Subject:
|
Re: LEGOFan.net - central community run hub for all areas of the LEGO community.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:44:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3736 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build, Benjamin Medinets wrote:
> I really don't have a problem with the community trying to set up a web-site
> and trying to get the community to come together.
>
> I agree (with Terry) that saying that a certain site will be the one-stop shop
> is insulting.
>
> The one point I'd like to make is that doesn't matter what the
> site looks like or how it runs, there's always going to be someone that isn't
> happy with it.
>
> the only flaw in Lugnet is that it is owned and operated by Todd Lehman.
> He deserve a lot of credit for putting up with a lot of B/S. Its a flaw, in
> that all decisions about site maintenance and updates must go through him.
> The site is dependant on Todd.
>
> A community site is organic. Its not dependant on one or more members to
> keep it running.
>
> Just some thoughts to think about.
>
> Ben M.
Well, chiming in on Ben's message, 'cause here's a good a place as any :)
A few things--
Any thread that gets Suz to post is okay in my books :)
So here's LUGNET, being run, as many people have stated, by Todd (and by Suz in
the past), and with moderation help from many, many people. I've been on other
public message boards and none have come close to the functionality and
'cleanness' of LUGNET. And LUGNET's been running (barring DNS name failures ;)
) for a long time, and, imho, been running pretty smoothly. Either it was set
up properly from the beginning, or Todd is spending an extra-ordinary effort in
keeping LUGNET running.
I prefer to think the former. LUGNETT was thought out thoroughly before
implemented. I'd come to expect that from any 'new' LEGO fan site that may show
up on the 'net, or seriously, I see it being doomed for "Oh, LUGNET was much
better..."
Yes LUGNET is deficient in areas. That can't be helped and the voids, to date,
have been filled by other sites. Beyond those deficiencies, can the efforts in
'new' Fan sites be redirected in improving LUGNET? Is that even an option?
Falls on the purview of Todd. Maybe he's just willing to maintain status quo on
LUGNET waiting for something else to supplant it so he can reach over and hit
the 'off' switch and go get a good night's sleep after many years of, well, not.
I don't know. Todd hasn't chimed in too much on these issues.
Other considerations would be if this site has 'LEGO' in the 'net name, and has
whatever related ties to TLC (big, small, we're all pretty much unsure as of
this time), a serious matter would be the clone bricks. At LUGNET, clones are
pretty much shunned to an obscure newsgroup where a few good friends talk about
the joys of other-than-TLC bricks. (Personally I have no vested interest in
clone brands, but there is an interest, obviously). As data is showing to
everyone, including TLC, the other manufacturers are gaining market shares. Do
these fans have to start their own site? Many here would say 'yes'. I'm not so
sure. An 8 year old (a general 8 year old--not a specific child of a parent
here who would chime up and say "Hey! I know the difference b/w LEGO bricks and
clone bricks!") just built a wonderful MOC using a mixture of clone and TLC
bricks and wants to share that with other fans. Can they do that without it
being in some dusty corner of the web site? Or being shunned by the masses? Do
I need to mention the Titanic MOC as an example? I fully support TLC's decision
in not publically doing, well, anything, for the builder--considering all the
clone bricks in the MOC, but would that builder be welcome to display said MOC
on the new site?
I dunno. It's worked thus far for LUGNET because the clone brands haven't been
that prevalent. I see this changing in the new future, especially when you
"open up" a site to the whole range of toy brick experiences. LUGNET gets a
'by' on ths because we're mostly AFOL's and we actually politely don't talk
about clone brands much. But the stink raised by Bionicle is such an example of
how kids react to others saying "oh you can't post that here 'cause that's not
really LEGO bricks!".
You bring in the kids you bring in the issue of clones. And if TLC is involved,
well, as I said before, I don't know. There aren't any easy answers.
I fully appreciate TLC (as I've stated numerous times) and I will never
personally send my money to any other brick manufacturer (excapt BBB ;) ).
I also want to voice my support of people looking at enhancing the on-line
experience of our chosen hobby--I will help where I am able.
I love my time at LUGNET and would like to see any transition, if wanted, to go
as smoothly and, well, diplomatically for lack of a better word, as possible.
Quick little example. I work for a company that has been around for many years.
Recently our parent company filed for bankruptcy and, due to restructuring, it
(the parent company) was eliminated. That said, there are still folks in this
very office who work for that parent company, and who are finalizing paperwork.
Basically, since the parent company has been eliminated, all the office space
'are belong to us', and we are allowed to do with as we please, includiong
moving the 'old folks' into spare cubicles. That said, it's an unwritten rule
that we don't walk into the old VP's office with a measuring tape and a notepad
whilst the old VP is finalising the elimination of his position--it's not nice
and shows a profound lack of respect to the person.
So if these discussions are to continue on LUGNET, bear in mind that, for many
people, related to these discussions is the potential elimination of LUGNET--our
home for numerous years for all things LEGO.
Please consider that.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
208 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
|
|
|
|
