To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 1117
1116  |  1118
Subject: 
Re: Question: Are reviews of non-LEGO (such as Mega Blocks) sets of interest?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.general
Date: 
Wed, 3 Mar 1999 07:46:41 GMT
Viewed: 
755 times
  
Todd Lehman wrote:

[Crossposted to lugnet.reviews & lugnet.admin.general, with followups
set to lugnet.admin.general]

In lugnet.reviews, lighthouse@bonzai.net (Janet Zorn) writes:
I doubt that .reviews will get deluged with clone reviews. Lego makes
probably as many sets as all the clones combined, and few here will
buy clones to be able to review them. For those few of us who from
time to time indulge in buying on the megacheap .reviews would be a
better place to read a few reviews once in a great while (there's not
alot of traffic here anyway) rather than to have to wade thru all the
stuff in .off-topic.fun.

Janet,
Do you think a new newsgroup

   lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands

would be useful?  Here is a related thread for more background:

You know, Todd, I was originally about to comment in opposition to your view until
I saw the suggestion you just made here.  A clone-brands group would certainly
address the niche of people who like the clones.

What we don't want to happen is the .reviews group being used to review
individual sets from clone brands like Mega-Bloks, Best-Lock, etc.  (Blyecch,
poison!)

I don't think this would happen anyways, for a number of reasons, as I will
mention below.

...
I always just figured that clone brands wouldn't come up here -- except in
pejorative contexts -- because almost all LEGO® fans tend to be purists.  But
if there is a desire for people to share information about clone brands in the
groups here, then I think it would be best to create a separate area to gobble
up these unwanted discussions -- just like the other areas (.debate, .fun,
.test) of the .off-topic hierarchy.

Which brings us to the first reason that I would expect that the existing reviews
group would never deteriorate as you described, since most of the people who are
lego fans tend to avoid clones.  Another reason is that quite frankly, the clones'
sets are not diversified enough to warrant a substantial number of different
reviews.

The purpose of the .off-topic hierarchy is to allow people to talk openly
about non-LEGO® things without having to leave the community altogether to
carry on the discussions.  Fair enough?

I dunno if off-topic is necessarily the best spot for it, but then I'm not what
you would call a LEGO purist.  If a clone had anything like LEGO Technic for less,
I have to admit I'd probably go that route instead.  My love of LEGO comes from my
loving to experiment and build things, not the other way around.

p.s.  Hee hee, while spell-checking this article (I hit cancel in the middle
so I could add this), my spell-checker suggested "Measles" as a replacement
for "Mega-Bloks."  :I

Nope... I don't wanna touch that one.  :)

Mark



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Question: Are reviews of non-LEGO (such as Mega Blocks) sets of interest?
 
(...) In January someone posted a review of a Best-Lock set using Joshua Delahunty's LEGO® set review form: (URL) logical to me that if someone thought it was OK to use the LEGO® set review form for non-LEGO® building sets, they might also think it (...) (26 years ago, 3-Mar-99, to lugnet.admin.general)

4 Messages in This Thread:


Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR