Subject:
|
Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Dec 1998 16:07:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3239 times
|
| |
|
|
Stephen Jacquot writes:
> Matthew Verdier wrote:
>
> > Essentially, what is being discussed is creating an elite group of Lego
> > enthusiasts. A social club of Lego Maniacs. Fellow Lego Maniacs will dole
> > out the prize of holding this title based on the persons social standing
> > within the group. Oh sure, the group will try to quantify what makes one
> > eligible for membership, but it will ultimately come down to interpersonal
> > relationships. Anyone the group doesn't like won't get in no matter what.
> > Those the group does, will be admitted regardless of the contributions or
> > lack-there-of to the Lego community.
>
> I won't speak for Larry (whose idea this was in the first place),
> but that's certainly nothing like anything I ever had in mind, and
> if that's what this thing degenerates into, I'll call it a failure
> and move on. Do you believe that the outcome you describe is
> inevitable, or can you imagine ways to avoid it? Constructive
> suggestions always welcome.
>
> Most recently, the discussion has considered the possibility of
> separate awards for service and for skill. The service award
> (seems to me) is an unqualified good thing. It's a way for a
> grateful community to express its thanks to exceptional
> individuals (possibly organizations?) for service to the hobby.
> Since intemperate language might tend to undermine the community,
> I can see that being a possible criterion for the award. I've
> proposed that it be voted by the broad-based general membership
> of the yet-to-be-organized organization, so the voting members
> could apply whatever criteria they like.
>
> The skill awards (according to the proposal) would be awarded by
> special interest groups in any of several areas, but not (as you
> seem to anticipate) by accepting outsiders into the club, but more
> like promoting people out of it. It's not "You're almost as good
> as us", but rather "You're better than most of us". From your
> point of view, you're not trying to push your way into the club,
> rather your peers are honoring your skill by pushing you up. An
> exercise in humility, really. This would seem to reduce the
> likelihood of it becoming an elite social club, which, I agree,
> would be a bad thing.
>
> [Another thing that I like about the SIG based system, is that SIG
> members are more likely than a central committee to understand
> what mastery of their area requires, so are more likely to adopt
> appropriate selection criteria. Beyond that, who knows what could
> happen. As semi-independent organizations, SIGs could sponsor
> competitions, intermediate awards, newsletters, SIGfests, whatever.]
>
> > I am not sure we have to describe people as anything. I am not positive
> > what benefit creating this designation would provide other than boosting the
> > egos of those handing out the designations and those receiving them.
>
> I don't know that we, as a community, need to receive any tangible
> benefit in order to make this worth doing. Is there anything
> wrong with recognizing and rewarding excellence for its own sake?
> There may be unanticipated benefits down the road (perhaps the
> lure of honors will draw some unheralded genius out of lurkerdom),
> but that's neither a necessary nor a sufficient reason for doing
> this.
>
> --
> Steve Jacquot
> sj5w@virginia.edu
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
| (...) I won't speak for Larry (whose idea this was in the first place), but that's certainly nothing like anything I ever had in mind, and if that's what this thing degenerates into, I'll call it a failure and move on. Do you believe that the (...) (28 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
