| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> It is very clear there are a few people who agree with what you have
> done, but the vast majority of us feel what you have done is without merit
> and wrong.
You certainly don't know that the vast majority feel that way. You know
that about 10 to 12 highly vocal people are complaining and about 4 or 5
generally quieter people are agreeing.
> You yourself agreed Lugnet is a "less fun place" now
Now as in the moment -- not now as in going forward. Here is what I
actually said:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=559
I agreed with James Brown's personal feeling that LUGNET was less fun Friday
than it was Thursday. I think that's true...a big noisy argument isn't fun.
When it blows over, hopefully by Sunday or Monday, fun will resume. This is
a speed bump.
> Now do you see the general tone in this completely random, but
> representative selection of quotes? The amount of posts to this is
> overwhelming, many things got lost in the fire storm that has been covering us.
I read everything.
> There has been statements made that Lego has and is diluting the structure
> of Lugnet, how is this so?
If you don't get it, then you just don't get it. But again, you've twisted
my words. I believe what I said was that allowing the LEGO Company to
conduct official company business in theme groups dilutes what the community
was about and goes against why it was created. There is nothing to debate.
I know why Suzanne and I started LUGNET and it wasn't for LEGO to conduct
comapny business in discussion groups that were established for fans to talk
to fans. On other hand, we did set up a hierarchy of groups (lugnet.lego.*)
which ARE intended for LEGO to conduct company business and related directly
to fans.
> From what I can tell, Jake is a Lugnetter - member #211
> ( http://www.lugnet.com/people/members/?m=211 ), so to say he cannot be
> a fan because he works for them is just plain silly (and yes, this was
> said).
Well, if someone did say that -- and I don't remember seeing that -- I
certainly wasn't the one who said it, so give it a rest.
> This brings me to my next point:
> You and Eric, among a few others keep referring to the "LEGO Company" and
> the "Lego Company" this and that - now the "Lego Company" cannot, and is not
> talking to us here - a few employees are, they are not the "Lego Company",
> they are individuals, just like you and me, but they have I job I wish I
> had! Now it is obvious for anybody to see you are upset at the Lego
> "company", but why punish the few of its employees that do post here under
> the goodness of their hearts?
Nobody is being punished, and you should not assume that all LEGO employees
who post here now or in the past or in the future are always doing so under
the goodness of their hearts. I'm not saying they aren't, I'm saying you
shouldn't assume that they are.
> You have also said that the Lego Company is only out to make money, and that
> is why they post here, now this has more holes than swiss cheese.
Mark, I did not say that, and I am actually growing very tired of your
constantly misquoting me and mischaracterizing nearly everything I say.
I did not say that the LEGO Company is only out to make money, I said money
was what it wanted from us (the fans), in response to Tim Courtney asking an
open-ended question about what LEGO wanted from us (the fans). I also did
not say or even imply that that is why they post here, and I never implied
it was a bad thing.
> The Lego company does not care who buys their "obsolete" sets, they will
> sell if it is posted here or not - they do not care where the money comes
> from, because it will come.
That is actually very insightful of you, and you should think deeply about
how the LEGO Company benefits from being "nice" to us in this way.
> Jake was nice enough to post that they had these
> "obsolete" sets here because he knew, and was very correct in knowing we, as
> a group, wanted these sets.
Naturally. Brad mentioned long ago (more than a year ago) that he intended
to hire people from the AFOL community who would have a good handle on such
things.
> But you among others basically dumped all over
> him for posting that info here.
Anyone who "dumped all over him" (sic) was actually upset that it went into
the main .announce group, and nothing more. After someone drew my attention
to the misplaced post, I believe I asked Jake (politely) that futher such
announcements go in the .announce.lsahs group.
> We have listened to the excuses you have given for doing what you did,
> unfortunately, you have not listened to us about this.
Don't assume that.
> Eric Joslin in admin.nntp 518 ( http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=518 )
> "Spoken, truly, like someone who has no idea how the Real World works.
> Sometimes I forget that not everyone on Lugnet is an adult.
> eric"
I believe Eric may have been under the impression that you were a 13-year-
old. (I know it's not difficult for me to imagine that, given how you have
worded things such as "That has to be the lamest excuse I have ever
heard"[1] and your apparent tendency to read A and hear B.)
> So with that, I ask you, and challenge you: ask us what we want, listen to
> us. This website was made for us - so show us we matter, and are wanted here
This website was not made for screaming lunatic fans.
--Todd
[1] http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=456
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) Te only thing I said was clear that was people agreed with you. And the vast majority was a reference to the people who were in on the discussion. (...) Yes, that is exactly what I said, did I misquote you or twist your words? No, I did not do (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) Absolute BULL. They are being punished, as you dropped the rules into place without a SOLUTION to help meet those rules. You just counted on external forces to handle it. Step 1 - Plan a rule Step 2 - Be nice and plan a solution to the rule if (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) Todd, You probably wanted to just let this blow over, but I bet you could have spun the change more aggressively and avoided the uproar. I read your note. I didn't like it. I waited. I think that after reading your stuff -- but only when (...) (23 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| Hmmm. Quite a way to get involved in this, and thus far I have been kind of nuetral...rather been juggling opinions for the past few days, pretty good persuasive writers here :) But, I somewhat believe this right here is the core of the debate and (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message <3ab3ab27.200292832@...et.com>... (...) merit (...) and (...) talk (...) (lugnet.Lego.*) (...) directly (...) I personally despise these marketing driven toys that manufacturer's are coming up with. Pokemon, BIONICLE (...) (23 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | A letter to Todd
|
| Todd, Let me start off by saying I respect all the work and effort you have put into creating this site, it truly is a great site, and I DO love your site! I have from the first time I came here, nothing will change that. And I know this is your (...) (23 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
45 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
|
|
|
|
