Subject:
|
Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:30:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1319 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Jacquot wrote in message <368A4443.41C6@kali.psyc.virginia.edu>...
> 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.
I tend to be cynical, and distrust organizations in general. A random
sampling of webpages that focus on hobbies has led me to believe that
inevitably awards start being created and thrown around to show appreciation
for peoples accomplishments in those areas. This can be done in a healthy
or unhealthy fashion. I think Cool Lego Site of the Week was inspired for
nobel reasons, and has remained a general good thing for the community. I
tend to see CLSOTW as a way of the community saying, hey nice job on
whatever. This new award tended to smack of elitism to me, and Janet saying
we should disallow people being considered for it based on her distaste for
their personality quirks of speech doesn't bode well in my opinion. I would
say if the community chooses to do this, everyone should very carefully
examine their personal motives for creating this award. If you just want to
show appreciation for the good and hard work someone has done, that can be
accomplished by sending some email to the person saying great job. If you
make this award a more 'official' way of doing that and make it a way of
drawing people in that is a good thing. If it becomes a way of excluding
'socially undesireable' people, I think it is a bad idea.
> 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.
I can see this as nothing other than a popularity contest, if it is
implemented as you describe it. Popularity contests are fine as long as you
recognize them as such, and don't try to pretend it is something else. In
all popularity contests, unpopular people don't tend to win.
> 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.
I don't see how you can give an award from below. Would an award for
outstanding skill at driving your car given by the Amish mean anything to
you? For an award to be meaningful it has to be from people knowledgeable
on that topic. Once you form that knowledgeable commitee to give out these
awards, it has the potential to become an elitist group. I have similar
opinions on politics. The best person to be president or other elected
official is someone who doesn't want the job, but recognizes that it is a
job that must be done. That kind of person realizes the job is too
important to not be done well. The worst is usually someone who really
wants the job and intends to make long overdue changes. That kind of person
is on a quest for power.
Matthew Verdier
"You can't just say you're King because some watery tart threw a sword at
you"
Dennis, 700 AD
http://www.GeoCities.com/CapeCanaveral/2738/mjvlego.html
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?
|
| Matthew Verdier wrote: r (...) For what it's worth, this is pretty much exactly what I had in mind (still not speaking for Larry). (...) I agree absolutely with respect to the merit awards. With respect to the service award, I can't say that (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.general)
|
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 (...) (26 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
