| |
This is a quick message to announce that NELUG now has 50 members. The member
breakdown by region is as follows...
(Some of my earlier guesses were a little off. These are official numbers from
submittal forms)
30 - Massachusetts
4 - Connecticut
2 - Vermont
2 - New Hampshire
0 - Maine
0 - Rhode Island
12 - Other (includes - New York - 2, New Jersey, Washington DC - 2, Tennessee,
Michigan - 2, Kansas, Canada, South Africa, and Amsterdam .nl)
I would have to say that although I thought NELUG would get this big eventually
I never thought that we would get this big this fast :). Some of the things
that have help with membership has been our active postings about our meetings,
Mindfest, and being included in The Constrution Site newsletter (
www.constructiontoys.com ).
Thank you to everyone that has contributed to making us such a success in such
a short time. At this rate we will have over 1 hundred members in no time and
who knows how big this might get from there.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
Eric, I could make that 51, and 1 for ME. Although I'm not yet 18,
you said I would be welcome to come to meetings(which I
unfortunately am not at liberty to do) so I guess that means I could
also be a member, right. And if you do other things like the Mindfest,
I'd love to help out.
I've been meening to ask you anyway if I could become a "silent
JrFOL member", so, there, now I asked.
Ryan
ps Congrats on the speedy growth :-)
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/15/1999, at 10:02 PM, Eric Kingsley wrote:
> This is a quick message to announce that NELUG now has 50 members. The • member
> breakdown by region is as follows...
>
> (Some of my earlier guesses were a little off. These are official • numbers from
> submittal forms)
>
> 30 - Massachusetts
> 4 - Connecticut
> 2 - Vermont
> 2 - New Hampshire
> 0 - Maine
> 0 - Rhode Island
> 12 - Other (includes - New York - 2, New Jersey, Washington DC - 2, • Tennessee,
> Michigan - 2, Kansas, Canada, South Africa, and Amsterdam .nl)
>
>
> I would have to say that although I thought NELUG would get this big • eventually
> I never thought that we would get this big this fast :). Some of the • things
> that have help with membership has been our active postings about our • meetings,
> Mindfest, and being included in The Constrution Site newsletter (
> www.constructiontoys.com ).
>
> Thank you to everyone that has contributed to making us such a success in • such
> a short time. At this rate we will have over 1 hundred members in no • time and
> who knows how big this might get from there.
>
> Eric K.
>
> The New England LEGO Users Group
> http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
> Eric, I could make that 51, and 1 for ME. Although I'm not yet 18,
> you said I would be welcome to come to meetings(which I
> unfortunately am not at liberty to do) so I guess that means I could
> also be a member, right. And if you do other things like the Mindfest,
> I'd love to help out.
> I've been meening to ask you anyway if I could become a "silent
> JrFOL member", so, there, now I asked.
>
> Ryan
> ps Congrats on the speedy growth :-)
Ryan,
Thanks for your interest in NELUG. What this all comes down to really is
liability. I suppose I could set up an option like Todd is for the LUGNET
memberships where a JrFOL could join with the consent of thier parent or legal
guardians. I know it looks like I should be able to meet you and your family
this weekend at The Construction Site and maybe that will end up being part of
the criteria (A face to face meeting with a parent/guardian).
You happen to appear to be a very mature and articulate JrFOL and I personally
would not have a problem with you joining NELUG. These are the issues in
question however if you were able to attend meetings.
1. There is a chance alcoholic beverages at meetings and that is not something
I want to be resposible for with minors in attendance.
2. If we were ever to do a road trip I again would not want to be responsible
for a minor without their parent/guardian.
3. Just general liability with having a minor in attendance. There are a lot
of wackos in the world and I don't want to be responsible for their actions.
I suppose we could designate certain meetings as being JrFOL friendly and we
would not have alcohol available to anyone.
Anyway I will think about it and I will think about adding an option on the
form for minors. I don't think it would hurt anyone to put you on the mailing
list however so I can at least do that for you and at least at the moment lets
take things on a case by case basis.
This is a very difficult (for me anyway) issue you raise and it is not one to
be taken lightly. Beyond that one of the main purposes NELUG was created was
to give AFOL's a chance to meet other fans because we are more spread out than
most JrFOLs. We also don't want to have a bunch of crazy kids taking over our
meetings (although like I said you seem quite mature and I would not forsee a
problem).
I would also like to hear from other NELUG members or anyone else for that
matter on this issue both for or against.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
On 11/16/1999, at 8:22 AM, Eric Kingsley wrote:
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
> > Eric, I could make that 51, and 1 for ME. Although I'm not yet 18,
> > you said I would be welcome to come to meetings(which I
> > unfortunately am not at liberty to do) so I guess that means I could
> > also be a member, right. And if you do other things like the Mindfest,
> > I'd love to help out.
> > I've been meening to ask you anyway if I could become a "silent
> > JrFOL member", so, there, now I asked.
> >
> > Ryan
> > ps Congrats on the speedy growth :-)
>
> Ryan,
>
> Thanks for your interest in NELUG. What this all comes down to really is
> liability. I suppose I could set up an option like Todd is for the • LUGNET
> memberships where a JrFOL could join with the consent of thier parent or • legal
> guardians. I know it looks like I should be able to meet you and your • family
> this weekend at The Construction Site and maybe that will end up being • part of
> the criteria (A face to face meeting with a parent/guardian).
>
> You happen to appear to be a very mature and articulate JrFOL and I • personally
> would not have a problem with you joining NELUG. These are the issues in
> question however if you were able to attend meetings.
>
> 1. There is a chance alcoholic beverages at meetings and that is not • something
> I want to be resposible for with minors in attendance.
>
> 2. If we were ever to do a road trip I again would not want to be • responsible
> for a minor without their parent/guardian.
>
> 3. Just general liability with having a minor in attendance. There are • a lot
> of wackos in the world and I don't want to be responsible for their
actions.
In any case, a parent would be with me so in that respect, you
really wouldn't be liable for anything. As Christians, my family doesn't
approve of alcohol, but I don't think it would be a major problem as
long as you don't have people getting drunk :)
As I've mentioned before, I am 99% sure that I wouldn't be able to
attend meetings because I live @3 hours from the Boston area,
but I would like to be involved in other events like the mindfest.
If I had known about it sooner and we had not had something planned
for that day, I would have been begging my parents to take me :)
> I suppose we could designate certain meetings as being JrFOL friendly and • we
> would not have alcohol available to anyone.
>
> Anyway I will think about it and I will think about adding an option on • the
> form for minors. I don't think it would hurt anyone to put you on the • mailing
> list however so I can at least do that for you and at least at the moment • lets
> take things on a case by case basis.
>
> This is a very difficult (for me anyway) issue you raise and it is not • one to
> be taken lightly. Beyond that one of the main purposes NELUG was created • was
> to give AFOL's a chance to meet other fans because we are more spread out • than
> most JrFOLs. We also don't want to have a bunch of crazy kids taking • over our
> meetings (although like I said you seem quite mature and I would not • forsee a
> problem).
>
> I would also like to hear from other NELUG members or anyone else for • that
> matter on this issue both for or against.
I think that if you were to allow JrFOLs to become members that it
should be only those who have reached the "teens". I think that one
of the reasons that I have maintained my interest in Lego is because
I don't have many friends(basically cause I don't attend public school),
and only one of my friends has maintained his interest because of the
same reason, although he now does attend public school.
From what I see around me, as you get into the "teen" years you
either drop interest in Lego because you think it is "child's play" or if
you maintain that interest, many of your friends feel that it is "child's
play" so you are basically left to yourself in your interest.
If you were to allow JrFOLs to become members I would judge on their
maturity(thank you Eric for the compliment; I try to be) by looking at
Lugnet posts made by them, or asking people who know them. I don't
think it would be a wise thing to allow JrFOLs to be members if they can't
do things like accept responsibility for their actions, keep their temper
in
check, respecting elders, etc.
I guess the biggest reasons, that I'd like to become a member is because
I would like to know about what's going on in my area(New E), who
else is here for Lego fans, and cause I'd like to know about events that
are going to be happening in the area and to be able to be involved in
helping
with them in whatever way I can. I realize that I can do most of this on
Lugnet,
but....well I think you know what I'm trying to say.
I also feel that allowing a JrFOL to become a member should have the
acceptance of a few members, not just Eric.
There are my feelings on the whole issue, and I'm anxious to hear what
others have to say.
Ryan
|
|
| |
As an advisor of a church senior high youth group, I am definitely aware
of the issues...
Ryan raises a very good point though. One of the things that we AFOLs
should bend over backwards is to create a support structure for teens so
they do not have to go through a Dark Age. For most of us who have been
through a Dark Age, and especially those whose parents didn't stash away
the childhood LEGO bricks, just think about how much more you would
enjoy your collection if you could look back at items which you had as a
child, or purchased with your hard earned money, which are now fetching
astronomical prices on the auction circuit.
I always feel a little bad when I'm buying up some kid's LEGO
collection, but at least I know I'm contributing to saving it from the
garbage dump.
Just some thoughts...
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
I'd have to agree for the most part with what's been said-- I'd like to see
NELUG cater to a wider audience... However, this is really where the purpose of
NELUG gets called into question.
If we want a bunch of us to get together and talk about Lego (your standard
NELUG meeting so far)-- well, I don't want a bunch of young children running
around. In addition to that, children don't usually have a mode of
transportation to get anywhere, and aren't allowed out late at night, etc.
Plus it would probably mean that if anything DID happen (accidental injuries,
etc., someone falls down the stairs at someone's house, whatever), I DON'T want
NELUG to be held responsible. Things like that get tricky when you're dealing
with minors.
However, I don't think that's the sole purpose behind NELUG. Another aspect of
NELUG is informational. We have a mailing list (although not highly used at the
moment, now that the Mindfest has died down, etc) that gets sent out informing
our members of events in the area, etc, etc. Here, being a minor doesn't
present a real problem. Sending out a newsletter via email (no addresses or
phone numbers being given out or anything) is pretty safe, I'd say. The only
possible problem that it might have would be irresponsible kids using the
mailing list for trivial things... but that can be controlled, I'd say.
