Subject:
|
Re: Questions about fan involvement with TLC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:26:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1849 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, C. L. GunningCook wrote:
> I don't have the luxury of knowing how many ppl are under a NDA
> (non-disclosure agreement) currently, but the numbers must be high.
I don't know either, but I have reason to believe (*not* due to what LEGO has
told me under an NDA) it could well be more than 400.
> Q1. Are the NDA keeping our most prolific quiet?
The NDA's are taking up more time for some of us - I only have so many hours
in a day, that's true. But being involved in an NDA has also had another effect,
that of encouraging me to dedicate still more time overall to LEGO, and
diversify. I usually only post to ask a technical question, or present my view
on something, and sometimes, if I really think it deserving, I post something
original from me. OK, that and tease people. Under the MUP NDA, I couldn't
reveal what I knew *unless* it was already in the public domain... but since I
knew what to look for, I could do focused web searches so that when something I
wanted to tell the community surfaced, I could - by pointing out the source.
Another thing it got me to do was to look beyond LUGNET - I now post much more
frequently on places like LEGOfan, for instance.
> Q2. Is this hindering or benefiting our communication as a community?
Judging from the question that get asked, I think it is certainly spawning
more community interaction - most for the better, but not all.
> Q3. a) Is the help/advice/feedback those under an NDA are providing
> to Lego really being taken in account, or it just be considerd dandling
> carrot by the company?
I'm *not* in the original MUP group, but the first expanssion, and it seems
that LEGO was willing to listen and act on our advice even that late (& later!)
in the design and release of the product.
> is this a reasonable price to pay to have so many
> of our high profile members unable to discuss things
> openly?
That I don't know. Personally I think it's "worth it", in that I'm not even
paying a price - I'm playing and working at the same time. For the community as
a whole, I *suspect* it's good, but I think the proof is in what shakes out in
the next 5-10 years.
> Q4. Are members spending many of their community hours behind
> the scenes that they don't have time as much free time to
> dedicate to the public forums that they once had?
To an extent yes - I feel pressed for time. But also much of what I would
post on hasn't really come up too much lately.
> I guess since no one can clearly let us know what is being
> gained, its difficult to judge.
There's a key point here (which is what got me to post, actually). What you
really want to do is compare a future in which all the AFoL/LEGO interactions
are occuring (like now), to a hypothetical future where this did not occur. I
don't know any way to do that realisticly. There's no way to run a controled
experiment as to if LEGO or the AFoL community would have been better or worse
under various conditions. The best you can do is try to draw logical conclusions
from reasonable assumptions.
--
Brian Davis
(who is now off to build a robotic machine gun, based on the discoveries of
another AFoL)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Questions about fan involvement with TLC
|
| After an interesting chat about "Fan involvement with TLC" the other night, a few concerns/questions came up, and I can't seem to shake them. Historically a large portion of AfoL/ALE's have wanted a closer relationship with TLC and over the last few (...) (18 years ago, 10-Apr-06, to lugnet.general) !!
|
63 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
