| |
Todd,
Let me start off by saying I respect all the work and effort you have put
into creating this site, it truly is a great site, and I DO love your site!
I have from the first time I came here, nothing will change that. And I know
this is your site, and you have the ultimate last word in how things are run
here. But, saying that you have said many times this is a site by the fans,
for the fans - now I draw your attention to the last part of that "for the
fans." It is very clear there are a few people who agree with what you have
done, but the vast majority of us feel what you have done is without merit
and wrong. You yourself agreed Lugnet is a "less fun place" now and we all
want that to change. But, slapping the cuffs on the few Lego employees that
do take the time and post here has really shocked the community. I will draw
your attention to a few of the numerous points made by the people this
website is made for, the fans:
Mike walsh in admin.nntp:475
"I don't understand nor do I agree with the decision to limit the presence of
TLC employees. I personally look forward to their posts and welcome their
input. It doesn't matter to me whether it is their own personal viewpoint
or an official position from TLC. It is data and it usually has a high
level of interesting content. One of the reasons I read LUGNET is to read
interesting content regardless of author.
To date I haven't seen any evidence that any LEGO employees have abused
their posting privileges on LUGNET. The reminder announcement of the train
contest didn't offend me. It wouldn't have bothered me if it were in the
.trains group either. I thought the announcement of brown bricks and Ft.
Legoredo set availability was nice of them to do. Someone at LD gave the
LUGNET faithful first crack at some inventory. Recognizing their loyal
customers is something I would like them to continue doing."
James Brown In admin.nntp : 517
"Because LEGO has not be previously restricted, and because the restriction
wasn't discussed or announced or hinted at ahead of time, there is a strong
impression (regardless of intent) that LEGO has suddenly become unwelcome
here. As a fan of LEGO's main product, and as a member of Lugnet, I think
that's unfortunate, and will end up causing more harm than good as far as
company-fan relations are concerned. "
Christian Gemuenden in admin.nntp : 521
"I personally dislike any decision that will result in limitation of
communication between TLC and AFOLs. And although Todd does not see this
change as "limitation," this recent incident has drawn my highest attention
as Lugnet has lost a big part of his value for me!"
Roy Gal in admin.nntp:522
"I am not a programmer, I am not a Lego employee, and I don't work in a store or
in marketing, so I may be 'out of my area of expertise' when adding to this
discussion. But, I have been a collector for a long time, not only of Lego, but
also Matchbox cars. I have never, ever seen any attempt to limit the
information flow from the company whose products we purchase.
Matchbox clubs, including Matchbox USA, which gets nothing financially from
Matchbox, publishes info on upcoming products, and its not labeled 'Info from
the Company', or relegated to a special section. As consumers and collectors of
these products, we should WANT MAXIMAL INFORMATION from these companies.
If you are an Aquazone collector (for instance), wouldn't you want hear about a
special set that was available directly from Lego? I would think the answer is
YES, and that this notice belongs in the Aquazone newsgroup - that is the
appropriate target audience. The target audience is NOT every AFOL.
So, I am going to side with ++Lar and Frank Filz and the others who think this
change (it is a CHANGE, not a 'clarification') is not good. Also, a lot of this
discussion on multiple user identities fails to keep in mind that MOST INTERNET
USERS ARE NOVICES!!!! And a lot of Lego fans are kids. I think it is not that
easy for people who can barely use a browser to figure out everything that is
going on here."
John Hansen in admin.nttp 501
"Lego is a company. The people who post with lego.com email addresses are
employees. There is a difference between an employee and a company.
Chances are Jake is not "sent" to post on Lugnet. Tomas almost certainly
wasn't directed by Brad Justus (or anyone else) to "clean up the bionicle
mask mess on Lugnet". They are (I believe) people who want to participate
in a fan discussion and provide what they believe is useful input to that
discussion.
Since when does an email address change whether you officially represent a
company or not? If Tomas posted via his home email he would say exactly the
same things he said via his lego.com email address. It would be the same
person typing the same words. And we require him to switch addresses
because we only want "fans to talk to other fans"? He becomes a fan when he
is willing to post via his home email address? That makes no sense
whatsoever to me."
Roy Gal in admin.nntp 524
"Another issue is the fact that many LUGNET members have paid good money to
become members. I think those people's voices MUST (at least a strong
should...) be heard on this issue. We paid in part to support Todd & Suz's hard
work, but we should also get some things that we like in return.