The other big purpose to NELUG is to help sponsor larger events. We haven't
really done anything YET that's been strictly NELUG, but it's certainly in our
future (I hope). Here's where it can also get tricky. If we do something like
take a trip down to Enfield, it's probably similar to a "regular" meeting--
kids would need transportation, parental approval, and there are still
liability issues... However, if we get a huge confrence room for a day (or
something like that) and decide to sponsor a building event, I think I'd like
to welcome kids... it's also something that parents probably wouldn't mind
attending, even, if it's only for a few hours-- and that helps address the
other problems... and to help with liability, etc, we could have an application
form for parents/guardians to sign with the appropriate legal information.
Doing that for things like trips to Enfield/Regular meetings seems like a lot
more effort, though-- more trouble than it's worth.
Hence, it's tricky. I'd LIKE to have younger audiences be able to use us in the
informational sense, but that even brings up problems. If a 9 year old gets an
email that there's a NELUG meeting, and doesn't understand that it's going to
be us mostly talking about lego, displaying models, etc., rather than sitting
down and building/playing games, etc., and s/he shows up to the meeting--
well.. that's a problem.
So the solution up until now has been to only have an adult audience, with the
intent to be to cater more to younger audiences when we are a larger group.
Hence it's been a "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it". And now it
looks like we've seen the first signs of that bridge, especially with all the
kids who saw us at the Mindfest, and potentially the ones who are seeing our
display at the Construction Site... But I'm still not sure what the best way is
to cross it yet.
DaveE
|
|
| |
Well I am hopeing that this turns into a very constructive discussion on how we
can cater to minors in our Local groups. I would be very interested in seeing
what people have to say on the issue. I would also like to hear any
experiances that people have had dealing with minors in organized groups.
Seeing that this is a good discussion for all of the local groups I have set
followup's to lugnet.org.us.
In lugnet.loc.us.me, David Eaton writes:
> I'd have to agree for the most part with what's been said-- I'd like to see
> NELUG cater to a wider audience... However, this is really where the purpose
> of NELUG gets called into question.
I would have to agree that I would like to cater to minors in some form.
Hopefully this discussion will create ideas on how to do this.
>
> If we want a bunch of us to get together and talk about Lego (your standard
> NELUG meeting so far)-- well, I don't want a bunch of young children running
> around. In addition to that, children don't usually have a mode of
> transportation to get anywhere, and aren't allowed out late at night, etc.
> Plus it would probably mean that if anything DID happen (accidental injuries,
> etc., someone falls down the stairs at someone's house, whatever), I DON'T
> want NELUG to be held responsible. Things like that get tricky when you're
> dealing with minors.
I would agree that for our current standard NELUG meetings I would not want
children running around. I think that these meetings should remain Adult only.
Although this also brings up the question of what I consider "tweeners" those
young adults that are say between 16 and 18 that might have their own form of
transportation and are mature and want to attend. How do we handle that. Do
we just say sorry can't help you? I would hope not because these are probably
the people that most need a "support group" at the moment. They probably don't
have many freinds into LEGO and they probably don't want to hang around kids 5
years younger that they are.
So do we have some sort of "permission slip" that clears us of any
responsibility? Does that mean that we would have to refrain from having
alcohol at events (we havn't been drinking much at meetings but hypothetically
we might want to).
Do we have different classes of meetings?
1. Adult only
2. 16 and up
3. all ages
>
> However, I don't think that's the sole purpose behind NELUG. Another aspect of
> NELUG is informational. We have a mailing list (although not highly used at
> the moment, now that the Mindfest has died down, etc) that gets sent out
> informing our members of events in the area, etc, etc. Here, being a minor
> doesn't present a real problem. Sending out a newsletter via email (no
> addresses or phone numbers being given out or anything) is pretty safe, I'd
> say. The only possible problem that it might have would be irresponsible kids
> using the mailing list for trivial things... but that can be controlled, I'd
> say.
I would say that the mailing list could probably be open to all just like
LUGNET is open to all. For the most part if someone wanted to know about an
event all they would have to do would be look on LUGNET anyway.
Irresposible kids are a relatively easy thing to control with a mailing list.
You just remove them from it and block their us of it. Of course there would
have to be some sort of sliding scale because one infraction is not necessarily
grounds for dismissal.
>
> The other big purpose to NELUG is to help sponsor larger events. We haven't
> really done anything YET that's been strictly NELUG, but it's certainly in our
> future (I hope). Here's where it can also get tricky. If we do something like
> take a trip down to Enfield, it's probably similar to a "regular" meeting--
> kids would need transportation, parental approval, and there are still
> liability issues... However, if we get a huge confrence room for a day (or
> something like that) and decide to sponsor a building event, I think I'd like
> to welcome kids... it's also something that parents probably wouldn't mind
> attending, even, if it's only for a few hours-- and that helps address the
> other problems... and to help with liability, etc, we could have an
> application form for parents/guardians to sign with the appropriate legal
> information. Doing that for things like trips to Enfield/Regular meetings
> seems like a lot more effort, though-- more trouble than it's worth.
I would agree that as we grow the likely hood of a larger self-sponsored event
becomes more and more likely. For public events I think anyone should be
invited, hence the name public. We may require parental supervision for minors
or those under 16 but that is easy. I would agree that anything requireing
travel or related to regular meetings is a bit tougher.
Another idea would be that if say a parent wanted to have meetings between
their kids and other kids we might be able to help them with getting in touch
with each other and maybe having some sort of "NELUG Jr." that is run by the
parents of the kids. We could then maybe even have joint NELUG Jr. and NELUG
events where both kids and adults can share their ideas.
>
> Hence, it's tricky. I'd LIKE to have younger audiences be able to use us in
> the informational sense, but that even brings up problems. If a 9 year old
> gets an email that there's a NELUG meeting, and doesn't understand that it's
> going to be us mostly talking about lego, displaying models, etc., rather than
> sitting down and building/playing games, etc., and s/he shows up to the
> meeting-- well.. that's a problem.
It always comes back to the out-of-control 9 year old doesn't it :-). I think
this problem can possibly be solved using some of the ideas I have stated
above. Have clear cut Adult only meetings and invite kids to more public all
ages meetings.
>
> So the solution up until now has been to only have an adult audience, with the
> intent to be to cater more to younger audiences when we are a larger group.
> Hence it's been a "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it". And now it
> looks like we've seen the first signs of that bridge, especially with all the
> kids who saw us at the Mindfest, and potentially the ones who are seeing our
> display at the Construction Site... But I'm still not sure what the best way
> is to cross it yet.
Well you are right in that Mindfest and the Construction Site window have been
a boom for membership growth and has definitly raised awareness of our group
with adults and kids alike.
These are all good things and we just need to figure out how to handle them. I
don't want people to think I was dodging the issue but it is a tough issue and
one not to be taken lightly.
_________________
It is very easy for me to take the first step and include an option for minors
on our membership form for minors with a check box that says they have their
parent/guardians permission and I can add them to the mailing list. We would
then have to state whether meetings were Adult only or public with a big
disclaimer for Adult meetings and then we would have to just turn kids away if
they show up.
If I don't get any negative feedback I will probably add this option for minors
to receive mail from our mailing list in about a week.
Again I would like to see other ideas related to this issue so please respond
to this if you have some ideas.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
On 11/16/1999, at 2:50 PM, David Eaton wrote:
> I'd have to agree for the most part with what's been said-- I'd like to • see
> NELUG cater to a wider audience... However, this is really where the • purpose of
> NELUG gets called into question.
I'll start off my saying that everything was very well said, Dave.
Although
I am still 2 1/3 years away from being considered an AFOL, I can see
why you wanted to set up AFOL group, partly because of circumstances
that I have mentioned previously. That is why I also suggested that if you
(NELUG) decide to allow some JrFOLs to become members, that you
only accept those who show maturity and understanding about the whole
reason behind this group, and most of those people are going to be over
13 years of age(I'm not saying that you can't have a muture 11yo or an
immature 17yo, just that in most cases that is what it's going to be)
> If we want a bunch of us to get together and talk about Lego (your • standard
> NELUG meeting so far)-- well, I don't want a bunch of young children • running
> around. In addition to that, children don't usually have a mode of
> transportation to get anywhere, and aren't allowed out late at night, • etc.
> Plus it would probably mean that if anything DID happen (accidental • injuries,
> etc., someone falls down the stairs at someone's house, whatever), I • DON'T want
> NELUG to be held responsible. Things like that get tricky when you're • dealing
> with minors.
If I were a member I would suggest that only those "children"(JrFOLs)
who are allowed to go to meetings are those who have run the gauntlet
so to speak and proved that they are mature enough to be part of the
group.
Also, if that JrFOL were to attend meetings, their should be the
requirement
that a parent accompany them to their first meeting and approve of all
that
goes on and sign a type of "release" form, if they do or don't plan to
stay
with their child, saying that they trust the members of the group and that
they accept all responsibility for what their child does and will not hold
any
member of NELUG resposnible for something that happens to the child(unless
done purposely).
> However, I don't think that's the sole purpose behind NELUG. Another • aspect of
> NELUG is informational. We have a mailing list (although not highly used • at the
> moment, now that the Mindfest has died down, etc) that gets sent out • informing
> our members of events in the area, etc, etc. Here, being a minor doesn't
> present a real problem. Sending out a newsletter via email (no addresses • or
> phone numbers being given out or anything) is pretty safe, I'd say. The • only
> possible problem that it might have would be irresponsible kids using the
> mailing list for trivial things... but that can be controlled, I'd say.
>
> The other big purpose to NELUG is to help sponsor larger events. We • haven't
> really done anything YET that's been strictly NELUG, but it's certainly • in our
> future (I hope). Here's where it can also get tricky. If we do something • like
> take a trip down to Enfield, it's probably similar to a "regular" • meeting--
> kids would need transportation, parental approval, and there are still
> liability issues... However, if we get a huge confrence room for a day • (or
> something like that) and decide to sponsor a building event, I think I'd • like
> to welcome kids... it's also something that parents probably wouldn't • mind
> attending, even, if it's only for a few hours-- and that helps address • the
> other problems... and to help with liability, etc, we could have an • application
> form for parents/guardians to sign with the appropriate legal • information.
> Doing that for things like trips to Enfield/Regular meetings seems like a • lot
> more effort, though-- more trouble than it's worth.
