 | | | | | |
In lugnet.people, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Well, all right.
I don’t really care about flame-wars because they’re self-evidently juvenile
and they tend to involve the same flamers over and over again. I myself have
lamented what I will refer to as Rhinoceros Dominance (search for “middens”
if you want to see what I’m talking about), but my recollection is that most
of the protracted shouting matches went on in the “hidden” forums rather than
playing out on the front page. Also, though LUGNET was smaller back then,
the signal:noise ratio was much higher, so a spat between to mechophiles
could go unnoticed in a flood of other, more productive posts. Often LUGNET
goes a half an hour or more without a new message being posted, so when
someone posts a “you’re a stinker” diatribe, it tends to linger.
Additionally, those halcyon days didn’t support FTX, so it was less likely
that someone would hotlink a an image broadcasting his colorful grasp of
anatomy.
I’m not blindly nostalgic. I recall the early days, warts and all. But, in
terms of proportion, LUGNET has become wartier and wartier as time has gone
on, and I’m not sure that it’s a welcome trend.
|
Why is it always implied that newer members are largely to blame for LUGNET’s
decline? It seems to me that more often than not, newer members are even more
uncomfortable here than you vetrans. LUGNET more than any other LEGO fan site,
seems to be driven by elitism. Not unlike a fanclub, senior members oftem place
themselves above and beyond the newbies. In turn, membership has dropped
significantly in the past few years. Look how few members LUGNET has lured into
the fold over the past four months.
From my limited experience here, I find that this place is simply too
inhosbitable to all but the most fanatical of fans. This thread is a shining
example of the elitism and hostility that is all too frequent in this fandom.
Still, vetran users would prefer to point the blame elsewhere, rather than take
it upon themselves to act more cordial towards their fellow fans. Heck, just
typing this reply is putting me on edge.
At the end of the day, LUGNET has simply become less relevant to the AFOL
community. Casual fans seem to have moved on to other forums, specializing in
certain niches (classic-castle, FBTB etc.), rather than listening to the long
winded diatribes of the LUGNET hardcore. Now, it seems that this is simply a
site to vent. When a MOC is profiled, a few of you vetrans may indulge
yourselves by typing a short review, but such a need is easily filled by other
sites (MOCpages for example). Less accomplished builders quickly find out that
nobody here even cares about their mediocre MOCing. Most of these types won’t
stick around for long. So, is it any surprise that there isn’t alot of traffic
around here?
Later.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Joel Midgley wrote:
> In lugnet.people, Dave Schuler wrote:
> >
> > Well, all right.
> >
> > I don't really care about flame-wars because they're self-evidently juvenile
> > and they tend to involve the same flamers over and over again. I myself have
> > lamented what I will refer to as Rhinoceros Dominance (search for "middens"
> > if you want to see what I'm talking about), but my recollection is that most
> > of the protracted shouting matches went on in the "hidden" forums rather than
> > playing out on the front page. Also, though LUGNET was smaller back then,
> > the signal:noise ratio was much higher, so a spat between to mechophiles
> > could go unnoticed in a flood of other, more productive posts. Often LUGNET
> > goes a half an hour or more without a new message being posted, so when
> > someone posts a "you're a stinker" diatribe, it tends to linger.
> >
> > Additionally, those halcyon days didn't support FTX, so it was less likely
> > that someone would hotlink a an image broadcasting his colorful grasp of
> > anatomy.
> >
> > I'm not blindly nostalgic. I recall the early days, warts and all. But, in
> > terms of proportion, LUGNET has become wartier and wartier as time has gone
> > on, and I'm not sure that it's a welcome trend.
>
> Why is it always implied that newer members are largely to blame for LUGNET's
> decline?
I see no such implication in anything Dave wrote here.
> LUGNET more than any other LEGO fan site, seems to be driven by elitism.
Huh? Not that I have anything against elitism, but LUGNET doesn't seem to
even have any mechanisms for an elite, aside from background stuff
(whether or not a set is put in the Guide, what color background all posts
have in the Web interface, etc.). Arguably, the list of member comments
on sets in the Guide is in order of membership[1], but there's nothing
else that communicates "This guy's comment is important, but you can
ignore these other guys." My newsreader just gives me a list of recent
posts in any newsgroup, not any indication that the elect have dictated
that a few posts must be read, but the rest are by unworthy peasants.
There is a (blessed) absence of continuously updated information with each
post telling me how long the poster has been around and how many posts he
has made.
> From my limited experience here, I find that this place is simply too
> inhosbitable to all but the most fanatical of fans.
Okay. I have no idea how LUGNET is inhospitable to casual fans[2]. I
need to know how if I am to make it less so.
--
TWS Garrison
http://www.morfydd.net/twsg/
Remove capital letters in address for direct reply.
[1] And if there is a LUGNET elite, is Laura Gjovaag (#80) in it but Kelly
McKiernan (#2626) not?
[2] I've heard that it's inhospitable to the technically inept but a) I
don't care and b) I know more than enough technically inept fanatical Lego
fans to know that that's not the issue here.
| | | | | | |
