the first place. They didn't feel
welcome on LUGNET, so they made their own.
I'm actually getting quite a few "congrats" from other people. So I'm not
alienating *everyone* like you may think, I'm just not getting any support in
the form of posts.
Well, I think I've said enough for today. So I'll leave it at that.
--SteveR
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
much snippage
> And on the subject, I seem to recall that being the exact reason
> Classic-Castle.com and FBTB was made in the first place. They didn't feel
> welcome on LUGNET, so they made their own.
I cant speak for FBTB, but this isn't true for Classic-Castle. We felt
perfectly welcome at Lugnet. The group of fans starting CC thought that a new
website could meet needs that .castle couldn't. We want to be the "source for
all of your LEGO Castle needs". A team was established in order to not have one
person in charge of a community castle site.
Many castle members from Lugnet have become members at CC. In addition, many
people find our format easier to use than lugnet. So we have a wide variety of
members with different ages and from many countries.
Ben E.
CC Admin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> I cant speak for FBTB, but this isn't true for Classic-Castle. We felt
> perfectly welcome at Lugnet. The group of fans starting CC thought that a new
> website could meet needs that .castle couldn't. We want to be the "source for
> all of your LEGO Castle needs". A team was established in order to not have one
> person in charge of a community castle site.
>
> Many castle members from Lugnet have become members at CC. In addition, many
> people find our format easier to use than lugnet. So we have a wide variety of
> members with different ages and from many countries.
>
> Ben E.
> CC Admin
Hmm, I guess it was BZPower that didn't feel welcome because of the bionicle
bashing.
Still with CC, and probably FBTB, LUGNET didn't meet your needs so you made your
own. Just as good of a reason. And all the more reason I see LegoFan, if done
right, a good thing. Because it would allow everyone's needs to be met, but
without having to chop the existing community(s) in half to do it.
--SteveR
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> Anyway, this is a somewhat long reply, help it helps!
Not really, not for me at least. It seems like there are a few different
versions of what this site is going to be running around out there - and it
seems that each version is based on what the persom being told wants to hear. I
am sorry, something is really just not adding up here. I am sure it mostly has
to do with the newnwess and wanting to please everybody at the same time.. but
anyway, time shall tell I guess.
And Dan, Jake - can you please adress this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=45449
thanks.
Mark P
LoB
|
|
| |
[ XFUT lugnet.org ]
In lugnet.general, Mark Papenfuss wrote:
> [...] It seems like there are a few different versions of
> what this site is going to be running around out there
What did you expect with nine people in the current working
group and not much carved in stone yet?
> - and it seems that each version is based on what the
> persom being told wants to hear.
That's not good. I would at least have hoped that each of
us were consistent in our replies, even if the group as a
whole isn't.
One thing I hope comes through in a consistent fashion is
that we want to make sure that we organize the site in a
way that makes it independent of any one (or specific
group of people) in the community.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Bus stop:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Milj%F8er/Bregnerod/Busstoppested/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> At this point, I and other admins at CC have not been contacted to work on this
> project. I believe that the LEGOfan team should actively work with people
> running sites like fbtb, cc, etc at this early planning stage.
That's surprising.
IMHO a lot of detail and wishlist with the project, what can be done? What do we
want done? etc. could have been done before this whole announcement of non-info.
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
Mark P <mark@landofbricks.com> wrote:
> And Dan, Jake - can you please adress this post:
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=45449
I can address the first part of that. Having the letters l, e, g, and o in
that order in a domain name is not on its face a trademark violation or
misuse nor something the Lego company has control over. (Some big-money
decisions in the other direction notwithstanding.) The only reason people
should avoid l-e-g-o domains is to cater to Lego's wishes -- which is a
perfectly nice thing to do. But if Lego wants to stop being quite so
uptight about it when some asks nicely, that's all good.
And this actually somewhat answers the last question: .com implies
"commercial", which very easily *could* step into trademark violation.
(notalawyer)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Benjamin Ellermann wrote:
> I do like the concept of LEGOfan.net and I hope that it will happen. However, I
> believe it should encorporate exiting theme related sites, not force these sites
> to conform to a new standard. Of course, if someone else wanted to form a
> castle website, they would be welcome.
>
> At this point, I and other admins at CC have not been contacted to work on this
> project. I believe that the LEGOfan team should actively work with people
> running sites like fbtb, cc, etc at this early planning stage.
Nor has BZPower been contacted. I firmly believe success can only be achieved by
LEGOFan working with owners of sites who will be directly affected by LEGOFan.
Early in the process.
> I also think that a new site should have limited featured content of each theme
> and then link to that theme's website. LEGOfan should work with these sites,
> not replace them.
Thank you for putting it so concisely. I would've spent a lot more time winding
around to the same point. I applaud your last sentence.
- Kelly
BZPower
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Basically (and possibly not quite correctly) it is a content
> management system with access control lists designed(?)
> primarily for use in the LEGO fan community.
Which part of the community, specifically? General LEGO fans? Webmasters of
other LEGO-related fan web sites?
> > So, sounds like you intend to duplicate a lot of the
> > functionality of Lugnet.
>
> Yes.
Why? Although I have been vocal in my opinion that Lugnet is not the perfect
LEGO hub site, since it deals with a subset of LEGO audiences, it is certainly a
very important and successful resource. Creating duplication will only divide
audiences, rather than pull the community together. Why not work more closely
with Lugnet rather than try to recreate the wheel? This one's pretty round.
> > Have you discussed the possibility of sharing (NNTP seems
> > ideal for this!) newsgroup posts <-> Lugnet?
>
> Yes (but not with Todd, yet). We are considering how we can
> feed discussion group articles between existing sites in a
> practical way. This will of course involve agreements with
> the various site owners and some kind of system for
> exchanging user validation (preferably without exchanging
> actual user data).
When were you planning on starting the discussion with other site owners? As an
interested party, I'd like to know more of what you are offering and what
benefits, as a site owner, I could expect to receive. Since we deal with
non-adults, there are strict rules about what we can and can't do with the data
we have, which may make a difference in what you are developing.
To be honest, I'm less and less enthralled with the specifics I'm hearing.
Initially, it sounded like LEGOFan would be a meeting place to more closely tie
existing resources together, with a two-way exchange of information. I'd hoped
that it would both serve as a "landing" site to help new and experienced fans
find what they're looking for throughout the myriad LEGO fan sites; as well as
help those sites send and receive information between each other. In other
words, act as a facilitator to exchange news, calendar events, hot topics, hard
data such as set info specifics, and so on between _existing_ sites.
Now, however, this looks like it is intended primarily as a replacement for
Lugnet, which I don't understand or agree with. This endeavor seems divisive
rather than cooperative within the community. This can't help the goal of
bringing the various LEGO-related communities together. I can't help but wonder,
"Today, Lugnet; tomorrow, [insert web site name here]"?
I fully embrace the idea of a more centralized resource to help channel users
and information throughout the LEGO online world. But I can't see how this
implementation, as I currently understand it, would do that.
I strongly recommend publishing a detailed "mission statement" and specification
of what functionality (not necessarily code) the LEGOFan team intends to
develop, BEFORE development gets much further along. In addition, I feel it's
important to state as soon as possible (if it isn't already too late) the level
of expectation you intend to solicit and receive from owners of existing web
resources (such as Lugnet, FBTB.net, Classic Castle, BZPower, 1000steine,
BrickLink, BrickShelf, and LEGO's discussion boards, to name a very few). If
this is to be a community-owned project, the community should know what that
project is.
Looking forward to hearing more details about LEGOFan.net.
Regards,
Kelly
BZPower.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dan Boger wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> > Perhaps it is just me, but I'm not really getting a clear picture
> > (I've only waded through half this thread so far) of what LEGOFan is
> > offering in the way of something new and unique. BrickLink offers a
> > way for buyers and sellers to acquire/get-rid-of Lego, Brickshelf
> > offers a picture hosting service, Lugnet offers a ton of centralized
> > forums, Classic-Castle offers a theme-specific tailored site. A hub?
> > Sounds like just a link service. News site? Lugnet already serves as
> > that. Age interest? Okay, that may work, though I don't understand
> > what LEGOFan will do that specifically addresses that.
>
> There are a few main issues that we're trying to address here. One, all
> of these sites you mention are run by individuals, and could disappear
> without a trace. There is no site that is run and owned by the
> community, that is not at the mercy of any particular person. LEGOFan is
> designed to be just that. Once there's an organization with a charter, a
> governing body, etc, the controls are not in the hands of any particular
> individual.
This is not completely true. Classic Castle is run by a group of administrators
(each with an equal vote) not by one individual. Yes, we have a webmaster. If
he left, another admin could step into that position. Our funding is by one
individual too. But that could be replaced if it ever had to be. At CC we are
planning to add more admins over time (one in the next few months) and replace
admins that leave. People can judge for themselves whether or not this is run
by the castle community. We listen to our members. Our goal is to "meet all of
your LEGO Castle needs." CC does need more long term planning (which is in the
works) but we are not a site at the whim of one individual. We were formed
partially to react against that very thing.
> The other issue is that all of the current community sites are closed
> sourced. This means if the current developers lose interest in the
> project, they have to choose to hand it off to others, who then need to
> jump into the middle of a lot of unfamiliar, and often cryptic code.
Again, I think this depends on the site. CC html is very easy to learn in order
to write articles. Very basic skills are needed.
> With an open source project, anyone can contribute content (don't even
> have to be a developer, or an AFOL!), and if the current maintainers
> lose interest, others that are already familiar with the code can just
> get the additional access (from the org) to become the new maintainers.
> Also, since all new code is reviewed before it's entered into the
> system, the quality of the code would also improve, making for faster,
> cleaner, and better code.
I like the code idea, however I do not think that existing sites should have to
rewrite what they have in order to conform.
> The last issue that comes to mind right now, is that there are a lot of
> features that would be great to have in the community, and they are not
> currently offered by ANY site. Many were mentioned at some point on one
> of the discussion groups, but no one ever implemented them, even where
> there was active support in the community. With an Open Source project,
> if someone has an idea, he doesn't need to convince "The Developer" to
> implement it, instead, he just needs to convince someone to implement it
> for him (if he can't implement it himself). Accepting code that will
> add new functionality to the site is a whole lot easier than writing
> it.
What are these features? I would like to know. Again at CC, we make new
sections and have articles that cater specifically to what our members want.
They asked for contests, we give them contests :) People ask for a Gaming chat
room, we make one. Those are just a few of many examples. Instead of having
tons of small sites, maybe existing website admins should work harder to meet
the needs of their constituents.
Ben E.
Classic Castle Sets Admin
|
|
| |
<snip>
> But if a developer creates a really cool module, and the LEGOFan.net • system
> administrators are some jerks that will not put his module into the • central
> site, he has all the code and data needed to set up a competing and (due • to his
> new module) much cooler site.
<snip>
It sounds like anyone can take the entire contents of LEGOFan.net and create
their own version. This doesn't sound right to me. I understand that the
server side code to display the contents of the site will be open source.
Yes, I can download a copy of that and run it on my server. The content, on
the other hand, is a different matter.
Does this mean that all the content that will be added to the LEGOFan.net
site will be "open source"? That doesn't sound right. So what this means
is you can get a copy of the source to run your own site but you will have
to start from scratch with new content. That's not really competing. Is
anybody going to "compete" with the millions of pictures on brickshelf? Is
anybody going to compete with the millions of posts to lugnet?
Well, maybe. There's that whole "build a better mousetrap" thing and all.
Maybe if a new site pops up and has way cooler features, LEGOFan.net will
just be a memory (along with brickshelf, lugnet, etc.).
Abe
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Dan Boger wrote:
> That is
> one of the main things we hope LEGOFan can improve on. By making the code that
> runs the site accessible for anyone to download, modify, and submit updates, we
> allow a much wider pool of developers to work on the site.
>
> This means, that if someone has a great idea for a new way to, say, track
> community events, they can just write a module, upload it, and everyone
> benefits. Currently, they would have to just go set it up at yet another site,
> and they would not have any way to integrate with the vast amount of data and
> code that's already there.
>
> I think that's one point that's being missed here.
>
> Dan
Icky. What about when amatures come in and write code that is... laughable... at
best. Then you have a website made of mangled, chaotic code that definetly does
not help the community at all. Poor commenting, bad structure, inefficent
programming is what the downfall of this site, LEGOfan.net, may be.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> > At this point, I and other admins at CC have not been contacted to work on this
> > project. I believe that the LEGOfan team should actively work with people
> > running sites like fbtb, cc, etc at this early planning stage.
>
> Nor has BZPower been contacted. I firmly believe success can only be achieved by
> LEGOFan working with owners of sites who will be directly affected by LEGOFan.
> Early in the process.
I tend to think that the announcement was made a little prematurely. There would
have less pointless speculation and argument if they'd waited until they
actually had something to show, even if it were just a mocked up homepage. As it
is the descriptions of what this site would do have been a bit vague.
>
> > I also think that a new site should have limited featured content of each theme
> > and then link to that theme's website. LEGOfan should work with these sites,
> > not replace them.
>
> Thank you for putting it so concisely. I would've spent a lot more time winding
> around to the same point. I applaud your last sentence.
Well, despite the aforementioned vague descriptions that have been given so far,
I for one never anticipated that LEGOfan would do anything else. As Jake said,
it is intended to be a one stop {portal} to the LEGO fan community as a whole,
and all the websites within it. I think it's a fantastic idea with a lot of
potential, but will reserve my final judgment until it's actually online.
Nevertheless, I suspect that once it is, we'll wonder how we ever did without
it. Rather than replacing sites like classic castle and BZpower, I predict that
you'll see more traffic than ever being directed towards them.
Cheers,
Allister
>
> - Kelly
> BZPower
|
|
| |
Dan Simonson wrote:
> Icky. What about when amatures come in and write code that is... laughable... at
> best. Then you have a website made of mangled, chaotic code that definetly does
> not help the community at all. Poor commenting, bad structure, inefficent
> programming is what the downfall of this site, LEGOfan.net, may be.
I saw someone else raise this point as well, and I don't recall reading
a response so I thought I would jump in to the fray.
It's quite simple. If someone writes bad code, it doesn't get
incorporated in to the system. Why should it?
It's also possible that someone else will see the code, think "That's a
good idea!" and rewrite it.
(groups trimmed to .general!)
Trevyn.
|
|
| |
Steve Runnels wrote:
> [...]
>
> Imagine if you will, you have a homepage that you can configure, however you
> want, that can give you the latest threads FROM Lugnet, FBTB, Classic Castle,
> etc. Imagine it shows you the latest MOCs from your favorite builders and/or
> catagories. Imagine it also shows you the latest pics for new sets. Imagine it
> would tell you when something on your BrickLink wishlist appears. Imagine just
> how limitless this could be if it actually happens! And that's just the
> homepage...
A user-configurable dynamic newspage. yeah, that'd be super-neat.
Such a thing is why I'd never want to work on a printed magazine for LUGs.
Scripts and the web can produce a publication that's way more efficient,
up-to-the-minute, adaptable to user needs, and provides unlimited distribution.
It also has potential to be auto-formatted into .pdf documents for download and
printing.
On a small scale, just about anyone could probably write a local webpage with
some frames that refresh content you want. I wonder... how close one could come
to the above? I once made for myself a 'toolbar' of sorts that brings me into
LUGNET varioius ways. It's like, my own interface. ...FWIW, I can post that
code. Interested members could swap their number in to try it.
But, to make what you describe above happen for real (at least, as I see it)
would be difficult, as you said. It'd call for: a bunch of clean'n'pretty
stylesheets to keep the UI experience smooth (until you left the main site), a
big effort of initial script writing and setup, strict formatting standards for
participating sources to adhere to, and the steady work of community groups to
ensure periodic injection of fresh content. [1] Ideally, the main delivery site
would have resources including a photo/art director, a programmer, and a copy
editor available to all participating groups. A single head co-ordinator would
need to oversee the project, likely full-time. And a few volunteers wouldn't
hurt - to process permissions, answer questions, etc.
I outlined all this on paper with Todd a long time ago. There was such a wealth
of material, just within LUGNET, that with some help from curators (which didn't
exist then), we had a good-looking "front-page of a newspaper" kinda thing. It
sounded great, it was doable, but came down to one snag. money. There was
simply no way to run it for free. (Unfortunately, time equals money and we were
in debt and starving already.) Charging a subscription fee was right out, and I
knew that introducing advertisers would bring all the same sticky issues
(accidental pun) you'd get with any print-publication, not to mention, ads would
turn-off the readers. Oh, and The LEGO Company would not be a supporter. (tried
that.)
In addition to money, a new concern I'd see is the "Fantasy Factor." The actual
likelihood of support staff all being dependable, on good terms, prepared to
take direction, and happy to work for free, is -low-. People in the community
are really passionate about the hobby. When a person goes to work for their
fondest of interests, funny things can happen. it's understandable, really. but
still, a fact.
Anyway, I'll hush now, 'cause I guess all I wanted to say was,
"I hear ya."
"almost been there." and,
"sure wish I could do that!"
which has probably already been said by many other folks in this thread.
> Like I said however, it will take a lot of work. And I'm not sure that it
> really would ever happen, but it's nice to dream.
>
> --SteveR
Indeed! a good dream. I'm sure it'll happen in time, it's just a matter of when,
and how commercial it'll end up being.
-Suz
[1] I had wondered if visitors would be more likely to come to an "online
magazine" versus setting up a continuous flow of feeds. Like, if all content was
updated on a schedule, say weekly, would that be more attractive? I guess it'd
just draw slightly different people.. it'd be more difficult to accomplish (like
making CLSotW hit the same weekday, only, times six or something), but you could
get the stream-version 'for free' that the more experienced users would prefer.
|
|
| |
On Sat, 14 Feb 2004, Bruce Hietbrink wrote:
> In lugnet.org, Terry Prosper wrote:
> > In lugnet.org, Thomas Garrison wrote:
>
> > > I suspect Rene Hoffmeister would disagree.
> > Who is Rene? (I don't mean to be rude, i truly don't know)
>
>
> I don't read German, so I can stand to be corrected, but I believe Rene
> is the admin of 1000steine.de.
Yep. He also runs the International System Creativity Contest. And he
was just at BrickFest. :)
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.morfydd.net/twsg/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
|
|
| |
Dan Simonson wrote:
>
> In lugnet.build, Dan Boger wrote:
> > That is
> > one of the main things we hope LEGOFan can improve on. By making the code that
> > runs the site accessible for anyone to download, modify, and submit updates, we
> > allow a much wider pool of developers to work on the site.
> >
> > This means, that if someone has a great idea for a new way to, say, track
> > community events, they can just write a module, upload it, and everyone
> > benefits. Currently, they would have to just go set it up at yet another site,
> > and they would not have any way to integrate with the vast amount of data and
> > code that's already there.
> >
> > I think that's one point that's being missed here.
> >
> > Dan
>
> Icky. What about when amatures come in and write code that is... laughable... at
> best. Then you have a website made of mangled, chaotic code that definetly does
> not help the community at all. Poor commenting, bad structure, inefficent
> programming is what the downfall of this site, LEGOfan.net, may be.
I'm a professional Software Engineer with 3 years of PHP and mysql
experience,
were I to log in and discover poorly commented, badly structured, inefficent
code I don't think I'd laugh, I think I'd fix it.
As a community, I think you are underestimating that resources available
to it.
Peter
|
|
| |
Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote:
> > Dude, the place where you forget the ; in
> > *totally* gives it away. Obvious kiddy-stuff.
> But if I am not mistaken, John got his SGML entities right.
> As I remember the SGML standard, you don't have to close a
> SGML entity with a semicolon.
Only if the next character isn't a letter (or - or .). And in this case,
it was letters. But it's fixed now. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote:
> Yes (but not with Todd, yet). We are considering how we can
> feed discussion group articles between existing sites in a
> practical way. This will of course involve agreements with
> the various site owners and some kind of system for
> exchanging user validation (preferably without exchanging
> actual user data).
Well, if it comes down to it, there's a reason the Lugnet groups are all
in a lugnet hierarchy. But as you may have gathered from my other posts,
I'm strongly in favor of not duplicating discussion forums.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Bruce Schlickbernd <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote:
> Plain blah text messages are what I would call "post-it" notes and that
> defines Lugnet, so I'm of the opposite opinion. If this was a less
> visual hobby then Lego, maybe it would matter as much to me.
Nah, you can draw on a post-it note. You can even use colored pencils. :)
What I mean by "post-it note style" is that there's a big, grid-like
board, and conversation happens by people coming and putting a note into
the general area of the board where they want to say something. Replies
are then people tacking further post-its on the bottom of those. If you
stop by the board every couple of weeks, gah, it's a whole new mess of
layered notes.
Real threads are nice, and the thread/message management utilties of a
real newsreader (or in a different way, of the web interface).
As for lugnet and "plain blah text" -- not necesarily so. See:
<http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=2106>.
> I love the avatars, but as mentioned, this is about as far as Lugnet is
> going to go, so bugging Todd probably won't have an effect. I still like
> Lugnet as is - something better has to come along before I'll move on.
Perhaps you are underestimating my ability to be annoying. :)
> I don't know how customizable C-C is, but I know they are working at
> refining it.
As I said from the beginning, it's not the main Classic-Castle site that I
dislike (that's basically a blog, which I find to be just fine). It's the
discussion forum software, which isn't anything unique to C-C. From that
point of view, it's *completely* customizable. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Suz <suz@baseplate.com> wrote:
> strict formatting standards for participating sources to adhere to, and
Hmmm. This part could be largely handled via existing standards -- each
site could spit out an RDF feed. RDF isn't perfect, but I think it'd do.
And a particularly cool thing about sites doing this is that one could use
any of the zillions of existing RDF aggregators to display the info.
A little dredging shows that Ben Jackson mentioned this a few years
ago.... <http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=7127>
> [1] I had wondered if visitors would be more likely to come to an
> "online magazine" versus setting up a continuous flow of feeds. Like, if
> all content was updated on a schedule, say weekly, would that be more
> attractive? I guess it'd just draw slightly different people.. it'd be
> more difficult to accomplish (like making CLSotW hit the same weekday,
> only, times six or something), but you could get the stream-version 'for
> free' that the more experienced users would prefer.
I think the weekly update thing works great *if* you have someone really
good working full time to summarize and highlight the information. It's a
very hard problem to solve automatically, and while it might be possible
with a distributed many-eyes system (oh dear; I'm talking in buzzwords)
even that would be a lot of work. It comes back to the part of what you
said which I snipped out above: time and money vs. starving.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Anthony Sava wrote:
> [...]
> Excuse my ignorance, but what about those websites, like FBTB and
> Classic-Castle, that want their visitors to physically visit their forums to
> see the latest threads so that they could also visit the main website, to
> view the main page and see the news that has been posted there at the expense
> of time and effort by the websites administrators?
>
> What about those websites who want to show off the latest pics of the newest
> sets, like FBTB and Classic-Castle, who would like the traffic to their
> sites, and who want deals with LEGO to display the latest and greatest
> pictures?
> [...]
Not in direct response to your post, Anthony, but as general info:
LUGNET also has access to many of the latest pics of newest sets, but I've
chosen not to pursue getting them into our database in a hurry. This is for a
number of reasons, including:
- It's time consuming, and seems redundant. I haven't the interest or
competitive drive to hunt down 'hot' info for LUGNET, while others (with
their own sites) do, and provide a great service to the community that way.
- The LUGNET set database is more of a long-term project that I'd like to
see focus on a thorough history. So, I'm more inclined (assuming I had time) to
enter 35 old DUPLO sets, never before mentioned (even if they're not so
newsworthy).
-Suz
|
|
| |
Firstly, thanks to Jacob for responding to my concerns (and those of others) and
explaining things a bit more.
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Just like with Linux, it being Open Source doesn't mean that you can force the
> original developer to use your work, but you still have access to all the work
> of the original developer, so if your work really _is_ better, you will either
> out-compete the original developer or force him to incorporate your work in his
> version.
OK, I am relieved to hear that LEGOfan.net would not simply accept any new code
without some sort of evaluation process.
Still, that evaluation is not really going to be done by the "community" at
large (that would be impractical), but rather by whatever small selection of
individuals are running LEGOfan.net at that time (the "oligarchy"). Maybe this
was obvious to most people, but I guess I needed the distinction between
"community owned and community run" and "community owned and run by an
oligarchy". I'm simply making this distinction here for clarity, not saying
that one or the other is better, and "oligarchy" is not meant to be construed as
a negative term.
> > Who then decides what does and does not get implemented?
>
> Those who do the work. If somebody feels like implementing a feature, it will
> be implemented. If nobody feels like implementing a feature, it will not be
> implemented.
This makes it sound like the decision of whether or not a new "feature" gets
implemented can end up being made by a single person (a subset of the oligarchy
running LEGOfan.net), based on their whim. On the face of it, this doesn't
sound like the best way for things to get added to LEGOfan.net or potentially
radically changed.
Under this way of working, one user could decide that LEGOfan.net should use ALL
CAPS throughout the site. That user writes the code for that new "feature" and
uploads it. Most members of the oligarchy ignore it as a silly idea, but all it
takes is one of them to "feel like implementing it" and suddenly LEGOfan.net is
in ALL CAPS!
The above is an exaggerated example, to be sure, it is not hard to imagine the
same process happening for an idea whose implementation would be equally
annoying to a great many users.
> > I can't imagine there would be a giant
> > vote for every possible change to LEGOfan.net...
>
> Everybody votes all the time - with their abilities as programmers.
I'm not sure I understand this. Does this mean a lack of programming ability =
a lack of voting power for LEGOfan users?
In response to several people's concerns, you have expressed the following:
> Open Source projects are generally managed as dictatorships - with
> one important difference - you can always run away _with_ all the treasures of
> the old dictator.
> In that it will be trivial to dethrone us if we don't do our job well enough.
> Having all the software
> and data on the site available for any of its users to copy and use to run a
> competing site means that if somebody has just a single good implementation that
> we reject, then he will be able to set a complete LEGOFan.net clone _plus_ his
> improvement up overnight. And if it really is an improvement people will swich
> over.
This does better explain things, but I must say that the whole idea of other
sites popping up to "compete" with LEGOfan.net by duplicating it and then adding
certain modification goes *completely against* the stated goal of being the *one
single hub* of the LEGO fan universe. With this model, it seems to invite a
scenario where everytime there is a significant diagreement about a new
"feature" of LEGOfan.net, a new competing site will be created.
You could potentially end up with:
LEGOfan.net - The 'single hub' for the online LEGO fan universe; with support of
the LEGO company.
Brickfan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, expcept for feature A which
is untenabble; without support from the LEGO company.
Blockfan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, with additional features B
and C; without support from the LEGO company.
PlasticFan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, expcept for features A, D,
E, and F which are untenabble; with additional features B and G; without support
from the LEGO company.
Etc, etc...
-Brendan Powell Smith
PS. Again, by expressing these concerns I am not trying to shoot down the idea
of LEGOfan.net, but hoping they will help you better define just what it is
you're trying to do, so the rest of us might become supporters of the idea, or
at least reject it for more informed reasons.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
> snip
>
> Under this way of working, one user could decide that LEGOfan.net should use ALL
> CAPS throughout the site. That user writes the code for that new "feature" and
> uploads it. Most members of the oligarchy ignore it as a silly idea, but all it
> takes is one of them to "feel like implementing it" and suddenly LEGOfan.net is
> in ALL CAPS!