These are the two areas that I, myself, am most interested in. I want to
know what's happening in this part of the country and whose here, what
they think, etc. I'd also like to be included in events and be able to
help
out the group in any way possible even though I wouldn't be able to attend
the meetings. I believe that I saw on the site that Eric does minutes for
the
meetings?? If that is so, I would be able to get any important info
discussed
from that, and if I had any questions the mailing list would serve that
purpose,
correct?
Back to the day-trip idea. If you were to allow children to go, I would
make
it nescesary for a parent(or if they are unable, not unwilling, to go,
then have
them appoint a fellow parent, or member who they trust and who accepts
responsibility for that child).
> Hence, it's tricky. I'd LIKE to have younger audiences be able to use us • in the
> informational sense, but that even brings up problems. If a 9 year old • gets an
> email that there's a NELUG meeting, and doesn't understand that it's • going to
> be us mostly talking about lego, displaying models, etc., rather than • sitting
> down and building/playing games, etc., and s/he shows up to the meeting--
> well.. that's a problem.
>
> So the solution up until now has been to only have an adult audience, • with the
> intent to be to cater more to younger audiences when we are a larger • group.
> Hence it's been a "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it". And now • it
> looks like we've seen the first signs of that bridge, especially with all • the
> kids who saw us at the Mindfest, and potentially the ones who are seeing • our
> display at the Construction Site... But I'm still not sure what the best • way is
> to cross it yet.
>
> DaveE
I would suggest that younger JrFOLs CANNOT become members, only
those who are mature teens. You could have periodic events for the
younger children, but not "meetings" per say, where they can build and
the parents can converse with the real members who are putting this event
on.
I believe that Eric had mentioned in another thread that there is a
meeting
coming up in the next couple of weeks. I would highly suggest that this
topic be discussed. I openly say that I would like to be a member even
though
I would not really be active. By now you should know my reasons for
wanting
to be a member, and one last thing I suggest is that when you discuss
this topic at your next meeting also make it a point to consider this:
"A JrFOL fills out the form, which now has 13-18 on it. Eric recieves it,
and
then sends a message to the NELUG email list saying, 'John Doe, who is
14 has asked to become a member. He posts to Lugnet, please research
his posts and by next meeting decide whether you think he is mature enough
to become a member'. Then at the next meeting you all vote, share
opinions,
etc. and decide whether he should be allowed to be a member. If yes, then
he should be entitled to come to meetings, be involved in events, etc. If
no,
then he is still welcome to events, accompanied by a parent."
There, I think that is all I have to say for now.
Ryan
|
|
| |
Eric, see my reply to David's message for more of my opinion on
the topic. One thing though, the term "tween"(which I think is
downright, gutwrenchingly sick) refers to those ages 8-12, so I
don't think a 16yo would like being called a "tweener". You must
also remember that just because someone is 16, that they have
their own transportation, becuase I'm 4 months shy of 16 and I
haven't even started Driver's Ed
Ryan
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/16/1999, at 3:35 PM, Eric Kingsley wrote:
> Well I am hopeing that this turns into a very constructive discussion on • how we
> can cater to minors in our Local groups. I would be very interested in • seeing
> what people have to say on the issue. I would also like to hear any
> experiances that people have had dealing with minors in organized groups.
>
> Seeing that this is a good discussion for all of the local groups I have • set
> followup's to lugnet.org.us.
>
>
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, David Eaton writes:
> > I'd have to agree for the most part with what's been said-- I'd like to • see
> > NELUG cater to a wider audience... However, this is really where the • purpose
> > of NELUG gets called into question.
>
> I would have to agree that I would like to cater to minors in some form.
> Hopefully this discussion will create ideas on how to do this.
>
> >
> > If we want a bunch of us to get together and talk about Lego (your • standard
> > NELUG meeting so far)-- well, I don't want a bunch of young children • running
> > around. In addition to that, children don't usually have a mode of
> > transportation to get anywhere, and aren't allowed out late at night, • etc.
> > Plus it would probably mean that if anything DID happen (accidental • injuries,
> > etc., someone falls down the stairs at someone's house, whatever), I • DON'T
> > want NELUG to be held responsible. Things like that get tricky when • you're
> > dealing with minors.
>
> I would agree that for our current standard NELUG meetings I would not • want
> children running around. I think that these meetings should remain Adult • only.
>
> Although this also brings up the question of what I consider "tweeners" • those
> young adults that are say between 16 and 18 that might have their own • form of
> transportation and are mature and want to attend. How do we handle that. • Do
> we just say sorry can't help you? I would hope not because these are • probably
> the people that most need a "support group" at the moment. They probably • don't
> have many freinds into LEGO and they probably don't want to hang around • kids 5
> years younger that they are.
>
> So do we have some sort of "permission slip" that clears us of any
> responsibility? Does that mean that we would have to refrain from having
> alcohol at events (we havn't been drinking much at meetings but • hypothetically
> we might want to).
>
> Do we have different classes of meetings?
>
> 1. Adult only
> 2. 16 and up
> 3. all ages
>
> >
> > However, I don't think that's the sole purpose behind NELUG. Another • aspect of
> > NELUG is informational. We have a mailing list (although not highly used • at
> > the moment, now that the Mindfest has died down, etc) that gets sent out
> > informing our members of events in the area, etc, etc. Here, being a • minor
> > doesn't present a real problem. Sending out a newsletter via email (no
> > addresses or phone numbers being given out or anything) is pretty safe, • I'd
> > say. The only possible problem that it might have would be irresponsible • kids
> > using the mailing list for trivial things... but that can be controlled, • I'd
> > say.
>
> I would say that the mailing list could probably be open to all just like
> LUGNET is open to all. For the most part if someone wanted to know about • an
> event all they would have to do would be look on LUGNET anyway.
>
> Irresposible kids are a relatively easy thing to control with a mailing • list.
> You just remove them from it and block their us of it. Of course there • would
> have to be some sort of sliding scale because one infraction is not • necessarily
> grounds for dismissal.
>
> >
> > The other big purpose to NELUG is to help sponsor larger events. We • haven't
> > really done anything YET that's been strictly NELUG, but it's certainly • in our
> > future (I hope). Here's where it can also get tricky. If we do something • like
> > take a trip down to Enfield, it's probably similar to a "regular" • meeting--
> > kids would need transportation, parental approval, and there are still
> > liability issues... However, if we get a huge confrence room for a day • (or
> > something like that) and decide to sponsor a building event, I think I'd • like
> > to welcome kids... it's also something that parents probably wouldn't • mind
> > attending, even, if it's only for a few hours-- and that helps address • the
> > other problems... and to help with liability, etc, we could have an
> > application form for parents/guardians to sign with the appropriate • legal
> > information. Doing that for things like trips to Enfield/Regular • meetings
> > seems like a lot more effort, though-- more trouble than it's worth.
>
> I would agree that as we grow the likely hood of a larger self-sponsored • event
> becomes more and more likely. For public events I think anyone should be
> invited, hence the name public. We may require parental supervision for • minors
> or those under 16 but that is easy. I would agree that anything • requireing
> travel or related to regular meetings is a bit tougher.
>
> Another idea would be that if say a parent wanted to have meetings • between
> their kids and other kids we might be able to help them with getting in • touch
> with each other and maybe having some sort of "NELUG Jr." that is run by • the
> parents of the kids. We could then maybe even have joint NELUG Jr. and • NELUG
> events where both kids and adults can share their ideas.
>
> >
> > Hence, it's tricky. I'd LIKE to have younger audiences be able to use us • in
> > the informational sense, but that even brings up problems. If a 9 year • old
> > gets an email that there's a NELUG meeting, and doesn't understand that • it's
> > going to be us mostly talking about lego, displaying models, etc., • rather than
> > sitting down and building/playing games, etc., and s/he shows up to the
> > meeting-- well.. that's a problem.
>
> It always comes back to the out-of-control 9 year old doesn't it :-). I • think
> this problem can possibly be solved using some of the ideas I have stated
> above. Have clear cut Adult only meetings and invite kids to more public • all
> ages meetings.
>
> >
> > So the solution up until now has been to only have an adult audience, • with the
> > intent to be to cater more to younger audiences when we are a larger • group.
> > Hence it's been a "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it". And now • it
> > looks like we've seen the first signs of that bridge, especially with • all the
> > kids who saw us at the Mindfest, and potentially the ones who are seeing • our
> > display at the Construction Site... But I'm still not sure what the best • way
> > is to cross it yet.
>
> Well you are right in that Mindfest and the Construction Site window have • been
> a boom for membership growth and has definitly raised awareness of our • group
> with adults and kids alike.
>
> These are all good things and we just need to figure out how to handle • them. I
> don't want people to think I was dodging the issue but it is a tough • issue and
> one not to be taken lightly.
>
> _________________
>
> It is very easy for me to take the first step and include an option for • minors
> on our membership form for minors with a check box that says they have • their
> parent/guardians permission and I can add them to the mailing list. We • would
> then have to state whether meetings were Adult only or public with a big
> disclaimer for Adult meetings and then we would have to just turn kids • away if
> they show up.
>
> If I don't get any negative feedback I will probably add this option for • minors
> to receive mail from our mailing list in about a week.
>
> Again I would like to see other ideas related to this issue so please • respond
> to this if you have some ideas.
>
> Eric K.
>
> The New England LEGO Users Group
> http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
> Eric, see my reply to David's message for more of my opinion on
> the topic. One thing though, the term "tween"(which I think is
> downright, gutwrenchingly sick) refers to those ages 8-12, so I
> don't think a 16yo would like being called a "tweener". You must
> also remember that just because someone is 16, that they have
> their own transportation, becuase I'm 4 months shy of 16 and I
> haven't even started Driver's Ed
Ryan,
Just a point of clarification. By the term "tweener" I mean inbetween and it
does not refer to someone that is a teenager. And by inbetween I mean
Young-Adult in this case or someone who is more mature than a kid and can
handle responsibility but that is not of Legal age (18) to be considered
"Legally responsible" for their actions.
As far as the 16-18 being able to travel themselves I guess I mean that is the
youngest they could possibly be and legally drive themselves to an event. I do
realize that not all 16 year olds get their license when they are 16 and in
some states you can't even get a license until you are 18 anyway.
Just wanted to avoid any misunderstanding.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
> Well I am hopeing that this turns into a very constructive discussion on how
> we can cater to minors in our Local groups. I would be very interested in
> seeing what people have to say on the issue. I would also like to hear any
> experiances that people have had dealing with minors in organized groups.