So, I think it might be fair to ask paying members if they think TLC employees
should be allowed to post freely on all newsgroups. If none of us had paid into
this, I wouldn't see such a problem with Todd's edict, but given that probably
dozens (or more?) people have paid, and TLC sure as heck paid, I think we
should be given a voice, although we might not be 100% entitled..."
Now do you see the general tone in this completely random, but
representative selection of quotes? The amount of posts to this is
overwhelming, many things got lost in the fire storm that has been covering us.
There has been statements made that Lego has and is diluting the structure
of Lugnet, how is this so? If they do anything here it is to provide a sense
of understanding and stability to us that we as a group not only needed, but
wanted, and asked for - *we, as a group asked for it.* And if these few
individuals can dilute and break down Lugnet, that is some real power they have.
And back to the for fans, by fans - From what I can tell, Jake is a
Lugnetter - member #211 ( http://www.lugnet.com/people/members/?m=211 ), so
to say he cannot be a fan because he works for them is just plain silly (and
yes, this was said). This brings me to my next point:
You and Eric, among a few others keep referring to the "LEGO Company" and
the "Lego Company" this and that - now the "Lego Company" cannot, and is not
talking to us here - a few employees are, they are not the "Lego Company",
they are individuals, just like you and me, but they have I job I wish I
had! Now it is obvious for anybody to see you are upset at the Lego
"company", but why punish the few of its employees that do post here under
the goodness of their hearts?
You have also said that the Lego Company is only out to make money, and that
is why they post here, now this has more holes than swiss cheese. First, If
they are really trying to run a marketing campaign here, then it is a waste
of time, we buy their products, we want to buy their products, we have
bought their products - trying to sell us anything is just a waste of time
and effort, we would and have bought it anyway. Second, what is wrong with
anybody trying to make money? I know one of my goals is to make money, and
it is also one of your goals - unless of course you live rent free, tax
free, bill free and just get everything, including bandwidth for free. The
Lego company does not care who buys their "obsolete" sets, they will sell if
it is posted here or not - they do not care where the money comes from,
because it will come. Jake was nice enough to post that they had these
"obsolete" sets here because he knew, and was very correct in knowing we, as
a group, wanted these sets. But you among others basically dumped all over
him for posting that info here.
We have listened to the excuses you have given for doing what you did,
unfortunately, you have not listened to us about this. Ask us what we want,
this website is for us, the fans, correct? If that is true, then we should
have a say if the 2 or 3 Lego employees can post in theme threads or if they
should be confined to the .direct thread. After all, Lugnet is FOR us,
right? Does what we want matter to you at all?
Now lets look at the attitude one of your friends have:
Eric Joslin in admin.nntp 518 ( http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=518 )
"Spoken, truly, like someone who has no idea how the Real World works.
Sometimes I forget that not everyone on Lugnet is an adult.
eric"
Now this is from one of the people who support this decision the most. Why
take the personal jab? Why does Eric have to stoop to such a low level, take
a look at my reply, what he did was 100% uncalled for and wrong. But yet, he
sees you point exactly!
Now, I restate that I know this is your site, and you have the final say,
and I completly respect that fact. But, live up yo what you claim that this
site is for the fans.
So with that, I ask you, and challenge you: ask us what we want, listen to
us. This website was made for us - so show us we matter, and are wanted here
Respectfully,
Mark Papenfuss
mfuss903@aol.com
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) You certainly don't know that the vast majority feel that way. You know that about 10 to 12 highly vocal people are complaining and about 4 or 5 generally quieter people are agreeing. (...) Now as in the moment -- not now as in going forward. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) I can't speak for the "majority of us", but I for one do not see how you could assume that the majority of the lugnet community believes that what Todd has done is wrong. Personally, when things are agreeable to me, I speak very little of it. (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) I second that! And add Suzanne's name there too! :] (...) Yes Mark, they do have "some real power". I'd rather not drag this major incident up, but I feel it is relevant---some may have forgotten it, and others may have never heard about it: A (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| (...) To each his own. We all should be VERY grateful to Todd and Suzanne for all they have done. Shame on those who have nitpicked what Todd has created for all of us to enjoy. When I came ot of my dark ages and discovered LEGO trains, I was (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: A letter to Todd
|
| In lugnet.admin.nntp, Mark Papenfuss writes: <snip a whole heap of well gathered information> I'm preferring to take a very simple approach. It's Suzanne and Todds site. We're participants, but not the authority that regulates this site. If Lego is (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
45 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
