Subject:
|
Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Followup-To:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 4 Aug 2000 21:59:00 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.netSPAMLESS
|
Viewed:
|
912 times
|
| |
|
|
Ian Sinclair wrote:
> > I just found a sheet of paper with notes from a phone conversation with Brad
> > from early April. During the conversation, one of the things he said was that
> > LEGO is "not looking to create our own adult community." It doesn't mean that
> > they won't or couldn't, but I think it clearly means that their current focus
> > is the younger crowd. Brad also said that he wanted to "minimize overlap."
> > (Those are direct quotes written down seconds after they were said.)
>
> That's good to hear Todd.
>
> I think it's wise for TLC to leave LUGNET's market alone.
Amen to that. After all, we are talking about a child's toy. TLC *should* stick
to marketing to the youth of the world (God knows we need kids playing with LEGO a
lot more than Ninetendo, watching MTV, etc) while providing bulk services for the
AFOLs. Actually, I can't think of a more ideal situation than the one we will
soon have-- TLC marketing to kids, providing bulk for AFOLs, partnering up with
clubs from time to time; and LUGNET, a centralized, "public" (although privately
owned) forum that isn't as chaotic and noisy as RTL where AFOLs can congregate and
find most of the resources they need in one place. What a great thing:-)
> LUGNET
> continues to improve at a pace that suits most users needs, or so I
> would hope. It meets mine. Really is time I sent you my membership
> fees too. :-)
>
> I find myself at LUGNET and Brickshelf all the time; Lego.com once or
> twice a month.
I rarely go to LEGO.com either.
> What LUGNET seems to have improved greatly is the signal-to-noise
> ratio. I rarely read or post to rec.toys.lego anymore.
Tell me again-- what is this "rec.toys.lego"? ;-)
> I don't find time to participate in all the LUGNET newsgroups I know
> I'd find interesting , but the ones I do subscribe to are valuable,
> informative and enlightening. I'm also inspired by the many MOC's
> announced in each group.
>
> The LEGO site is a rare visit for me. As stated by others, the LEGO
> Company hasn't done a great job building their web site. I find it
> extremely slow at 56k, annoying to search, obtuse, and a few other
> things. It just isn't very useful to me.
>
> Is the experience any better for children? To be blunt, I don't see
> why it would be.
That's their problem. I just hope that they aren't doing anything with the AFOL
in mind, because I don't want to be catered to by them in that way.
> But if the LEGO Company wants to make building a children's online
> community a priority, I wish them every success. It's needed for
> them, as much as it's needed by us.
Well, there is a vision there that I personally don't see, but I hope it works out
as well.
> BTW, I don't consider the many young adults found on LUGNET to be
> children. The transition between child and young adult is somewhere
> between 9-12 I think. Probably lower for girls, higher for boys.
Personally, I don't think LUGNET is for kids. I have a 10 year old who is a
complete Legomaniac, and yet I don't let him read LUGNET NGs (as if he wanted to--
he's too busy building to waste time reading NGs). Occasionally, I'll show him
someone stuff on Brickshelf or such and he enjoys that. Truth is, most of the
topics in the NGs would bore him completely. He doesn't even press me on
attending GMLTC meetings-- only the shows;-)
> In my mind, children become young adults when they can behave
> responsibly around adults, consider their actions, need little
> supervision, and can contribute relevant, interesting and meaningfully
> to conversations.
>
> I'm not a parent, so perhaps many of you who are, have a different
> view of this. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, and the
> above doesn't sound like a cranky single adult.
>
> I think LUGNET and the many LEGO groups forming around the world
> should consider making the distinction as well.
>
> I know that one young woman was recently denied membership in a LEGO
> group. She has proven herself to be a responsible contributing member
> of LUGNET, so why should she be denied the support and comradeship of
> a local LEGO group?
That situation is unfortunate, but she is the exception, not the rule. 99.5% of
14 year olds don't belong in adult groups, even if it is a LEGO club IMO.
Although it isn't an official policy, I'm sure most of the GMLTC would be against
folk under 18 in the group. Too many issues.
> I can't tell them how to run their group. But I think it is a bad
> policy, an unnecessary policy and short sighted. I want to point out
> the following. Ever individual who joins LUGNET or joins a LEGO group
> adds to our numbers. Each gives us further market leverage and buying
> power. Each contributes in his or her own way to the LEGO community.
Numbers aren't everything.
> Don't discourage them because they're young.
Don't include them merely because they are "one more". This is a touchy issue but
I look at it like this: We are adults playing with toys. That's fine because we
are adults and that is our choice. Kids play with toys, too, but with other
kids. Let them be kids and when they are adults (and after having gone through
their dark ages), they can decide to return to the fold.
Should prolly FU to .general
-John
>
> <ICS>
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Custom Kits & Communications
|
| (...) That's good to hear Todd. I think it's wise for TLC to leave LUGNET's market alone. LUGNET continues to improve at a pace that suits most users needs, or so I would hope. It meets mine. Really is time I sent you my membership fees too. :-) I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Aug-00, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