>
> Seeing that this is a good discussion for all of the local groups I have set
> followup's to lugnet.org.us.
Well, I've been involved with a non-profit society focused on live gaming,
which has some similar issues with minors and social stigma, so I've got some
useful experience. Relevant to note that I'm in Canada, though, so legal
issues may vary.
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, David Eaton writes:
> > I'd have to agree for the most part with what's been said-- I'd like to see
> > NELUG cater to a wider audience... However, this is really where the purpose
> > of NELUG gets called into question.
> I would have to agree that I would like to cater to minors in some form.
> Hopefully this discussion will create ideas on how to do this.
It's not all that tricky, actually. Not with the 12+ range of minors,
anyway. I've got limited experience with younger groups, but the legalities
are generally similar.
> > Plus it would probably mean that if anything DID happen (accidental injuries,
> > etc., someone falls down the stairs at someone's house, whatever), I DON'T
> > want NELUG to be held responsible. Things like that get tricky when you're
> > dealing with minors.
AFAIK, you only really have two options:
1:Don't be a 'real' organization. If you don't exist on paper, you can't be
liable. Note, however, that even if the group isn't liable, the people are
still valid targets for the sue-happy.
2:If you are a real organization, you need liability insurance, which is
expensive.
> I would agree that for our current standard NELUG meetings I would not want
> children running around. I think that these meetings should remain Adult
> only.
I'd say keep the meetings open, but children must be accompanied by an adult.
That's the easiest way of keeping a lid on the rambunctious. Parents who care
will keep their kids under control, and parents who don't care won't go with,
meaning the kids can't be there either.
> Although this also brings up the question of what I consider "tweeners" those
> young adults that are say between 16 and 18 that might have their own form of
> transportation and are mature and want to attend. How do we handle that. Do
> we just say sorry can't help you? I would hope not because these are probably
> the people that most need a "support group" at the moment. They probably
> don't have many freinds into LEGO and they probably don't want to hang around
> kids 5 years younger that they are.
I would say that the best way to handle this age group would be to treat them
just like members, except that in addition to whatever form they need to fill
out, you also get parental permission for them to be a member.
> So do we have some sort of "permission slip" that clears us of any
> responsibility?
Any kind of waiver or permission slip to clear you of liability is a legal
fiction, pure and simple. Unless NELUG exists as a legal entity (i.e.
register as a NPS with your state or federal government), then NELUG can't be
sued or held liable, and memberships and waivers made out regarding NELUG are
useless. In other words, it won't stop the parents of little Bobby, who
choked on a Lego piece from suing the owner of the Lego, the company, and
everyone in earshot for negligence. It can (if it's well written) stop them
from suing NELUG, but to the law, NELUG doesn't exist, so can't be sued anyway.
> Does that mean that we would have to refrain from having alcohol at events
> (we havn't been drinking much at meetings but hypothetically we might want
> to).
Probably not. If the meetings are in a private residence, then minors or no
minors is irrelevant. If the meetings are in a public place, then alcohol
needs a liquor licence - check your local laws.
> > However, I don't think that's the sole purpose behind NELUG. Another aspect
> > of NELUG is informational. We have a mailing list (although not highly used
> > at the moment, now that the Mindfest has died down, etc) that gets sent out
> > informing our members of events in the area, etc, etc. Here, being a minor
> > doesn't present a real problem. Sending out a newsletter via email (no
> > addresses or phone numbers being given out or anything) is pretty safe, I'd
> > say. The only possible problem that it might have would be irresponsible kids
> > using the mailing list for trivial things... but that can be controlled, I'd
> > say.
>
> I would say that the mailing list could probably be open to all just like
> LUGNET is open to all. For the most part if someone wanted to know about an
> event all they would have to do would be look on LUGNET anyway.
Or another idea - make Lugnet the mailing list. Ask Todd for a
lugnet/org/us/nelug group, and everyone subscribes by mail. Saves duplication
of effort. :) It's certainly not the first mailing list to be ported over.
> Irresposible kids are a relatively easy thing to control with a mailing list.
> You just remove them from it and block their us of it. Of course there would
> have to be some sort of sliding scale because one infraction is not
> necessarily grounds for dismissal.
Using Lugnet has the added benefit of enforcing the Lugnet TOS - assuming of
course, you like them. (I do)
> > The other big purpose to NELUG is to help sponsor larger events. We haven't
> > really done anything YET that's been strictly NELUG, but it's certainly in
> > our future (I hope). Here's where it can also get tricky. If we do something
> > like take a trip down to Enfield, it's probably similar to a "regular"
> > meeting-- kids would need transportation, parental approval, and there are
> > still liability issues... However, if we get a huge confrence room for a day
> > (or something like that) and decide to sponsor a building event, I think I'd
> > like to welcome kids... it's also something that parents probably wouldn't
> > mind attending, even, if it's only for a few hours-- and that helps address
> > the other problems... and to help with liability, etc, we could have an
> > application form for parents/guardians to sign with the appropriate legal
> > information. Doing that for things like trips to Enfield/Regular meetings
> > seems like a lot more effort, though-- more trouble than it's worth.
>
> I would agree that as we grow the likely hood of a larger self-sponsored event
> becomes more and more likely. For public events I think anyone should be
> invited, hence the name public. We may require parental supervision for
> minors or those under 16 but that is easy. I would agree that anything
> requireing travel or related to regular meetings is a bit tougher.
Any group which holds its own public events pretty much has to have a legal
identity and liability insurance. Otherwise, you will find that 98% of venues
are closed to you, and the other 2% are questionable at best.
> Another idea would be that if say a parent wanted to have meetings between
> their kids and other kids we might be able to help them with getting in touch
> with each other and maybe having some sort of "NELUG Jr." that is run by the
> parents of the kids. We could then maybe even have joint NELUG Jr. and NELUG
> events where both kids and adults can share their ideas.
>
> > Hence, it's tricky. I'd LIKE to have younger audiences be able to use us in
> > the informational sense, but that even brings up problems. If a 9 year old
> > gets an email that there's a NELUG meeting, and doesn't understand that it's
> > going to be us mostly talking about lego, displaying models, etc., rather
> > than sitting down and building/playing games, etc., and s/he shows up to the
> > meeting-- well.. that's a problem.
>
> It always comes back to the out-of-control 9 year old doesn't it :-).
Yes. :)
> I think this problem can possibly be solved using some of the ideas I have
> stated above. Have clear cut Adult only meetings and invite kids to more
> public all ages meetings.
I would suggest that it's easier (and possibly better all around) to simply
have all ages meetings, but make it clear that children have to be accompanied
by an adult.
$0.02
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us, James Brown writes:
> It's not all that tricky, actually. Not with the 12+ range of minors,
> anyway. I've got limited experience with younger groups, but the legalities
> are generally similar.
Actually, I don't think it's that difficult, per se, it's just that it's more
work than it's worth. I'd rather not go through making permission slips for
parents to fill out, etc., just to have a silly old meeting... to date the
meetings have been pretty informal, and I'd like to keep them that way-- the
events on the other hand are where we can have some real potential for being an
organized group... and I don't mind as much dealing with legal issues for
things like that...
> > > Plus it would probably mean that if anything DID happen (accidental • injuries,
> > > etc., someone falls down the stairs at someone's house, whatever), I DON'T
> > > want NELUG to be held responsible. Things like that get tricky when you're
> > > dealing with minors.
>
> AFAIK, you only really have two options:
> 1:Don't be a 'real' organization. If you don't exist on paper, you can't be
> liable. Note, however, that even if the group isn't liable, the people are
> still valid targets for the sue-happy.
> 2:If you are a real organization, you need liability insurance, which is
> expensive.
Well, yeah, that's kinda what I meant... if a minor gets injured, SOMEONE'S
liable, albeit the group, the person's property (if it's something like falling
down stairs), another person who was present (like fights breaking out between
kids), etc... And that's really what I want to avoid... I like Lego, not legal
issues... I just want it to be fun...
> > I would agree that for our current standard NELUG meetings I would not want
> > children running around. I think that these meetings should remain Adult
> > only.
>
> I'd say keep the meetings open, but children must be accompanied by an adult.
> That's the easiest way of keeping a lid on the rambunctious. Parents who care
> will keep their kids under control, and parents who don't care won't go with,
> meaning the kids can't be there either.
Hmm... That would work for things like events, definitly... regular meetings
would be different-- not insofar as legal issues (that'd make it easier, in
fact) but in terms of the nature of the meetings... Parents would probably be
bored stiff, and so would the kids-- unless they had free reign to go and play,
which hasn't really been the nature of the meetings to date... But that's kinda
what I'd have in mind for an event: minors (or whatever is appropriate) must be
accompanied by an adult.
> I would say that the best way to handle this age group would be to treat them
> just like members, except that in addition to whatever form they need to fill
> out, you also get parental permission for them to be a member.
Yeah, that'd probably work, I suppose-- parental permission once instead of
repeated per event...
> > So do we have some sort of "permission slip" that clears us of any
> > responsibility?
Yeah, I think that something like that would be in order-- something to the
effect of waiving the right to sue the parties hosting the events, other group
members, etc., insofar as the action being sued upon was a direct result of the
activity at hand (I.E. we can't say you can't sue a NELUG member for actions
during the event, or else I can go around meetings punching children, and it'd
be legal-- the legal mumbo jumbo would be in order)
> > Does that mean that we would have to refrain from having alcohol at events
> > (we havn't been drinking much at meetings but hypothetically we might want
> > to).
>
> Probably not. If the meetings are in a private residence, then minors or no
> minors is irrelevant. If the meetings are in a public place, then alcohol
> needs a liquor licence - check your local laws.
Yeah, having alcohol isn't illegal, but serving it would be, and maybe allowing
them access to it... As for having a liquor licence, I think that's only for
selling alcohol? I mean there's plenty of alcohol in public places (parks,
etc.) that I'm assuming is legal... it's when you distribute it to random
people that it you need a licence... and assuming we "know" our members, I
think that it'd be legal to have it without a licence, just that we'd be
responsible for making sure it didn't go to JrFOLs...
> Any group which holds its own public events pretty much has to have a legal
> identity and liability insurance. Otherwise, you will find that 98% of venues
> are closed to you, and the other 2% are questionable at best.
