| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.loc.au, Richard Parsons writes:
> > Even if Todd was being unreasonable (which he's not), that's fine, its his >>site!
>
> I have a real problem with Lugnet being considered Todd and Suzanne's
> exclusive sandbox -- in reality, it is and it isn't depending on what part
> we are examining. People contribute time, money, content, scans, etc. It
> strikes me as a community effort in MANY ways.
Oh, certainly!! Neither Todd nor Richard are saying that. I think the
inference is that everyone hanging out here is part of the community; but
the sandbox itself? Yep, that's Todd and Suz's only. And ultimately, if they
decide they don't want to host (keyword - host) a clone DB, that is their
right... does that make sense?
Of course Todd and Suz are not the only ones contributing. And yes, this is
a living community with many people contributing in many ways. But Todd and
Suz are still the ones hosting the whole site. And, he's not by any means
stopping you from making a clone DB - not at all...
Even with other people scanning and giving info on new sets, the way I got
it (CMIIW, anyone), Suz and Todd still have to physically add the sets to
the DB. (Or maybe Dan and Jenn also have the power to do so?)
> It's a little too heavy in
> attitude to just assert that we cannot support clones brands in some way in
> the database and to provide no reasons for this posture.
Well, knowing Todd <grin> he usually asserts something first and explains
himself later. ;-) ...but I can totally see where he's coming from - he made
this site for LEGO (R) brand users, not any other brands. So (using the
sandbox analogy), he only wants us to build castles, not forts, if you want
a fort, feel free to make a new sandbox. Right? No one's limiting you to
just lugnet...
(please don't see this as an attack... just a suggestion)
> Maybe I would feel differently if I knew the costs, or other efforts
> involved. From where I am sitting, Todd has all the structure, programming,
> bandwidth, etc. It looks like the costs come down to space on a server hard
> drive somewhere and the scanned contributions that would comprise the content.
Not necessarily. Like I said above, actually finding the set details, or
even just punching them in, can be time consuming when it comes to hundreds
of sets.
> I don't want to hammer Todd, but perhaps something more than a terse
> one-liner is required here by way of response.
<grin> Again, like I stated above, I've gotten used to getting one-liners
first and explanations later from Todd. ;-)
-Shiri (not bald, and not going anywhere! ;-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
61 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
|
|
|
|
