Subject:
|
Re: Lugnet clone handling? (was: Re: LEGO clone auction)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 21:47:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1204 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu (Christopher L. Weeks)
writes:
> I don't follow the philosophy behind excluding anything clone from the
> normal hierarchy of groups. It seems like everything would be easier if
> the charters were taken a little loosely and only when someone was being
> problematically off-topic would they be pushed off to post somewhere
> else.
Yes, I think everything -would- be easier if the charters were taken a
little loosely. But -- I don't think that's necessarily practical (or safe)
long-term -- even though it may make life easier.
It's one thing if clones are talked about (complained about or idolized,
either way) in, say, .general or .build, and quite another thing (bad) if a
formal review of a clone brand set is posted to .reviews or an inventory
were posted to .db.inv.
It's mainly a distinction in whether a group is configured primarily for
discussion or info/data-dispersal. That is, while .general and .build are
discussion groups, .reviews and .db.inv are not discussion groups -- rather,
they exist to collect and disperse information about LEGO® brand products.
Clone brands have no place in info/data-oriented groups like .reviews and
.db.inv.
> Really, I think the names of the groups are good enough
> indicators of what's supposed to be there and the topics discussed
> (maybe with a few groups as exceptions) should be (and will be, anyway)
> a little fuzzy but centered on the intended topic.
All of the groups begin with the character 'l'. :)
> If there is a good argument for why I'm wrong (I mean better than "this
> is owned by Todd and Suzanne and they can do whatever they want" - which
> I agree with totally) I would appreciate hearing it.
Well, first of all, clone brands aren't LEGO®. They're as different from
"the real thing" as Pepsi is from Coke, Timex is from Rolex, and Budweiser
is from Guinness.
Second, LUGNET stands for "LEGO® Users Group Network," not "LEGO® and LEGO®
Clones Users Group Network."
Now, inasmuch as the vast majority of LEGO fan(atics) disfavor clone brands
in a big way, it's important for all to understand that clone brands do
sometimes into the categories known as "lego" (lowercase) or "legos" in the
minds of some people. And beyond that, even for people who do see the
branding and quality differences between clone brands and LEGO, some people
still enjoy both. Hence, at least for now, the creation of the .clone-
brands group.
But note -- and this is very important -- the .clone-brands group is part of
the .off-topic hierarchy. The .off-topic hierarchy is for non-LEGO®
discussions[1]. Since clone brands aren't LEGO®, that's where discussions
of them belong, if anywhere.
Time will tell whether this single group is sufficient to meet the demand
for focused clone-brand discussions. Note that it is a a "private little
corner" of the LUGNET universe where people can talk all about clone brands
without worrying whether they are irking -- or facing the wrath of -- LEGO®
brand-fanatics.
> Also, as for use of the market groups for clones, I would rather have
> them in the normal market groups than doing market stuff in non-market
> groups. It doesn't affect me since I won't read the clone groups, and I
> won't buy the clone parts, but from a newsgroup-use purist standpoint, I
> think this would be better.
But the newsgroups do not exist to serve toys in general, or even
construction toys in general, or even "lego-like" construction toys in
general. The newsgroups exist to serve LEGO® brand toys. That's what the
site is about.
> And from a community-building standpoint,
> having people who use clones and Lego(tm) building bricks feel like
> they're being ostracized is counterproductive.
Think of it this way. If you set up an Internet site to idolize Coca-Cola®,
would you want it cluttered up with data and discussions of Pepsi®? Maybe,
maybe not. But clearly, a site for "colas" (in the generic sense) would
welcome Coca-Cola® and Pepsi® and all sorts of other brands.
It's not you -can't- talk about clones of LEGO® on LUGNET, it's that LUGNET
isn't designed for clones of LEGO® -- it's designed for LEGO®. For this
reason, discussions and data regarding clones will never be -welcomed- in
general lugnet.* groups, but they're likely to be -tolerated- so long as
people don't complain too much.
On the other hand, discussions of clone brands -are- welcomed in the .off-
topic.clone-brands group, now that it has been created.
> Reflected in some recent and historic posts is a seemingly neurotic
> aversion to clone bricks. What is the origin of this? I'm not
> interested in MegaBlocks because
> they feel cheap and sort-of smoosh together instead of snapping together
> like Lego, but it seems that for some Lego is the religion competing
> against others. What's the deal?
It's simple: LEGO® is the real thing; the others are cheap knock-offs.
--Todd
[1] To some extent, the .loc.* groups are also for off-topic (non-LEGO®)
discussions -- so long as they stay reasonably on-topic to the local
geographic area they represent and to things going on in that area. So a
spin-off conversation about cookie recipes in a loc group is within the
spirit of the groups if that's what people in that area want to talk about
that day and it helps them become more friendly with one another. But
cookie recipe discussions wouldn't belong in .general or .build because
those are high-visibility groups.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
35 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