Well, as you said before, since we don't legally exist, no problem! :) It's
more like an organized meeting of friends...
Anyway, some more thoughts for y'all...
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
>
> I'll start off my saying that everything was very well said, Dave.
> Although
> I am still 2 1/3 years away from being considered an AFOL, I can see
> why you wanted to set up AFOL group, partly because of circumstances
> that I have mentioned previously. That is why I also suggested that if you
> (NELUG) decide to allow some JrFOLs to become members, that you
> only accept those who show maturity and understanding about the whole
> reason behind this group, and most of those people are going to be over
> 13 years of age(I'm not saying that you can't have a muture 11yo or an
> immature 17yo, just that in most cases that is what it's going to be)
The problem is this: While it's easy to say "only mature people above a
certain age", in practice this becomes unworkable. Why? It requires looking
the kid, or worse yet, their parent/guardian in the eye and saying "you aren't
welcome here". That's a rough spot to be in. And what happens if the person's
behavior degrades? At what point do you draw the line?
My vote, if we're taking one, is to leave things as they are- 18 being the age
at which people can join. I know it sucks to be below that age and be mature
enough to handle hanging with a bunch of adults- I was there once myself- but
it just seems to be the best solution. It takes care of the really, really BIG
issue- legality- and makes a bunch of smaller ones less likely to come up.
I'm not saying that I think that NELUG shouldn't hold events for kids,
publicised in advance as such and kid-friendly, etc. But I don't think that
<18 folks should be "members", at general meetings, etc.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
> >
> > I'll start off my saying that everything was very well said, Dave.
> > Although
> > I am still 2 1/3 years away from being considered an AFOL, I can see
> > why you wanted to set up AFOL group, partly because of circumstances
> > that I have mentioned previously. That is why I also suggested that if you
> > (NELUG) decide to allow some JrFOLs to become members, that you
> > only accept those who show maturity and understanding about the whole
> > reason behind this group, and most of those people are going to be over
> > 13 years of age(I'm not saying that you can't have a muture 11yo or an
> > immature 17yo, just that in most cases that is what it's going to be)
>
> The problem is this: While it's easy to say "only mature people above a
> certain age", in practice this becomes unworkable. Why? It requires looking
> the kid, or worse yet, their parent/guardian in the eye and saying "you aren't
> welcome here". That's a rough spot to be in. And what happens if the • person's
> behavior degrades? At what point do you draw the line?
>
> My vote, if we're taking one, is to leave things as they are- 18 being the age
> at which people can join. I know it sucks to be below that age and be mature
> enough to handle hanging with a bunch of adults- I was there once myself- but
> it just seems to be the best solution. It takes care of the really, really • BIG
> issue- legality- and makes a bunch of smaller ones less likely to come up.
>
> I'm not saying that I think that NELUG shouldn't hold events for kids,
> publicised in advance as such and kid-friendly, etc. But I don't think that
> <18 folks should be "members", at general meetings, etc.
>
> eric
Eric, I don't want this to sound like arguing, because that's not what I want
it to be, but what happens if you get, say, a 18 or 19yo who acts up and isn't
on the maturity level that the group would like. How is it any different saying
to him "your maturity level is not up to our standard. Work on it and come back
in a few months and we'll see about your being a member then", then it would be
saying it to a minor or their parent. If the parent has a problem with you
saying that about their child, then as I see it, you really wouldn't want that
parent at your meetings anyway.
I'm not trying to turn your opinion to favor us JrFOLs(because like I've said,
I'm not going to be able to attend meetings, so it doesn't affect me), I just
want to see how you would solve a problem like I mentioned.
Ryan
|
|
| |
<snip>
>
> The problem is this: While it's easy to say "only mature people above a
> certain age", in practice this becomes unworkable. Why? It requires looking
> the kid, or worse yet, their parent/guardian in the eye and saying "you aren't
> welcome here". That's a rough spot to be in. And what happens if the
> person's behavior degrades? At what point do you draw the line?
>
> My vote, if we're taking one, is to leave things as they are- 18 being the age
> at which people can join. I know it sucks to be below that age and be mature
> enough to handle hanging with a bunch of adults- I was there once myself- but
> it just seems to be the best solution. It takes care of the really, really
> BIG issue- legality- and makes a bunch of smaller ones less likely to come up.
>
> I'm not saying that I think that NELUG shouldn't hold events for kids,
> publicised in advance as such and kid-friendly, etc. But I don't think that
> <18 folks should be "members", at general meetings, etc.
Eric J,
I agree with everything you have said here. I really want to keep this from
having to be a "judgement call" of any kind. I also agree that to have <18
folks at the types of meetings we have had so far is probably not in the best
interest of everyone. For one I think most <18 year olds would be board stiff
and secondly the real purpose the meetings started were so adults could get
together and talk LEGO.
I do believe however that if we participate in public events like Mindfest in
the future or even sponsor our own events then it might be nice to let <18
participate. I also think that it might be OK to let <18 get on our mailing
list with their parents permission and their understanding that there are rules
for using the mailing list that they have to follow.
The real issue for me in all this, that has been brought up before, is what
about those <18 year olds that are not quite adults but they don't really have
friends that build/play/create with LEGO anymore. This is similar to Ryan's
situation. I would really like to support these "young adults" in some way so
that they don't have to have a 13 year dark age like I did. My problem is I
don't know how to handle this other than to include them on the mailing list
and invite them to our "public" events. Maybe we can do something like have a
cookout once a year that we can invite JrFOLs and their parents to.
I think the more we can try to do to help young adults like Ryan keep their
interest in LEGO until they are 18 the better. Then once they turn 18 they can
become full fledged members and valuable contributors to our meetings as
AFOL's.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
<snip>
All these Eric's is making this confusing :-).
>
> Eric, I don't want this to sound like arguing, because that's not what I want
> it to be, but what happens if you get, say, a 18 or 19yo who acts up and isn't
> on the maturity level that the group would like. How is it any different
> saying to him "your maturity level is not up to our standard. Work on it and
> come back in a few months and we'll see about your being a member then", then
> it would be saying it to a minor or their parent. If the parent has a problem
> with you saying that about their child, then as I see it, you really wouldn't
> want that parent at your meetings anyway.
>
> I'm not trying to turn your opinion to favor us JrFOLs(because like I've said,
> I'm not going to be able to attend meetings, so it doesn't affect me), I just
> want to see how you would solve a problem like I mentioned.
>
> Ryan
Ryan,
Once again you bring up some good points. To answer your question I guess I
don't know how we would handle that type of situation mostly because it has not
even been close to an issue yet.
I guess if it were bad enough we would have to have a talk with the person to
see if we could resolve the problem. If that did not fix the problem I would
hate to think what our next step would have to be. I guess it could come down
to that person would no longer be welcome at meetings but I would hate to think
it would ever come to that. Everyone that I have met so far at our meetings
have been fun, easy going, and great conversationalists so it is hard for me to
imagine a situation getting that out of hand but, I guess there is always that
chance.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
> Eric, I don't want this to sound like arguing, because that's not what I want
> it to be, but what happens if you get, say, a 18 or 19yo who acts up and isn't
> on the maturity level that the group would like. How is it any different • saying
> to him "your maturity level is not up to our standard. Work on it and come • back
> in a few months and we'll see about your being a member then", then it would • be
> saying it to a minor or their parent.
So, let me see if I'm following you here: Because there's a slight chance it
might happen if we keep things 18+, we should open ourselves up a situation in
which it's more likely to happen? Sorry, that doesn't follow. It's a bit like
saying "you might get into a car accident just because you're driving your car,
so you might as well drive on the wrong side of the road, too."
Obviously, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it follows the same "logic".
> If the parent has a problem with you
> saying that about their child, then as I see it, you really wouldn't want that
> parent at your meetings anyway.
No parent who thinks their child is mature enough to be in the group, but gets
asked nicely not to bbring them anymore, is going to be happy to hear it.
> I'm not trying to turn your opinion to favor us JrFOLs
I want to make one thing clear: I have no problem with JrFOLs. LEGO is a toy,
after all, so of course there are people of all ages who like it. I encourage
people to buy LEGO for their kids. I have no problem with NELUG running events
geared towards folks of younger ages, like the cookouts mentioned before, or
play days, or anything like that. But part of the reason I enjoy NELUG thus
far is that the atmosphere is, well, mature. And while you certainly seem to
be plenty mature, the next person your age might not be, and suddenly NELUG is
making judgement calls when we allow you and not someone else.
> (because like I've said,
> I'm not going to be able to attend meetings, so it doesn't affect me), I just
> want to see how you would solve a problem like I mentioned.
How would I solve it? Well, frankly, I think it would solve itself. My sense
of a lot of social matters is that they self-correct. Who would keep going to
a place they were obviously not fitting in? If it became terribly disruptive,
to the point where it was being commented on by NELUGgers to one another
constantly, then I would suggest we all sit down and speak to the person.
But, as I said, just because it *might* happen as things stand doesn't mean we
should open ourselves up to the more likely possibility of it happening with
younger folks. And that's just one of *many* issues invloved with allowing
folks <18.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
> I do believe however that if we participate in public events like Mindfest in
> the future or even sponsor our own events then it might be nice to let <18
> participate.
How do you mean? Do you mean participate as in attend the event and see our
models, talk to and meet us, and so on, or do you mean participate as in bring
models of their own and be there as a part of NELUG? The former isn't a
problem, at that point we're just publicising the event, which is good for
everyone. The latter brings us back to all those legal issues we were dealing
with before. Imagine this situation: Someone <18 hears NELUG will be at an
event, and he is allowed to participate. He brings a model to display, chats
with event attendees, etc. Now he is off looking at something else, and
there's an accident. A monitor falls down and breaks. Owner wants money. Kid
was part of NELUG.
I realise it's more than a bit of a grey area, but since I don't think anyone
would find straightening out legal stuff like this to be fun, it's probably
better to just avoid them completely.
> I also think that it might be OK to let <18 get on our mailing
> list with their parents permission and their understanding that there are • rules
> for using the mailing list that they have to follow.
Well, this clearly isn't a problem. I wouldn't think. We make sure part of
the user agreement is that people don't use "strong" language or inappropriate
behaviour, and we're all set. Of course, at that point they might as well be
reading LUGNET. Especially since so far, everything that would be of use to
someone who wants information but can't attend meetings or be an active
NELUGger has been posted here.