>
> snip
I think one thing that's being missed here is that you wouldn't be forced to use
ANY of the features. There would be a basic 'start-up' set of features from
which each individual person could choose which features they want to use from a
large pool of "extensions". Those extensions are, of course, written by anyone
who dares to do so.
At least I *hope* that's they way they plan to do it. :D
--SteveR
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
<snip>
> This does better explain things, but I must say that the whole idea of other
> sites popping up to "compete" with LEGOfan.net by duplicating it and then adding
> certain modification goes *completely against* the stated goal of being the *one
> single hub* of the LEGO fan universe. With this model, it seems to invite a
> scenario where everytime there is a significant diagreement about a new
> "feature" of LEGOfan.net, a new competing site will be created.
>
> You could potentially end up with:
>
> LEGOfan.net - The 'single hub' for the online LEGO fan universe; with support of
> the LEGO company.
>
> Brickfan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, expcept for feature A which
> is untenabble; without support from the LEGO company.
>
> Blockfan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, with additional features B
> and C; without support from the LEGO company.
>
> PlasticFan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, expcept for features A, D,
> E, and F which are untenabble; with additional features B and G; without support
> from the LEGO company.
>
> Etc, etc...
>
> -Brendan Powell Smith
>
> PS. Again, by expressing these concerns I am not trying to shoot down the idea
> of LEGOfan.net, but hoping they will help you better define just what it is
> you're trying to do, so the rest of us might become supporters of the idea, or
> at least reject it for more informed reasons.
Brendan,
In my experience, opensource projects are generally only successfully forked
when the community of users has a deep problem with the original project. This
problem can be as simple as personal dislike for the creator, or as complex as
philosophical disagreements. Very rarely does a projects fork succeed simply
because someone wants to implement a feature. In this case they may temporarily
fork a project to work on the feature, but then it is folded back in to the main
branch. In fact open source collaboration is just a series of small forks being
pruned and shaped before becoming part of the original.
In order for the scenarios that you describe to succeed, then there has to be a
break down in communications between the user community and the core developers.
When users submit bug patches and those bug patches are ignored repeatedly, you
have a communications issue. That is one reason that one open source project I
know has forked well over 10 times (phpnuke for the interested). You don't see
this with well run projects that have open lines of communications (MySQL,
PostgreSQL, SAMBA, LINUX) between the users and developers. These projects are
very rarely forked, and when they are the forks are either quickly folded back
in...or the user community votes with their feet by staying with the original.
The only way I would want to see a site like legofan.net go forward would be for
it to be under an opensource license where no one be they TLC or the developers
have leverage over it by pulling the plug.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
[snip the rest of what Kelly said]
> I fully embrace the idea of a more centralized resource to help channel users
> and information throughout the LEGO online world. But I can't see how this
> implementation, as I currently understand it, would do that.
>
> I strongly recommend publishing a detailed "mission statement" and specification
> of what functionality (not necessarily code) the LEGOFan team intends to
> develop, BEFORE development gets much further along. In addition, I feel it's
> important to state as soon as possible (if it isn't already too late) the level
> of expectation you intend to solicit and receive from owners of existing web
> resources (such as Lugnet, FBTB.net, Classic Castle, BZPower, 1000steine,
> BrickLink, BrickShelf, and LEGO's discussion boards, to name a very few). If
> this is to be a community-owned project, the community should know what that
> project is.
>
> Looking forward to hearing more details about LEGOFan.net.
As Jake explained LEGOfan (the concept, the reasons for it) to me, I think its a
great idea. It coincides with much of what the WorldLUG concept posted, so I'm
encouraged others are thinking along the same lines. I'm also concerned with the
divide this appears to have stirred up - and think better judgement could have
been used leading up to and making an initial post.
I still haven't caught up with the entire thread since the first post last
Wednesday. While I agree with much of the principles behind the project, I have
a considerable amount of reservation on the approach taken thus far. I agree
100% with Kelly's post, and second his call for answers.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Steve Runnels wrote:
> I think one thing that's being missed here is that you wouldn't be forced to use
> ANY of the features. There would be a basic 'start-up' set of features from
> which each individual person could choose which features they want to use from a
> large pool of "extensions". Those extensions are, of course, written by anyone
> who dares to do so.
>
> At least I *hope* that's they way they plan to do it. :D
OK, that makes sense, if that's how it'll work. @8^)
-Brendan
|
|
| |
If you look at the MyWorldLUG section in this post:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=45187
you will see we intended precisely that (like MyYahoo, or MyMSN)
-paul
In lugnet.general, Steve Runnels wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Bryan Beckwith wrote:
| |
Finally! I’ve been waiting forever for some sort of international, LEGO
users group network!
Oh wait. There is one. And I’m using it right now.
Bryan
|
Finally! Someone made the completely ignorant statement I was waiting for!
w00t!
Ok, I’ll put my piece in here I guess.
I think this whole idea is a good one, but it’s going to take a LOT of work
and participation from the other sites.
What some people don’t seem to understand, is that this isn’t just about
forums and links.
Imagine if you will, you have a homepage that you can configure, however you
want, that can give you the latest threads FROM Lugnet, FBTB, Classic Castle,
etc. Imagine it shows you the latest MOCs from your favorite builders and/or
catagories. Imagine it also shows you the latest pics for new sets. Imagine it
would tell you when something on your BrickLink wishlist appears. Imagine just
how limitless this could be if it actually happens! And that’s just the
homepage...
And this isn’t about replacing ANYTHING, when you click the links on such a
homepage it would take you to the places you know and love now. And this would
allow NEW sites to join in much easier without being forced to pull people
away from the other sites. Everything would be interconnected and make finding
what you actually want to see much easier.
Like I said however, it will take a lot of work. And I’m not sure that it
really would ever happen, but it’s nice to dream.
--SteveR
|
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
| |
Hi everyone,
For some time now, a group of us have been discussing the concept of a LEGO
site that the community could truly call its own-- community owned,
designed, and operated. To this end, we have been endeavoring for more than
half a year to bring that concept to life. After the recent announcement
concerning WorldLUG, we decided that it would be a good time to bring this
into the public eye.
Who are we? Presently, the group is made up of 9 people: Jacob Sparre
Andersen, Steve Bliss, Dan Boger, Jennifer Boger, David Eaton, Sean Kenney,
Jake Mckee, Richard Morton, and Calum Tsang.
