Subject:
|
Re: Lego Hobby Blues
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:10:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1969 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Thomas Main wrote:
> LUGNET
>
> This used to be THE place that the online community got together and talked
> about the hobby. Now, it has a fraction of the news it used to have.
Yeah, it seems Lugnet's kinda dead. I've noticed this for a while.
> any involvement from the company? What's the benefit? Lego Ambassadors?
> Certified Builders? Have any of these developments actually increased anyone's
> enjoyment of just clicking together bricks? Is having a handful of regular
> people "in-the-know" a benefit to you personally or to a sense of community?
Well, I don't think they detract from the community, if that's your concern.
Ambassadors help spread the news, help take in ideas to Lego and that's not a
bad thing. Certified Builders? Well, it's clear, based on the scope of some
people's work, especially for hire (the Kelloggs thing, Eric Sophie, Eric
Harshberger etc) is coming close to what the company was doing themselves. Why
not bring them into the fold and get a PR opportunity out of their work? It's
like getting free staff without paying for headcount and overhead.
Neither of them really take away from being an AFOL. Having a small in the know
group is helpful to the company to take the pulse of what fans want.
> THINGS THAT ARE WRONG
>
> Our interest in the Swanberg case -- it's a court case, it's a person's life, it
> only has to do with Lego incidentally.
I think the Swanberg case is really an interesting milestone in the Lego
community. Has the hobby grown the point that it's no longer this cutesy little
niche, such that people can and will steal to profit from it, secondary to
actually liking Lego?
> Is more irresponsible? There are people living in poverty all over the world --
> it's kinda sickening to think I spend more on a toy in a month than some people
> spend on food. :( I'd really like to know what a sane amount of money is - not
> based on what we have done as a community in the past - but what is really a
> moral amount. Anyone want to really examine this? Do we dare?
There'll be a lot of responses saying "Well, it could be worse...look at
(photography, custom car tuning, scrapbooking) etc" or "What's more
irresponsible doing X or Y instead of Lego?" or any number of answers from the
left, right, socialist, capitalism, religious, secular or whatever front.
I don't think anyone can give an honest, rational answer. And if they can say
whether or not it's just or right to waste money on Lego, it still is relative
for each person. I don't know if the guy who buys $1000 a month of Lego donates
$100000 a month to charity too. I don't know if you make $50K a year or $20K.
Or you're financially independent?
Everyone has to make a call themselves: If they want to starve their family to
attend BrickFest or this is a drop in a very large bucket of their finances, who
knows?
> do. But I want to know what happened to the community - is it still there? Is
> it thriving or dying? And I want to know how sane and moral this hobby is.
It's changing. Whether it's sane or moral is between you and your own god or you and your own psychologist. :)
Maybe this is the thing with Lugnet...it's not that Lugnet has failed, it's that
the hobby and community has grown to the stage that it is no longer that
special?
Calum
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Lego Hobby Blues
|
| The thrill is gone. There's so much about our hobby that has changed over the last few years and a lot of it has changed for the worse. LUGNET This used to be THE place that the online community got together and talked about the hobby. Now, it has a (...) (19 years ago, 7-Dec-05, to lugnet.general)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