Maybe a second mailing list? I mean, part of the problem is that so far the
mailing list's niche has been for discussing stuff that we *only* want members
to see, like stuff about deciding whether we should go to Mindfest, and other
things that we, um, haven't done and would probably be inappropriate to bring
up here.
> The real issue for me in all this, that has been brought up before, is what
> about those <18 year olds that are not quite adults but they don't really have
> friends that build/play/create with LEGO anymore. This is similar to Ryan's
> situation. I would really like to support these "young adults" in some way so
> that they don't have to have a 13 year dark age like I did. My problem is I
> don't know how to handle this other than to include them on the mailing list
> and invite them to our "public" events. Maybe we can do something like have a
> cookout once a year that we can invite JrFOLs and their parents to.
We can certainly support Ryan and whomever else out there might want to start
an organisation for LEGO fans that are <18. We can also have events that they
can attend.
> I think the more we can try to do to help young adults like Ryan keep their
> interest in LEGO until they are 18 the better. Then once they turn 18 they • can
> become full fledged members and valuable contributors to our meetings as
> AFOL's.
You're absolutely right. I do beleive in supporting LEGO as a hobby for people
of all ages (literally), I just don't think that NELUG would be as much fun if
we had the extra headaches that would inevitably come with <18 members.
eric
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
>
> > I do believe however that if we participate in public events like Mindfest in
> > the future or even sponsor our own events then it might be nice to let <18
> > participate.
>
> How do you mean? Do you mean participate as in attend the event and see our
> models, talk to and meet us, and so on, or do you mean participate as in bring
> models of their own and be there as a part of NELUG? The former isn't a
> problem, at that point we're just publicising the event, which is good for
> everyone. The latter brings us back to all those legal issues we were dealing
> with before. Imagine this situation: Someone <18 hears NELUG will be at an
> event, and he is allowed to participate. He brings a model to display, chats
> with event attendees, etc. Now he is off looking at something else, and
> there's an accident. A monitor falls down and breaks. Owner wants money.
> Kid was part of NELUG.
>
> I realise it's more than a bit of a grey area, but since I don't think anyone
> would find straightening out legal stuff like this to be fun, it's probably
> better to just avoid them completely.
Again I think you are right. As far as events like Mindfest etc. I would
think it would be more of a "come see our exhibit" type thing then a "be part
of NELUG and display your creations". First of all if it were something like
Mindfest where space was limited we would not want a gazillion models just
because we pretty much didn't have enough room with what we had and we had one
of the biggest set up there. Besides with Mindfest just about anyone that
attended could have reserved a table and I guess that is what I would suggest
non-NELUGer's should do.
And by "avoid them completely" I assume you mean the issues rather than the
people. Again that is definitly one way to go and probably the best way to go
for meetings etc. and dealing with all the legal issues is not why I got in
this in the first place.
>
> > I also think that it might be OK to let <18 get on our mailing
> > list with their parents permission and their understanding that there are
> > rules for using the mailing list that they have to follow.
>
> Well, this clearly isn't a problem. I wouldn't think. We make sure part of
> the user agreement is that people don't use "strong" language or inappropriate
> behaviour, and we're all set. Of course, at that point they might as well be
> reading LUGNET. Especially since so far, everything that would be of use to
> someone who wants information but can't attend meetings or be an active
> NELUGger has been posted here.
>
> Maybe a second mailing list? I mean, part of the problem is that so far the
> mailing list's niche has been for discussing stuff that we *only* want members
> to see, like stuff about deciding whether we should go to Mindfest, and other
> things that we, um, haven't done and would probably be inappropriate to bring
> up here.
I like your idea of a second list. If someone like Ryan or another JrFOL were
interested in having meetings of their own we could definitly look into setting
them up with a mailing list like ours that is used to distribute information
that should not be posted publicly like addresses, phone #'s, directions to
ones house etc.
Just so you all know the mailing list is not some sort of "secret society" type
of information exchange where we hide things from the general community. It
really is not that exciting for the most part we only use it in the last stages
of setting up a meeting and Addresses, Phone #'s, and Directions have to be
given to the group. There have been rare occasions when we have used the list
for NELUG only decisions but really those discussions weren't all that exciting
either.
In general if you read the local LUGNET groups and follow discussions there
then you pretty much see everything that is happening and being discussed.
> > The real issue for me in all this, that has been brought up before, is what
> > about those <18 year olds that are not quite adults but they don't really
> > have friends that build/play/create with LEGO anymore. This is similar to
> > Ryan's situation. I would really like to support these "young adults" in
> > some way so that they don't have to have a 13 year dark age like I did. My
> > problem is I don't know how to handle this other than to include them on the
> > mailing list and invite them to our "public" events. Maybe we can do
> > something like have a cookout once a year that we can invite JrFOLs and their
> > parents to.
>
> We can certainly support Ryan and whomever else out there might want to start
> an organisation for LEGO fans that are <18. We can also have events that they
> can attend.
>
> > I think the more we can try to do to help young adults like Ryan keep their
> > interest in LEGO until they are 18 the better. Then once they turn 18 they
> > can become full fledged members and valuable contributors to our meetings as
> > AFOL's.
>
> You're absolutely right. I do beleive in supporting LEGO as a hobby for
> people of all ages (literally), I just don't think that NELUG would be as much
> fun if we had the extra headaches that would inevitably come with <18 members.
Well I would like to keep this discussion open for a while. I think we have
come up with a couple of good comprimises. I also don't want Ryan or any other
JrFOL to feel like we want nothing to do with you. That is the farthest thing
from the truth it is just that legal issues can be overwhelming when it comes
to minors which you may or may not understand. I think we can work towards
some inclusion but just not complete inclusion. I guess that may sound a bit
harsh but there are times when adults want to be able to be with adults and not
have to worry about every word they say or every action they take.
So at this point I would really like to look at this discussion as a comprimise
to see what we as Adults can do for the JrFOL community without exposing
ourselves to undo legal risk.
From what I have heard so far these are the types of things where JrFOLs can
participate.
1. Mailing list (either as part of our own or as a separate list)
2. Invite JrFOLs to public events.
3. Possibly have an annual cookout or other event where JrFOLs are welcome to
come with their parents.
4. Support Ryan and other like him who are not kids anymore but arn't quite
adults either in their LEGO endevors. (This needs more discussion for sure)
Again please chime in whether you are an AFOL or an interested JrFOL. Either
way your input is quite valuable in this somewhat sensitive subject.
Eric
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
> And by "avoid them completely" I assume you mean the issues rather than the
> people.
D'oh! yeah, the issues, not the people.
> I like your idea of a second list. If someone like Ryan or another JrFOL were
> interested in having meetings of their own we could definitly look into • setting
> them up with a mailing list like ours that is used to distribute information
> that should not be posted publicly like addresses, phone #'s, directions to
> ones house etc.
Sounds like a plan, as long as we're careful to point out that NELUG endorseth
not said event, and claimeth no responsibilty, etc etc etc.
> Just so you all know the mailing list is not some sort of "secret society" • type
> of information exchange where we hide things from the general community.
Good cover! We wouldn't want them knowing about the ritual Timmy sacrifices,
or the NELUG Technic Tanks we're going to use to take over the worl... Uh, I
mean, yeah, not a secret society. No secret information. Nope. Not here. Or
there.
> Well I would like to keep this discussion open for a while.
Of course. I don't mean to present my opinion as NELUG's official one, it's
just the opinion of one member.
eric
|
|
| |
On 11/17/1999, at 10:51 AM, Lorbaat wrote:
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
>
> > Eric, I don't want this to sound like arguing, because that's not what I • want
> > it to be, but what happens if you get, say, a 18 or 19yo who acts up and • isn't
> > on the maturity level that the group would like. How is it any different • saying
> > to him "your maturity level is not up to our standard. Work on it and • come
> back
> > in a few months and we'll see about your being a member then", then it • would
> be
> > saying it to a minor or their parent.
>
> So, let me see if I'm following you here: Because there's a slight • chance it
> might happen if we keep things 18+, we should open ourselves up a • situation in
> which it's more likely to happen? Sorry, that doesn't follow. It's a • bit like
> saying "you might get into a car accident just because you're driving • your car,
> so you might as well drive on the wrong side of the road, too."
>
> Obviously, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it follows the same
"logic".
No, that's not what I asked. I asked you how saying that(what I gave
as an example) would be any different whether it was directed at a
somewhat mature 14yo or a somewhat mature 19yo. I didn't say that
you should allow JrFOLs to be allowed to join even though you might
have to turn away a fair number who want to join. I fully realize that
you would have to turn away a greater % of JrFOLs than you would
AFOLs. Please don't jump to a conclusion that I'm badgering you to
allow JrFOLs into your meetings, because I'm not going to really
take sides on this issue, but I will provide more info on the JrFOL
side, since I am one.
> > If the parent has a problem with you
> > saying that about their child, then as I see it, you really wouldn't • want that
> > parent at your meetings anyway.
>
> No parent who thinks their child is mature enough to be in the group, but • gets
> asked nicely not to bring them anymore, is going to be happy to hear it.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear on that. I meant something more along
the lines of:
NELUG: "I'm sorry Mr. Doe but although we would like to have your
son be part of our group, we don't feel that his maturity is up
to par with what we feel is needed in this group."
MR. DOE: "Well, if that's the way you feel about my son, then fine, you
don't have to worry about his being here ruining your group."
(Grabs son by shoulder, walks out the door, slams it behind him)
That was more of what I was thinking, when I wrote that, and I didn't
mean to imply that a parent would be happy that his child wasn't
accepted. Naturally, any parent would want their child to be accepted,
but I was thinking more along the lines of a parent who held the group
in contempt if their child was not accepted.
> > I'm not trying to turn your opinion to favor us JrFOLs
>
> I want to make one thing clear: I have no problem with JrFOLs. LEGO is • a toy,
> after all, so of course there are people of all ages who like it. I • encourage
> people to buy LEGO for their kids. I have no problem with NELUG running • events
> geared towards folks of younger ages, like the cookouts mentioned before, • or
> play days, or anything like that. But part of the reason I enjoy NELUG • thus
> far is that the atmosphere is, well, mature. And while you certainly • seem to
> be plenty mature, the next person your age might not be, and suddenly • NELUG is
> making judgement calls when we allow you and not someone else.
