Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:07:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6926 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, John Neal wrote:
> Maybe the purpose of LUGNET [shouldn't] be to create a community, but rather
> be a resource center for all things pertaining to LEGO. Boards are useful
> for communication among AFOLs, and many AFOLs have come to know each other as
> a result of LUGNET, but I think the goal of creating a {LUGNET} community
> might be questionable.
I disagree. To attempt NOT to create a community, you can't really have
post-to-able boards, but instead something more like MOCpages or BrickShelf
where there's room to post Lego creations, but no back-and-forth communication.
Hence, asking questions becomes up to the individuals interested in the answers,
and it's probably going to continue in email or some other venue. And if it's
done through email, lots of questions would go unanswered, lots of answers would
be repeated, and people who never thought of the questions would never know
their answers.
On top of that, without building a community you'd be a lot less likely to start
up LUG's and LTC's. They've been mostly founded because people met in an online
community, realized they were from the same area, and decided to get together--
not because they went around emailing random Lego fans in the hopes of finding
someone near them.
> Well, therein lies the rub. Because very quickly, these groups begin to
> relate to each other in terms of their specific [non]LEGO interests, and the
> thing that brought them together (LEGO) is forgotten.
Now that's a little unlikely :)
> LUGNET quickly becomes just another adult/teen/whatever board that has
> nothing to do with LEGO, even if the participants are AFOLs.
I think that's absolutely fine-- even encouraged. There's a reason that every
other board does that; it's because it's what people like. They like being part
of a community. They like recognizing names, being a recognized name themselves,
and having people they feel like they know and are safe talking with.
> {Many} if not most of the .people hierarchy discussions quickly spin
> off-topic, if they even started there at all. I think it is a mistake not
> to put .people in off-topic, because our lives (for most of us:-), though we
> may be AFOLs, are not on-topic for LEGO.
That's actually something I'd agree with. lugnet.people could really fit within
lugnet.off-topic perfectly well. I don't think I mind it being in its own little
area, since the root ".people" isn't a sub-branch of a lego-related area like
.general.
> > Divorced people have a home in lugnet.people.support (and perhaps
> > lugnet.people.singles). It might be reasonable at some point in the future
> > to provide sub-groups of .support (or even .singles). Religion is a much
> > trickier one. Religion groups might well be appropriate, but how do you
> > decide which one's to create?
>
> ISN"T THAT THE WHOLE POINT? If you start splintering off sub-groups, [it
> will never end!] Now is the time to pause and consider the ramifications of
> having done this. It is like a pandora's box, and I don't see it as having
> any benefit to the AFOL community {as a whole} (not to mention the youth).
I still don't see the problem. As the community grows, the need for smaller
sub-communities increases. I'd say create subgroups as they're needed or
requested (in earnest). Religious groups getting created? Sure! But I'd only
create ones that get asked for. .people.religion.christian.catholics,
people.religion.christian.protestant, .people.religion.jewish,
.people.religion.atheist I could see getting used. Probably even
.people.religion.islam. But is .people.religion.christian.amish necessary? I'd
doubt it. Gaist? Probably not. Bhuddhist? Hindu? Maybe. But worst comes to worst
if people want the group, they can ask for it, and if there's enough interest,
it should get created. At least, that's my take.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) But you are talking about LEGO related questions, not personal questions. I have no problem with LUGNET boards that very specifically relate to LEGO. It's all of the personal stuff that I am questioning. (...) But they didn't get together (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| (...) Well, maybe it should be. (...) Maybe the purpose of LUGNET shouldn't be to create a community, but rather be a resource center for all things pertaining to LEGO. Boards are useful for communication among AFOLs, and many AFOLs have come to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
151 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
