Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Jan 2002 23:22:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1034 times
|
| |
|
|
"tom" <tinosanto@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GpJFI2.GMx@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> > "tom" <tinosanto@hotmail.com> wrote in message • news:GpI890.8D8@lugnet.com...
> >
> > > And who are you to even think about suggesting this? Are you an admin • of
> > > brickshelf?
> >
> > Who are you to chastize him for an opinion? The admin of LUGNET?
>
> ummmmm...
Well?
> > I imagine in Jon's opinion, Bionicle avatars are much different than
> > Bionicle masks. These pixelated images are plentiful on Brickshelf, and
> > they add little value (in my opinion and in the opinion of others here) • to
> > the Brickshelf Gallery. So what, someone thinks differently than you, • deal
> > with it.
>
> So because something adds little value to you its ok to ban it?
If its a majority opinion that it adds little value and the admin of such
free service also determines it so, its fine with me. If it so turns out
that most people see no problem with the avatars, I accept that. Maybe I
won't like it, but I'll accept it.
The like or dislike of something might not be legitimate grounds to ban it,
but if there's a majority dislike, it should be weighed in.
> Hmmm, you
> know cad images add little value to me - so can we ban those while we are
at it?
Does the majority of Brickshelf users (along with Kevin) feel that way? If
so, then I wouldn't have much room to argue, would I? It might not be
legitimate grounds, but its the majority opinion.
This could be argued about _anything_ really. More later on the merits of
CAD generated images versus Paintbrush slapped-together avatars.
> > Were you around LUGNET when the Mad Hatter was here? Do you think HE • should
> > have been let alone to roam LUGNET and destroy the community?
>
> Not for the first goround, but for his second attack (as far as I know it
> was his second) But I see him frequently on RTL and I have afew views on
> him, if you like we can start a new thread about it, but he is not the • point
> here - apples and oranges.
But if the Bionicle avatars flood Brickshelf to the point where genuine MOCs
are few and far between on gallery pages, wouldn't he have a corresponding
corrosive effect on the Brickshelf viewership as Mad Hatter had on the
LUGNET readership?
It doesn't look like the posting of avatars is slowing down. It would be
nice at least to have guidelines for them (WARNING - opinion alert) - such
as them not appearing on the 'recent' page. I acknowledge all I can do here
is voice my opinion. Its up to Kevin to make any changes - I hold no stake
in Brickshelf.
> > I'm not equating the Bionicle avatars to him, but Jon has a valid point • when
> > he talks about them. And its an opinion, he prefaces his message with
> > 'There might be a few who disagree with me on this, but I think something
> > needs to be done about this.' How arrogant and whiny about him, no, how
> > arrogant of you to try to stifle his opinion just because you think he's • out
> > of line. Should his opinion be banned because you don't like it?
>
> Funny you use that last line... you make it seem wrong. But that is • exactly
> whay Jon did, he does not like something so his answer is banning them, • now
> is that wrong? You just made it seem so....
Are the avatars an opinion? I don't mean an opinion on the issue of the
avatars, I mean the avatars themselves. Is that specific avatar expressing
an opinion? Just like, is a standalone swear word an opinion? I value the
two differently. (see my discussion in admin.general a couple weeks ago
regarding profanity and banishment of views like hate speech - the Eduardo
Vasquez outburst)
> > Aah.... 'the right.' Well, he certainly is not in violation of the • LUGNET
> > TOS from what I see, so he most certainly does have the right to post • this
> > particular opinion here. Seems you're out of line in telling him (and
> > making it objective by using that wording) that he's out of line.
>
> Maybe thats my free speech, once again you make it seem its wrong when it • is
> what he is doing...
You're telling him he's out of line (his opinion is out of line). I'm
saying he has the right to say that here because it is not ruled out by the
TOS.
You want him to shut up and quit whining because he has an opinion you do
not agree with.
> > > You do not pay for brickshelf, you have no admin duties
> > > there - so why are you calling for the banishment of them?
> >
> > Funny thing about free speech, anyone can say whatever they want without
> > people like you trying to tell them what not to say because you don't • like
> > it.
>
> But its ok for him to say do not post these images because I do not like
> them? You keep getting caught in this.
He gave consideration to people with different opinions, put up his opinion
in a prompt for discussion. Big deal.
> > The Bionicle avatars might be a derivitive of Bionicle, but they are not
> > Bionicle. Unless someone had an avatar of a photo of an actual Bionicle, • or
> > a piece of Bionicle literature produced by LEGO. These are pixelated • images
> > for the purpose of a chat avatar which (albeit poorly) resemble • Bionicles.
> > And there's a lot of them, and they're crowding out pictures of real (or
> > virtual representations of the same with a measure of realism - for the
> > nitpicky) LEGO.
>
> How are these not Bionicle?? They are as much bionicle as the cad images • are
> lego. Just because they do not have the same tools as the cad heads do, • does
> that make them wrong and bad and not lego?
Wrong. Look at a CAD image. Its a near-exact representation of the real
thing. Heck, I've heard it from the mouths of LEGO employees that the
system we have is hands down better than anything LEGO *PAID* to have
created! Far cry from someone pixel-pushing in Paintbrush to come up with
something that barely resembles the subject.