Again, I'm sorry if I mis-implied. I meant your feelings on the issue,
not your overall feelings toward us. I fully understand why you want
the meetings to be kept the way they are. If I were a part of the group
I wouldn't want people to act in immature ways either, ie. complaining,
whining, unconstructive criticism, etc. I know full well that there are
plenty of people that are either above or below the maturity lever for
their age, so I don't mean to say that, say all 15yos, are as mature as
an average 18yo. It all depends on their upbringing, social life, and all
those other things that effect people.
I guess the biggest thing that I ask of you and the rest of the NELUGgers
is that if you are involved in another event like the mindfest, or host
your
own event, don't make me sit by and watch you guys set up or other
things to that effect, let me help. Granted, I may not be able to do
things
as well as you, or any of the others, but I know for a fact that I sure
ain't
gonna hinda ya any. And if you were able to get admittance to the
Lego facility in Enfield, let me be a part, because I probably wouldn't
get another chance.
This may not be what another JrFOL would want, but if what they want
is to attend the meetings, I'd say "sorry, but the meetings are still only
for the AFOLs".
> > (because like I've said,
> > I'm not going to be able to attend meetings, so it doesn't affect me), I • just
> > want to see how you would solve a problem like I mentioned.
>
> How would I solve it? Well, frankly, I think it would solve itself. My • sense
> of a lot of social matters is that they self-correct. Who would keep • going to
> a place they were obviously not fitting in? If it became terribly • disruptive,
> to the point where it was being commented on by NELUGgers to one another
> constantly, then I would suggest we all sit down and speak to the person.
>
> But, as I said, just because it *might* happen as things stand doesn't • mean we
> should open ourselves up to the more likely possibility of it happening • with
> younger folks. And that's just one of *many* issues invloved with • allowing
> folks <18.
>
> eric
Hey, absolutly, if you know there are going to be problems, by all means
you are to avoid them before they start.
Since I had already started this before the new messages on this topic
came in, I'll just add some more on here.
First off, I'm in High School(duh) so I don't know all the legalities
involved,
but what I've gathered from various other messages is that if NELUG
doesn't register with the state as an official organization, then, NELUG,
which is really just a group, not an organization, is not responsible for
the actions of any of it's "members", so there really shouldn't be any
problem with that, and please if I'm mistaken on this correct me.
Personally, I'd consider myself responsible for any of my actions, not
a group of people that I'm there with or helping. Although I know there
are people who would say, "but he's here with that group, they're
responsible for his actions, not me", it sickens me because if they're
your child, you are totally responsible for their actions.
And although it might be nice to have a group if teen JrFOLs form a
group, I'd never be able to start it myself 'cause I'm not good at that
type of thing.
In closing I thanks you all for listening and I hope you understand what
I was trying to get at, and I hope you are still around in 2 1/3 years.
Ryan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > with before. Imagine this situation: Someone <18 hears NELUG will be at an
> > event, and he is allowed to participate. He brings a model to display, chats
> > with event attendees, etc. Now he is off looking at something else, and
> > there's an accident. A monitor falls down and breaks. Owner wants money.
> > Kid was part of NELUG.
> >
> > I realise it's more than a bit of a grey area, but since I don't think anyone
> > would find straightening out legal stuff like this to be fun, it's probably
> > better to just avoid them completely.
Well, again, check your local laws, but I'm darn near postive that they won't
be any different on the major point - which is to say if NELUG doesn't legally
exist, NELUG can't be legally liable. The individuals involved can be legally
liable, but that is solved very simply by requiring anyone <18 is accompanied
by an adult. (parent/guardian) Liability in such cases is generally fairly
clear cut.
> > > The real issue for me in all this, that has been brought up before, is what
> > > about those <18 year olds that are not quite adults but they don't really
> > > have friends that build/play/create with LEGO anymore. This is similar to
> > > Ryan's situation. I would really like to support these "young adults" in
> > > some way so that they don't have to have a 13 year dark age like I did. My
> > > problem is I don't know how to handle this other than to include them on the
> > > mailing list and invite them to our "public" events. Maybe we can do
> > > something like have a cookout once a year that we can invite JrFOLs and
> > > their parents to.
Well, I still think that a simple solution is to let them attend your
meetings, accompanied by an adult. If they've got the maturity level to
behave, odds are they're going to be interested in talking about the same
stuff you are. If they aren't, they're going to be bored stiff, and stop
coming. The problem will resolve itself fairly quickly. And so long as
you've got the 'accompanied by an adult' thing, your liability issues are no
different that they are with any other member. (which is to say, you're just
as liable if Eric falls down your stairs as you are if Ryan falls down your
stairs).
Of course, it's not my club, so you can just ignore me. :)
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
Eric Kingsley wrote:
> Just a point of clarification. By the term "tweener" I mean inbetween and it
> does not refer to someone that is a teenager. And by inbetween I mean
> Young-Adult in this case or someone who is more mature than a kid and can
> handle responsibility but that is not of Legal age (18) to be considered
> "Legally responsible" for their actions.
<soapbox>
I'm going to jump on the use of "Young Adult" here since I am battling
the use of the term "Young Adult" in church circles.
The term "Young Adult" is used by sociology to refer to people aged
18-35. Since there are areas where it is usefull to be able to refer to
this general age range, I strongly advise against using it for people
under 18 for whom there are already terms (teenager, high school age,
etc).
</soapbox>
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
| |
Dear NELUGers,
I've been reading this thread, and I would like to know this:
Like Ryan, I'm 2 and a half years below the 18 line. I've had a short dark
age, but luckily came to my senses quickly. I must comment that in Israel,
where I used to live, many of my friends had seen my interest in Lego
as "child's play" and as a result I minimized talking about and displaying my
LEGO.
I've just moved to Newton, and my list of friends is pretty empty right
now. Attending to NELUG meetings or something of the sort would definetly
raise my lego motivation (although it is raising as it is). I, for one,
wouldn't be bored talking about lego, seeing displays or anything of the sort.
Concerning liability, I'm allergic to grapes - so don't worry about drinking -
and my dad releases you from liability of any kind (You can talk to him if you
want). I'd love to come to any meetings in the Boston area, if you would agree.
I understand you're worried about legal stuff, but I think we can easily
work this out.
Please let me know if you agree/disagree/aren't sure/want to try this/don't
want to try this.
TIA, Shiri
|
|
| |
Shiri,
First let me say welcome to the Boston area.
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Shiri Dori writes:
> Dear NELUGers,
> I've been reading this thread, and I would like to know this:
> Like Ryan, I'm 2 and a half years below the 18 line. I've had a short dark
> age, but luckily came to my senses quickly. I must comment that in Israel,
> where I used to live, many of my friends had seen my interest in Lego
> as "child's play" and as a result I minimized talking about and displaying my
> LEGO.
This is just the type of thing I hope we can help you avoid. Now while it is
true most/many teenagers eventually lose their interest in LEGO and as a result
people like you and Ryan are pressured into think LEGO is only for kids.
Peer pressure can be a very difficult thing to deal with and believe me we have
all experianced it. It is just an unfortunate fact of life and we can either
bow to the pressure or work around it. I unfortunately bowed to the pressure
when it came to LEGO. I applaud those like you and Ryan that don't bow to the
pressure.
> I've just moved to Newton, and my list of friends is pretty empty right
> now. Attending to NELUG meetings or something of the sort would definetly
> raise my lego motivation (although it is raising as it is). I, for one,
> wouldn't be bored talking about lego, seeing displays or anything of the sort.
> Concerning liability, I'm allergic to grapes - so don't worry about drinking -
> and my dad releases you from liability of any kind (You can talk to him if you
> want). I'd love to come to any meetings in the Boston area, if you would • agree.
> I understand you're worried about legal stuff, but I think we can easily
> work this out.
> Please let me know if you agree/disagree/aren't sure/want to try this/don't
> want to try this.
Like some of us has said before unfortunately I think we have to take either an
all or none stance as far as the meetings go.
I just want to reiterate some things.
1. NELUG was formed with the prime purpose of getting AFOLs together.
Now while I am sure that many of the older teenagers would be mature enough to
participate in these meetings I think that the presance of younger fans may
turn away some AFOLs. I know that is not a nice thing to say but it is an
unfortunate reality.
I do want to do something to help you out but if we become all inclusive as far
as minors go then we are going against the initial charter for the group and
that would upset alot of the current members.
2. I am not here to alienate anyone.
Please do not take any of this personally. I love hearing what you have to say
and discussing LEGO with you on LUGNET and seeing your models when you post
them. Its just that NELUG was formed with an inital purpose. That does not
mean we can't grow or change it just means we can't turn things upside down all
of a sudden. Remember we are only 4 months old and while we have enjoyed a lot
of initial success I don't think we want to rush into changing our charter
after only 4 months.
3. I want to include you in some way.
Whether that is at some sort of annual event, at public events like Mindfest,
or helping you start your own group for folks <18 or all of the above I don't
know.
If you have interest in getting your own under 18 group started I can probably
help you. I can look into setting up a mailing list. Other than that you have
the perfect tool for doing this right here. I would suggest using LUGNET for
all its worth. Get a discussion going to see how many people you can get
interested in such a group. You can use LUGNET for setting up meeting and
forming the group. The mailing list would just serve the same purpose as the
NELUG mailing list for exchanging Directions, addresses, phone #'s etc.
I would also be happy to monitor this mailing list to make sure that it is used
properly. If you would like to be included on the NELUG web site we would have
to discuss it. Otherwise there are plenty of free resources for hosting web
pages if you want to run your own site. We could then have occasional joint
events where we all get together.
All this being said I really am starting to feel like the big mean AFOL here.
I would really appretiate people letting me know whether I am being
unreasonable or if I am handling this well or not. I really am not a mean
person believe me. Lets continue this conversation but why don't we develop an
understanding that general NELUG meetings are for AFOLs and other events are up
for discussion. This is not to be mean this is just so that NELUG can stay
true to its charter.
For more information on NELUG's origional charter please refer to the FAQ page
on our web page.
http://www.nelug.org/FAQ/
Eric Kingsley
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
>
> TIA, Shiri
|
|
| |
"Eric Kingsley" <kingsley@nelug.org> writes:
> I just want to reiterate some things.