What we have been working towards is a site called LEGOFan.net, that can act
as a central hub for the community. A site where LEGO fans worldwide can get
information, be directed towards resources, and interact. We also are
developing an infrastructure that will allow community members to be
involved with the running of the site, from administration tasks to
open-source code maintenance. We hope in this way to actually create a site
that is in all ways by fans, for fans.
|
why don’t you guys just take over WorldLUG. I’ll give you the whole
architecture. Anybody can develop any module in any language, plus you can
syndicate all the content out to people’s sites using XML/SOAP/RSS etc.
jus email me if you want, and I’ll pull all the code off of our dev server and
from my code archives
-paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Scott Arthur wrote:
>
> > Jake can you clarify this? I expect ‘support’ and use of the word “lego” in
> > the url has been given subject to assurances or limitations with regard the
> > content of the site.
>
> Actually not. What we _have_ discussed is to make it possible for parents to
> decide that some classes of content is unsuitable for their children, and for
> users of the site to decide some age limits for access to content/discussion
> groups they create. The implementation is not fixed yet, but I hope we will get
> around to publish the current specification soon.
one of the points made by Brad Justus in the original WorldLUG discussion was
that kid-oriented information is mired in a morass of legal difficulties
particularly in Europe. There are laws about what you can show them, what you
can ask them, what you can collect from them, cookies, etc.
Please, please, be sure that you are familiar with these issues or you run
serious legal risks.
-paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Paul Hartzog wrote:
> one of the points made by Brad Justus in the original WorldLUG discussion was
> that kid-oriented information is mired in a morass of legal difficulties
> particularly in Europe. There are laws about what you can show them, what you
> can ask them, what you can collect from them, cookies, etc.
>
> Please, please, be sure that you are familiar with these issues or you run
> serious legal risks.
To my understanding the laws that has to be obeyed are the ones in which the
server stands.
--
Best regards,
/Tobbe
<http://www.lotek.nu>
(remove SPAM when e-mailing)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Tim Courtney wrote:
> I agree 100% with Kelly's post, and second his call for answers.
Does anyone care to answer Kelly's original post? I'm curious.
http://news.lugnet.com/org/?n=688
-Tim
|
|
| |
Abe Friedman wrote:
> > But if a developer creates a really cool module, and
> > the LEGOFan.net system administrators are some jerks
> > that will not put his module into the central site, he
> > has all the code and data needed to set up a competing
> > and (due to his new module) much cooler site.
> It sounds like anyone can take the entire contents of
> LEGOFan.net and create their own version.
That's also exactly what I wrote.
> This doesn't sound right to me.
Why? It will really push the group operating LEGOFan.net
to keep doing their best. Isn't that good?
> I understand that the server side code to display the
> contents of the site will be open source. Yes, I can
> download a copy of that and run it on my server. The
> content, on the other hand, is a different matter.
Why?
> Does this mean that all the content that will be
> added to the LEGOFan.net site will be "open source"?
That's what I wrote. LEGOFan.net will of course not be
able to force other sites to do the same. And I have a
strong suspicion that for example LEGO and the Bricksmiths
would like that there also was an alternative option.
On the other hand - both LEGO and the Bricksmiths seem to
be happy with Lugnet, where they hand over just as many
rights as publishing under an Open Source license would
mean.
> That doesn't sound right.
Why?
> So what this means is you can get a copy of the source
> to run your own site but you will have to start from
> scratch with new content.
No. Also with all the old content. That's the whole
point.
> That's not really competing.
But it is, if you read what I write, instead of just
saying "that can't be true".
Play well,
Jacob
--
LEGO furniture:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/By/M%F8bler/
|
|
| |
Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote:
> > I understand that the server side code to display the
> > contents of the site will be open source. Yes, I can
> > download a copy of that and run it on my server. The
> > content, on the other hand, is a different matter.
> Why?
What about the official Lego exclusive pictures/releases, etc., alluded to
in the original announcement?
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Jacob Sparre Andersen <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote:
> > > I understand that the server side code to display the
> > > contents of the site will be open source. Yes, I can
> > > download a copy of that and run it on my server. The
> > > content, on the other hand, is a different matter.
> > Why?
>
> What about the official Lego exclusive pictures/releases, etc., alluded to
> in the original announcement?
To be fair, since nothing's set in stone, this is a little hard to answer 100%
guarenteed. It is, however, what our current planning is based on.
Jennifer Boger
|
|
| |
Jennifer L. Boger <jenn@peeron.com> wrote:
> > What about the official Lego exclusive pictures/releases, etc., alluded to
> > in the original announcement?
> To be fair, since nothing's set in stone, this is a little hard to answer 100%
> guarenteed. It is, however, what our current planning is based on.
Yeah, sorry -- not trying to be unfair. I'm just curious about how that'll
all work out.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
Brendan Powell Smith wrote:
> In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Still, that evaluation is not really going to be done by
> the "community" at large (that would be impractical), but
> rather by whatever small selection of individuals are
> running LEGOfan.net at that time (the "oligarchy").
In practice yes (although the current oligarchy is not in
complete agreement about all details of this :-). It could
for example be a self-supplementing group or a group
appointed through some kind of democratic process.
> Maybe this was obvious to most people, but I guess I
> needed the distinction between "community owned and
> community run" and "community owned and run by an
> oligarchy". I'm simply making this distinction here for
> clarity, not saying that one or the other is better, and
> "oligarchy" is not meant to be construed as a negative
> term.
Since it is not something that is fully clear in the current
oligarchy, it is fine that you raise the question. And
while I tend to support a proper oligarchy for running the
technical side of things, I can see the benefits of putting
a democratic process on top of it.
> > > Who then decides what does and does not get implemented?
> >
> > Those who do the work. If somebody feels like
> > implementing a feature, it will be implemented. If
> > nobody feels like implementing a feature, it will not be
> > implemented.
>
> This makes it sound like the decision of whether or not a
> new "feature" gets implemented can end up being made by a
> single person (a subset of the oligarchy running
> LEGOfan.net), based on their whim.
I think we talk a bit past each other here. I primarily
thought of "implemented" in the limited sense of writing
some code. It appears that you on the other hand primarily
thinks of "implemented" in the sense of putting some written
code into action on the server.
> On the face of it, this doesn't sound like the best way
> for things to get added to LEGOfan.net or potentially
> radically changed.
Does it sound better, if I say that I imagine the decision
system for putting code into action consists of two or three
steps: Submission of code to LEGOFan.net. Review of the
code by the technical administrators (security, stability
etc.). And possibly also a decision by a non-technical
governing body if the feature the code implements is wanted.
> Under this way of working, one user could decide that
> LEGOfan.net should use ALL CAPS throughout the site. That
> user writes the code for that new "feature" and uploads
> it. Most members of the oligarchy ignore it as a silly
> idea, but all it takes is one of them to "feel like
> implementing it" and suddenly LEGOfan.net is in ALL CAPS!
It is a bit hard - from a technical point of view - to give
people the necessary permissions to upgrade the system,
without also permitting them to mess the system up. I have
been a part of the technical oligarchy running SSLUG (the L
is for Linux, not LEGO) for many years. We have this
theoretical ability, but except for a few practical jokes,
it hasn't been misused.
> The above is an exaggerated example, to be sure, it is not
> hard to imagine the same process happening for an idea
> whose implementation would be equally annoying to a great
> many users.
