Subject:
|
Re: Questions about fan involvement with TLC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:35:29 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2263 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Actually I don’t see that problem at all. Why would there be a lack of
communication? Sure, there are some AFOLs who get per ambassadorship some
insight in some activities within the LEGO group. Whenever they (the
ambassadors) are allowed to do so they tell the AFOL community about these
activities. That’s communication.
|
I agree. I think the difficulty is that many fans are simply expecting too much
from the ambassador program. And again, I’ll restate my earlier point; I
believe that any mistrust is fueled largely by jealousy. Simply put; some (I
won’t say many as that is probably an exaggeration) fans feel slighted simply
because they are not privy to the same information that our ambassadors are.
| |
Most things, so we hear, the ambassadors get insight into are not publicised.
These things wouldn’t be publicised anyway, if there were ambassadors or if
there were none. So what’s the difference?
|
Again, I don’t dispute this. Frankly, I prefer getting first-hand information
from enthusiasts, rather than LEGO employees. The difference is that some
people expect more than our ambassadors are able to give. They (incorrectly)
treat non-disclosure as an act of betrayal.
| |
Maybe we, the non-NDA-ed AFOL community, simply expect to much of this whole
ambassador programme. It was never meant to make the LEGO company transparent
to us. Yet that seems to be the expectation of some AFOLs.
|
I think this is what I was trying to get at in my previous post. Many fans
expected the Ambassador program to create open two-way communication between
LEGO and its fans. Of course, such an expectation is silly.
| |
Ambassadors are not elected representatives of the AFOL community in the
parliamentary-democratic sense of the word. Everybody was free to apply but
TLC chose the candidates. That means the AFOL community has no right to
demand anything from both TLC and the ambassadors. However, as far as I am
able to judge it the ambassadors try for being representatives of the AFOL
community, though without denying themselves. And I think they do it right.
|
A fair point.
I don’t think that the ambassadors owe us (the avg. joe fan) anything. Nor do I
think I am confusing our LEGO ambassadors with political ambassadors. As far as
I understand things, the ambassador program was simply a way of sampling some of
the more-active members of the AFOL community for their thoughts and opinions.
They do not represent us, nor do they owe us anything. I do, however, believe
that many fans have come to see our ambassadors as something different. That
these fans have elevated their expectations of the program, and consequently
mistrust the LEGO ambassadors.
My earlier post was not to suggest that any mis/distrust of the LEGO ambassadors
was justified. For me at least, giving reasons is not the same as justifying
them. In this particular situation, any misgivings about our ambassadors (as a
group) do not seem particularly justifiable. That doesn’t mean that one can’t
attempt to rationalize them
| |
I’m not sure about the leg-and-kidney-thing, though.
|
An embellishment to be sure (of course, you only need one).
Later.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Questions about fan involvement with TLC
|
| Hello! (...) Actually I don't see that problem at all. Why would there be a lack of communication? Sure, there are some AFOLs who get per ambassadorship some insight in some activities within the LEGO group. Whenever they (the ambassadors) are (...) (18 years ago, 12-Apr-06, to lugnet.general, FTX)
|
63 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