>
> 1. NELUG was formed with the prime purpose of getting AFOLs together.
>
> Now while I am sure that many of the older teenagers would be mature
> enough to participate in these meetings I think that the presance of
> younger fans may turn away some AFOLs. I know that is not a nice
> thing to say but it is an unfortunate reality.
> 2. I am not here to alienate anyone.
>
> Please do not take any of this personally. I love hearing what you
> have to say
> and discussing LEGO with you on LUGNET and seeing your models when you
> post
> them. Its just that NELUG was formed with an inital purpose. That
> does not
> mean we can't grow or change it just means we can't turn things upside
> down all
> of a sudden. Remember we are only 4 months old and while we have
> enjoyed a lot
> of initial success I don't think we want to rush into changing our
> charter
> after only 4 months.
>
> 3. I want to include you in some way.
>
> Whether that is at some sort of annual event, at public events like
> Mindfest,
> or helping you start your own group for folks <18 or all of the above
> I don't
> know.
>
> If you have interest in getting your own under 18 group started I can
> probably
> help you. I can look into setting up a mailing list. Other than that
> you have
> the perfect tool for doing this right here. I would suggest using
> LUGNET for
> all its worth. Get a discussion going to see how many people you can
> get
> interested in such a group. You can use LUGNET for setting up meeting
> and
> forming the group. The mailing list would just serve the same purpose
> as the
> NELUG mailing list for exchanging Directions, addresses, phone #'s
> etc.
>
> I would also be happy to monitor this mailing list to make sure that
> it is used
> properly. If you would like to be included on the NELUG web site we
> would have
> to discuss it. Otherwise there are plenty of free resources for
> hosting web
> pages if you want to run your own site. We could then have occasional
> joint
> events where we all get together.
>
>
>
> All this being said I really am starting to feel like the big mean
> AFOL here.
> I would really appretiate people letting me know whether I am being
> unreasonable or if I am handling this well or not. I really am not a
> mean
> person believe me. Lets continue this conversation but why don't we
> develop an
> understanding that general NELUG meetings are for AFOLs and other
> events are up
> for discussion. This is not to be mean this is just so that NELUG can
> stay
> true to its charter.
>
> For more information on NELUG's origional charter please refer to the
> FAQ page
> on our web page.
>
> http://www.nelug.org/FAQ/
>
>
> Eric Kingsley
>
> The New England LEGO Users Group
> http://www.nelug.org/
>
>
> >
> > TIA, Shiri
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
> [...]. You must also remember that just because someone
> is 16, [doesn't necessarily mean] that they have their own
> transportation [...]
You can say that again. I was 20 years old before I even *wanted*
a driver's license!
- Robert Munafo www.mrob.com
|
|
| |
Robert Munafo wrote:
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, Ryan Dennett writes:
> > [...]. You must also remember that just because someone
> > is 16, [doesn't necessarily mean] that they have their own
> > transportation [...]
> You can say that again. I was 20 years old before I even *wanted*
> a driver's license!
I was 21 before I could even *test* for a driver's license.
Cheers,
- jsproat
--
Jeremy H. Sproat <jsproat@io.com> ~~~ http://www.io.com/~jsproat/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us, James Brown writes:
> In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > I think this problem can possibly be solved using some of the ideas I have
> > stated above. Have clear cut Adult only meetings and invite kids to more
> > public all ages meetings.
>
> I would suggest that it's easier (and possibly better all around) to simply
> have all ages meetings, but make it clear that children have to be accompanied
> by an adult.
At what age would you say children *don't* have to be accompanied by an adult?
Sixteen? Do you know of a legal basis for that kind of decision? Of course,
we wouldn't want any child to come without permission.
Jeff
P.S. I'm wondering because this came up in some of WAMALUG's recent
discusions, too.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.org.us, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > I think this problem can possibly be solved using some of the ideas I have
> > > stated above. Have clear cut Adult only meetings and invite kids to more
> > > public all ages meetings.
> >
> > I would suggest that it's easier (and possibly better all around) to simply
> > have all ages meetings, but make it clear that children have to be
> > accompanied by an adult.
>
> At what age would you say children *don't* have to be accompanied by an adult?
> Sixteen? Do you know of a legal basis for that kind of decision? Of course,
> we wouldn't want any child to come without permission.
Check your local laws, but I'm fairly certain that the age of majority is 18
darn near everywhere. Most places, able to vote=legally responsible for self.
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us, Jeff Stembel writes:
> In lugnet.org.us, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.loc.us.me, Eric Kingsley writes:
> > > I think this problem can possibly be solved using some of the ideas I have
> > > stated above. Have clear cut Adult only meetings and invite kids to more
> > > public all ages meetings.
> >
> > I would suggest that it's easier (and possibly better all around) to simply
> > have all ages meetings, but make it clear that children have to be • accompanied
> > by an adult.
>
> At what age would you say children *don't* have to be accompanied by an adult?
> Sixteen? Do you know of a legal basis for that kind of decision? Of course,
> we wouldn't want any child to come without permission.
After having participated in this thread for a few days now I have developed a
bit of perspective on the issue if not on the legalities involved.
If you are going to have a cutoff (which currently NELUG does see
http://www.nelug.org/FAQ/ ) I would suggest that 18 is the the easiest choice.
That is only because it is the age when you legally become an adult and if you
want adult only meetings that make for a clean boundry. If you were to move to
16 I think that now your in more murky waters and only pushes issues like the
ones seen in this thread to 13-15 year olds.
I definitly think you should try and make a decision for your group soon and
make an announcement as to what your decision is and post that on your web
site. Then you need to stick by your decision and have a no exceptions policy.
This will prove difficult at times but if you hold to your decision then
people should not critisize you for them.
I don't pretend to know the basis for starting WAMALUG but for NELUG one of the
prime reasons we formed was to have meetings between adults about LEGO.
Therefore I think we have to stick by that decision. That does not mean we
can't expand our focus at a later date where we have special meetings or get
togethers where <18's are welcome but for now I think the majority of us want
to keep the meetings over 18 for liability reasons as well as others.
For me the lower maintenance that NELUG is the better. This is supposed to be
fun and for me sifting through legal liability issues and getting parental
consent and possibly playing babysitter is not fun. The less we have to worry
about what is going on the better IMHO.
I know these views are not popular with everyone especially the older teenagers
out there but my feelings are that once you make one exception then you have
more than likely openned a can of worms that you would rather you hadn't.
Just try and be pleasent about it and all should be fine although it does ware
you out at times like dealing nicely in this thread and trying not to hurt
peoples feelings.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group.
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
"Jeff Stembel" <Dragonelf1@aol.com> writes:
> At what age would you say children *don't* have to be accompanied by
> an adult? Sixteen? Do you know of a legal basis for that kind of
> decision? Of course, we wouldn't want any child to come without
> permission.
I know my mom would not want to accompany me to any LUG meeting, but she
wouldn't have a problem if I went by myself (I'm 17)...
> P.S. I'm wondering because this came up in some of WAMALUG's recent
> discusions, too.
I wonder if we should bring up the issue for GMLUG too... My name is on
the members page, but I'm not technically an adult (although the only
person I know the same age as myself who still builds with LEGO is Tim
Courtney).
Does any one who plans on going to the Cleveland get-together have a
problem with my being <18 (by about 3 months)? If not, is there anyone
who wants to give me a ride from Cleveland Heights to wherever the
meeting is?
--Bram
Bram Lambrecht / o o \ BramL@juno.com
-------------------oooo-----(_)-----oooo-------------------
WWW: http://www.chuh.org/Students/Bram-Lambrecht/
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
|
| |
In lugnet.org.us, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> "Jeff Stembel" <Dragonelf1@aol.com> writes:
> > At what age would you say children *don't* have to be accompanied by
> > an adult? Sixteen? Do you know of a legal basis for that kind of
> > decision? Of course, we wouldn't want any child to come without
> > permission.
>
> I know my mom would not want to accompany me to any LUG meeting, but she
> wouldn't have a problem if I went by myself (I'm 17)...
>
> > P.S. I'm wondering because this came up in some of WAMALUG's recent
> > discusions, too.
>
> I wonder if we should bring up the issue for GMLUG too... My name is on
> the members page, but I'm not technically an adult (although the only
> person I know the same age as myself who still builds with LEGO is Tim
> Courtney).
>
> Does any one who plans on going to the Cleveland get-together have a
> problem with my being <18 (by about 3 months)? If not, is there anyone
> who wants to give me a ride from Cleveland Heights to wherever the
> meeting is?
> --Bram
The only thing I guess I would add hear is probably an obvious point. I think
that this issue is one for each of the groups to solve on their own. I am sure
that some groups will handle things different than NELUG and that is great.
That way we call all learn from each other.
Eric K.
The New England LEGO Users Group
http://www.nelug.org/
|
|
| |
> Does any one who plans on going to the Cleveland get-together have a
> problem with my being <18 (by about 3 months)? If not, is there anyone
> who wants to give me a ride from Cleveland Heights to wherever the
> meeting is?
> --Bram
I don't have a problem with it. And since the meeting will be at my house,
I guess that is all that really matters. :)
And I'm sure that we will figure out some way to get you here.
Troy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.loc.us.oh, Eric Kingsley writes:
> In lugnet.org.us, Bram Lambrecht writes:
> > I know my mom would not want to accompany me to any LUG meeting, but she
> > wouldn't have a problem if I went by myself (I'm 17)...
> > [...]
> > Does any one who plans on going to the Cleveland get-together have a
> > problem with my being <18 (by about 3 months)? If not, is there anyone
> > who wants to give me a ride from Cleveland Heights to wherever the
> > meeting is?
>
> The only thing I guess I would add [here] is probably an obvious point. I
> think that this issue is one for each of the groups to solve on their own.
> I am sure that some groups will handle things different than NELUG and that
> is great. That way we call all learn from each other.
It sure would be unfortunate, IMHO, if any group ever didn't let Bram come
to their meetings because of his age. I met Bram at MindFest last month,
and if I hadn't known his age ahead of time, I'd have probably assumed he
was 19 or 20. I'm sure the same could probably be said for TimC and several
others in the 16-17 age range who get along perfectly fine with adults.
--Todd
|
|
|