Right. Therefore it is probably good with a formal user
evaluation of new features before they are added to the
official site (I'm not sure I thought that 20 lines ago :-).
> I'm not sure I understand this. Does this mean a lack of
> programming ability = a lack of voting power for LEGOfan
> users?
No. But since LEGOFan.net will not have resources to pay
programmers, only those who know how to write code are in a
position to decide which code gets written for LEGOFan.net.
Everybody should of course have a say in the succeeding
steps, but I doubt that we will ever be in a position, where
a popular vote among the LEGOFan.net users will have any
formal influence on which code gets written for LEGOFan.net.
> This does better explain things, but I must say that the
> whole idea of other sites popping up to "compete" with
> LEGOfan.net by duplicating it and then adding certain
> modification goes *completely against* the stated goal of
> being the *one single hub* of the LEGO fan universe.
Yes. We don't _intend_ it to happen. But we want to make
sure it happens if the leadership of LEGOFan.net doesn't do
the job well enough. If it can't happen, then we may end up
with lock-in to a sub-optimal site instead of switching to a
better site.
> With this model, it seems to invite a scenario where
> everytime there is a significant diagreement about a new
> "feature" of LEGOfan.net, a new competing site will be
> created.
Yes. But assuming that there is _one_ best design to make
all LEGO fans happy, everybody will be using that one site.
And even if that is not the case, I _believe_ that there
will be a tendency for everybody to use the same site (or
network of sites), to get whatever synergy effects there are
to gain from working together.
Still, you're right. We are not making the task easy for
ourselves.
> You could potentially end up with:
>
> LEGOfan.net - The 'single hub' for the online LEGO fan
> universe; with support of the LEGO company.
>
> Brickfan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net,
> expcept for feature A which is untenabble; without support
> from the LEGO company.
>
> Blockfan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net, with
> additional features B and C; without support from the LEGO
> company.
>
> PlasticFan.net - Duplicating the code of LEGOfan.net,
> expcept for features A, D, E, and F which are untenabble;
> with additional features B and G; without support from the
> LEGO company.
>
> Etc, etc...
Yes.
But why should the _users_ of the sites distribute
themselves evenly among them? Unless they actually have
different need, which can't be resolved by one single site?
And why shouldn't the _operators_ of the sites do their best
to share data with the other sites? Basically making the
different sites different interfaces to the same data?
I am not worried - even though it may be that I should be.
> PS. Again, by expressing these concerns I am not trying to
> shoot down the idea of LEGOfan.net, but hoping they
> will help you better define just what it is you're
> trying to do, so the rest of us might become
> supporters of the idea, or at least reject it for more
> informed reasons.
Thanks.
And also: Thanks for teaching me a new word (untenable). It
is also good to learn new things.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Experimental parallel cable-stayed bridge:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Broer/Skr%E5stagsbro-parallel/
|
|
| |
Matthew Miller wrote:
> What about the official Lego exclusive pictures/releases,
> etc., alluded to in the original announcement?
That is one of those tricky problems we haven't resolved
yet. But I can say as much as that LEGO hasn't said no to
it yet (although I expect they will). No matter what, the
rights I imagine are important for LEGO (that other people
don't present pictures of official models as their own) are
still protected, even if the pictures are published under an
open license.
Another thing: I think it is wrong to think of whatever
information LEGO delivers to a group as exclusive. Isn't
the whole point in releasing the information to get it out
to as many people as possible? I am not sure I would like
to host official information from LEGO on LEGOFan.net, if
we are not allowed to distribute it to other sites. I would
like people to come to LEGOFan.net because it is a good
interface to the online LEGO fan community, not because the
site has a monopoly on some information.
But as it has been said before; this has not been resolved
yet.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Classic racing car (with building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Biler/Veteranbil/
|
|
| |
Paul Hartzog wrote:
> one of the points made by Brad Justus in the original
> WorldLUG discussion was that kid-oriented information is
> mired in a morass of legal difficulties particularly in
> Europe.
I have a somewhat different view of things. I would
rather block access to my server from the USA than having
to be responsible for its content according to laws in the
USA.
> There are laws about what you can show them, what you can
> ask them, what you can collect from them, cookies, etc.
Only sensible rules. And they are basically the same for
children and grownups.
> Please, please, be sure that you are familiar with these
> issues or you run serious legal risks.
I am reasonably familiar with European privacy regulations.
And I do not find them problematic or difficult to comply
with.
The only real trouble is for organisations with servers
located both inside and outside the EU. They are in general
_not_ allowed to transfer any user data from the servers
inside the EU to servers outside the EU (there are
exceptions to this rule though).
And don't worry. We will do our best to follow all the
regulations of the country hosting the site, once we get
that far.
Play well,
Jacob
--
Sal Colibri (from Roger Leloup's "Yoko Tsuno"):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Fly/Colibri/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.build, Paul Hartzog wrote:
> In lugnet.build, Richard Morton wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
[snip]
> why don't you guys just take over WorldLUG. I'll give you the whole
> architecture. Anybody can develop any module in any language, plus you can
> syndicate all the content out to people's sites using XML/SOAP/RSS etc.
>
> jus email me if you want, and I'll pull all the code off of our dev server
> and from my code archives
Paul-
Thank you! I know that you guys had a lot of great ideas, and I'll contact you
via email to discuss some details!
Jennifer Boger
legofan.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Abe Friedman wrote:
>
> > > But if a developer creates a really cool module, and
> > > the LEGOFan.net system administrators are some jerks
> > > that will not put his module into the central site, he
> > > has all the code and data needed to set up a competing
> > > and (due to his new module) much cooler site.
>
> > It sounds like anyone can take the entire contents of
> > LEGOFan.net and create their own version.
>
> That's also exactly what I wrote.
>
> > This doesn't sound right to me.
>
> Why? It will really push the group operating LEGOFan.net
> to keep doing their best. Isn't that good?
>
> > I understand that the server side code to display the
> > contents of the site will be open source. Yes, I can
> > download a copy of that and run it on my server. The
> > content, on the other hand, is a different matter.
>
> Why?
The courts of the US have repeatedly upheld the distinction of infrastructure
vs. content. For example, spammers using an ISP to send millions of
non-solicited emails are liable for their actions, while the ISP is not (unless
the ISP knowingly breaks a law). Another example is a web site that hosts music
files for download without appropriate persmission; the web site (content)
creator/owner is the one who is liable for having broken any applicable laws,
not the host (e.g. AOL - again, as long as the ISP hasn't knowingly broken a
law).
Both of these are negative examples, but they do serve to illustrate the fact
that the person who creates the content has both rights and responsibilities for
that content. From the messages I've seen here, the person who would provide
content (e.g. non-code) to LFN is essentially giving away their copyright on
their work. I can't speak for anyone else about this, but as a writer I'd be
reluctant to give up my copyright on anything I create. (Granting an open source
license to content isn't precisely "giving it up" but it's the next thing to it,
from a copyright standpoint.)