But as Jeff said, even if LUGNET had the same system and people were using
Brickshelf I would still not like it. Its not a Bionicle prejudice, its not
a 14 year old pixel pusher prejudice, its a chat avatar which hogs bandwidth
because of its repeated occurances on pages and the mass amount of hits such
a forum receives. The spamlike pollution of the asthetic (in the views of
the viewership) of Brickshelf are on top of that - but not a determing
factor on a factual level.
> > > I can fully understand that you do not like Bionicle,
> >
> > Did he say that in this thread? Or do you know from somewhere else?
>
> He did say they were a fad and he hoped it would fade out among other
> things. Do you say this about things you like?
It doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't like them. I could for instance like
Harry Potter, or Harry Potter LEGO and yet admit that I believe its a fad
and will fade.
I'm sure you can talk to any Beanie Baby lover and they'll admit it (was) a
fad, yet do they still like beanie babies? Probably.
This is all besides the point though.
> > There's quite a few of those, they're hard to overlook. But of course, • that
> > makes me immature too according to you. I suppose if everyone else here
> > except you found the images in the same distaste, you'd call all of us
> > immature.
>
> Not immature, nice try to twist my words. What you and others are failing • to
> realise is that this is the part of lego they love!
Then why not use a picture of a real Bionicle?
> Just because you do not
> love the same part are they wrong? This is how these people choose to
> express their love of Bionicle. Is that wrong?
If I decided to express my love of say, Futuron, with the same quality
images, not one, but say twenty or thirty, and a whole mess of friends of
mine decided to do the same, in effect replacing the meat content of
Brickshelf with our underpowered 'image editor' fantasies, wouldn't that
disrupt the flow of what Brickshelf has been known to showcase for the
viewership? (not asking if it would be wrong here, just asking if it would
change the climate)
> Because you do not like it does that make what they are doing wrong?
NO! And I did not say that.
> > What if Kevin posted stats that the flooding of avatars were hurting the
> > viewership of Brickshelf? Brickshelf is a great resource, and a few are
> > concerned about it being abused. So what?
>
> Then let Kevin say that.
Well what's wrong with prompting Kevin to say that? Perhaps Jon's post and
a few opinions backing him up do prompt him to do it? Were we wrong for
prompting?
> And you are not really concerned about it being
> abused, you are concerned with these lego images that you do not like.
Wrong. I don't like them, that's my opinion. I can go on for a long time
about how I don't like them and really don't want to see them, but that
would hold no water in calling for their banishment.
Overtaking the bandwidth of Brickshelf (and therefore abusing the free
service) for something of such little value to the vast majority of the AFOL
community is a grounds to debate it on. See Larry's comments. If this is a
phenomenon that can be linked to bandwidth-depleting on Brickshelf, this is
a valid point in calling for their banishment.
And yes, I am concerned about Brickshelf being misused. Just like I'm
concerned about LUGNET being on autopilot.
> If you were concerned about misuse of brickshelf you would be complaining • about
> the non-lego items on brickshelf (and YES these bionicle images are a PART
> of lego - like it or not). Do a search for misc ond non-lego on • brickshelf,
> look at those - then if you are trully concerned about misuse of • brickshelf,
> complain about those, not these lego related items.
Certainly I do care about non-lego items on Brickshelf. You probably won't
believe me, but I have been strongly considering bringing that up as a topic
of discussion. But I haven't yet, and this post came along. So just
because I'm concerned about that (and that issue seems to be on the same
level or worse than the avatars), doesn't mean I won't also voice my opinion
on this. This just happened to come along first. Big deal.
> > Looks like a cheap shot at Jon if anything. His store 'Attack of the
> > Bricks' doesn't even pretent to have to start with A to be at the top of • the
> > list. Look at 'AAA LEGO Sales' or worse yet '_LEGO' appearing at the • top.
> > Ya, its crummy, but boo hoo. Jon's name is probably a play off the SW Ep • II
> > title 'Attack of the Clones.'
>
> Not a cheap shot, just a try to turn the tables on him. And yes, the
> '_lego' and 'AAA Lego sales' are obvious attempts to get the store at the
> top, but can you honestly tell me (you not him) that getting his store • name
> near the top never entered his mind?
I can't tell you that. But I can tell you what I think. I think the title
was a play on the SW title.
Someone once tried to pin on me in a debate this one - I had said something
irresponsible, then taken it back. Then this person tried to say that I
can't call someone else's irresponsible statement because I made one in the
past. MAkes about as much sense as trying to diminish Jon's arguments by
pointing out his Brickbay store starts with an 'A.'
> And taking your own advice... Should these images be banned because you
> don't like them?
No, not on that grounds. On the grounds of actual abuse of Brickshelf.
> Tim, you are a bigwig over there on the cad site, so why don't you go • ahead
> and make the program be able to make these type of bionicle images so you • do
> not have to look at pixelated images any more (I know, the horror). But
> would that make it more visabally appealing to you?
It would make it more visibly appealing, but it wouldn't change the nature
of the image, the bandwidth it is taking up (if it is, hasn't been proven by
stats by Kevin yet), etc.
So, it would be nice if Kevin could chime in with his views on this and post
stats if he's willing to share.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
| (...) ummmmm... (...) So because something adds little value to you its ok to ban it? Hmmm, you know cad images add little value to me - so can we ban those while we are at it? (...) Not for the first goround, but for his second attack (as far as I (...) (22 years ago, 6-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
122 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
|
|
|
|