I'm kind of surprised LEGO would make exceptions from their "Fair Use" policy to
allow their content to be distributed under an Open Source licensing agreement,
but then again, stranger things have happened.
Regards,
Kelly
|
|
| |
Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> The courts of the US have repeatedly upheld the
> distinction of infrastructure vs. content.
Have I rejected that distinction anywhere?
> [...] that the person who creates the content has both
> rights and responsibilities for that content.
Yes. Have I ever claimed anything else?
> From the messages I've seen here, the person who would
> provide content (e.g. non-code) to LFN is essentially
> giving away their copyright on their work.
Wrong. They would have to give LFN a license to distribute
their work, just as you have given Lugnet a license to
distribute your work, when you signed up to get posting
rights to Lugnet.
> I can't speak for anyone else about this, but as a writer
> I'd be reluctant to give up my copyright on anything I
> create.
So am I.
> (Granting an open source license to content isn't
> precisely "giving it up" but it's the next thing to it,
> from a copyright standpoint.)
It is a _little_ bit similar (how similar depends on the
exact license). But you have given up as many rights to
your writings by agreeing to the rules for Lugnet, as you
would with the most _extreme_ Open Source license, so I
honestly can't understand your problem.
> I'm kind of surprised LEGO would make exceptions from
> their "Fair Use" policy to allow their content to be
> distributed under an Open Source licensing agreement,
LEGO hasn't agreed to that yet.
Play well,
Jacob
--
LEGO Purists' Fighter (building instructions):
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/Transport/Fly/Purists_fighter/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> Kelly McKiernan wrote:
>
> > The courts of the US have repeatedly upheld the
> > distinction of infrastructure vs. content.
>
> Have I rejected that distinction anywhere?
Not that I've seen. However, this comment was in reply to your asking why
content was different than code, which I hadn't seen addressed elsewhere.
> > From the messages I've seen here, the person who would
> > provide content (e.g. non-code) to LFN is essentially
> > giving away their copyright on their work.
>
> Wrong. They would have to give LFN a license to distribute
> their work, just as you have given Lugnet a license to
> distribute your work, when you signed up to get posting
> rights to Lugnet.
Actually, the Lugnet T&Cs reserve Lugnet's right to redistribute all content
posted, while an open source license doesn't require anyone's permission to
copy and use. So there is some difference between the two.
From your comment, it seems that all LFN content would be treated the same
as a discussion forum. Speaking only for myself, I treat "discussion posts"
much differently than I treat other content I create. If LFN were simply a
discussion forum, the issue wouldn't be as important to me. I tend to think
of forum posts mostly as "just talking," while other content has more value
to me, which I would want to retain more control over. This includes news
articles I've written for various web sites (more below).
> > (Granting an open source license to content isn't
> > precisely "giving it up" but it's the next thing to it,
> > from a copyright standpoint.)
>
> It is a _little_ bit similar (how similar depends on the
> exact license). But you have given up as many rights to
> your writings by agreeing to the rules for Lugnet, as you
> would with the most _extreme_ Open Source license, so I
> honestly can't understand your problem.
The way I see it, granting rights to Lugnet is granting it to one entity, who
then has control over what happens to that content (see above). There's a level
of trust that Lugnet won't choose to misuse the content. With an Open Source
license, that level of trust is no longer available. However, that's a side
issue.
My main concern is more about other types of content, such as news articles
(not NNTP), reference articles, or things like set data that would be
incorporated on LFN from other sources. These are generally less ephemeral
and have more intrinsic value to the creator(s) than a message in a
discussion forum. I guess what I'm really asking is, would the copyright
notice be attached to a news story originally published on BZPower, such as
"(c)2004 BZPower.com"? Or is that overruled by agreeing to be distributed by
an open source license?
Maybe I'm incorrectly assuming that this type of content from external
sources would be used on LFN, since the details regarding LFN are still
rather vague. If the "value-added" content (for lack of a better term) will
not be solicited from external sources, then this isn't an issue.
Rather than those of us in the peanut gallery continuing to make
assumptions, it would help to have more concrete information about what LFN
will actually consist of. That may help dispel a lot of inaccurate
assumptions.
Regards,
Kelly
|
|
| |
Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> Actually, the Lugnet T&Cs reserve Lugnet's right to
> redistribute all content posted, while an open source
> license doesn't require anyone's permission to copy and
> use. So there is some difference between the two.
No!
Read them carefully. They do among other things say:
»Sublicense to third parties the unrestricted right to
exercise any or all of the foregoing rights granted with
respect to the communication.«
That is just the same as the sublicensing rights in for
example the BSD license.
> From your comment, it seems that all LFN content would be
> treated the same as a discussion forum.
It's all data to me. But I can reveal that we at the moment
have no plans of acting as a general free hosting facility
for any kind of LEGO-related data.
> Speaking only for myself, I treat "discussion posts" much
> differently than I treat other content I create. If LFN
> were simply a discussion forum, the issue wouldn't be as
> important to me. I tend to think of forum posts mostly as
> "just talking," while other content has more value to me,
> which I would want to retain more control over. This
> includes news articles I've written for various web sites
> (more below).
So I must presume that you never post building instructions
to the "lugnet.cad.dat" hierarchy?
> The way I see it, granting rights to Lugnet is granting it
> to one entity, who then has control over what happens to
> that content (see above). There's a level of trust that
> Lugnet won't choose to misuse the content. With an Open
> Source license, that level of trust is no longer
> available. However, that's a side issue.
Considering that Todd seems to be considering to publish all
the newsgroup content under an Open Source license, I would
hope so.
> My main concern is more about other types of content, such
> as news articles (not NNTP), reference articles, or things
> like set data that would be incorporated on LFN from other
> sources. These are generally less ephemeral and have more
> intrinsic value to the creator(s) than a message in a
> discussion forum. I guess what I'm really asking is, would
> the copyright notice be attached to a news story
> originally published on BZPower, such as
> "(c)2004 BZPower.com"? Or is that overruled by agreeing to
> be distributed by an open source license?
Distribution under an Open Source license doesn't remove
copyright. Rather the opposite. You can't publish
something under an Open Source license without having
copyright to it (or having received it under a license that
allows you to do it).
When LEGOFan.net gets as far as to discuss redistribution of
content with BZPower.com (and other sites), we might insist
that the content is delivered under an Open Source license.
If not, we would have to write a specific license allowing
LEGOFan.net and the first-level recipients (the other
cooperating sites) to redistribute the content, but not the
second-level recipients - and wouldn't that be a bit silly
and messy?
> Rather than those of us in the peanut gallery continuing
> to make assumptions, it would help to have more concrete
> information about what LFN will actually consist of.
> That may help dispel a lot of inaccurate assumptions.
Yes. But as long as we spend time answering questions here,
we don't get much time to code and finish our plans (as far
as they are ever likely to be finished).
Play well,
Jacob
--
LEGO furniture:
http://jacob.sparre.dk/LEGO/By/M%F8bler/
|
|
|
