Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 04:48:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1306 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Jeff Stembel wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > > Jeff Stembel wrote:
> > > > As far as I'm concerned, posting the avatar images are a blatant abuse of
> > > > the free service Kevin is providing to us as Lego fans.
> > >
> > > I don't see how these images are abuse. The TOS only requires that
> > > images be related to LEGO products or be of general interest to the LEGO
> > > community.
> >
> > My reasons for feeling they are abuse is due to the drowning out of content
> > I, and other fans I speak to on a regular basis, am interested in, the
> > bandwidth issues, and their general appearance. Frankly, I think they're
> > ugly. I wouldn't complain if there was one or two per recent page, since
> > there have been other things I've thought were ugly and didn't comment on.
>
> I still don't see how they are abuse (now if a single individual had
> uploaded say 1000 [or even 10] avatars each in their own folder so that
> they dominated the recent updates pages, that might be abuse).
I think it is abuse because it seems like they're always some new ones, usually
in the same folders or by the same people, they are of no interest to *anyone*
I know browsing the recent page, and they are not showcasing models or ideas or
Lego information.
> To be honest, I find the pages dominated by mecha almost as frustrating as the
> pages dominated by avatars.
I think it is a real shame that you dislike a popular genre of MOCs so much
that they bother you to the point that they disrupt your viewing pleasure of
Brickshelf. Not even Bionicle MOCs do that to me, and those are my least
favorite of all MOCs posted.
> Should Kevin consider banning pictures of mecha?
No, because they are actual MOCs that I know from experience take a lot of work
to complete. Besides that, they have useful building ideas, even for one like
me who builds Castle.
> Is there any reason you feel they are abuse other than that they are ugly and
> happen to be popular right now?
Avatar images are popular??? Are you confusing my stance on these images with
my stance on actual Bionicle MOCs??
And yes, I described the reasons (most of which are more important to me than
"ugliness") I feel they are abuse already. Please go back and read them.
> > I rarely check the Brickshelf recent page from home anymore because I have
> > dialup, and downloading all of those avatar images is a waste of *my*
> > bandwidth, and the only thing I can do about it is not look, which means I
> > may very well miss viewing models I *am* interested in.
>
> This is a valid concern, and Kevin should look at what can be done to
> address that concern. I hope the solution doesn't include banning
> avatars just because some folks find them ugly.
Again, there are many more reasons than them being "ugly" which make me feel
they should be removed.
> > > Unless one feels that Bionicle Zone is not part of the "LEGO
> > > community" I would think that avatars for use on BZ would apply since
> > > they are of general interest to the segment of the LEGO community which
> > > uses BZ.
> >
> > Well, I rather doubt that all of them are reserved strictly for BZ, and
> > honestly, I'd complain if Lugnet used a similar system and members here put
> > the images up on Brickshelf.
>
> Certainly if more than a few images are being used as avatars on chat
> boards with no connection to LEGO that would be abuse. I would point out
> though that Lugnet is somewhat similar to BZ in that it doesn't provide
> space for people to host images. Do you think images for Lugnet hosted
> pages should not be allowed on Brickshelf? If not, how are they
> different from avatars for BZ?
No, I never said that, most images on Lugnet are actual valid content.
However, if Lugnet instituted avatar displays in posts, then yes, I'd most
certainly feel that people uploading them to Brickshelf would be abuse.
> > > The volume of them is large, and they may not interest as large a number
> > > of us as pictures of the latest supper MOC,
> >
> > I submit they are of less interest to the general fan community than pics of
> > any MOC whatsoever.
>
> How can you possibly determine that?
Do you honestly believe anyone looks forward to another avatar post to the
recent page, over MOCs of any sort? If so, what have you been smoking, and
where can I get some?
> Also, should any measure of the number of folks interested in a particular
> image (or other file) hosted on Brickshelf in any way factor into it's
> appropriateness so long as it is reasonably tied to LEGO fandom (and a chat
> board for Bionicle fans is most definitely part of LEGO fandom)?
Well, I submit that avatar images do not constitute "reasonably tied to LEGO
fandom," just as the image that was briefly up on the recent page of a nude
woman on the Fibblesnork background and bricks covering selective areas of her
body is not "reasonably tied to LEGO fandom." In fact, the latter contained
more recognizable references to Lego than avatar images do, and I would wager
it was much more interesting to a large number of AFOLs. ;)
> > > How many people need to be interested in the picture for it to be
> > > acceptable?
> >
> > Actually, I think it should be the other way around. If a lot of people
> > complain, then maybe it isn't of general interest, hmm? :)
>
> Oh, so if I somehow kick up a campaign to complain about one of your
> pictures then they should be banned?
If enough people can convince Kevin to ban it, sure. You'd probably have a
much steeper hill to climb than we do, however. In addition, baring one of my
pictures being offensive in some way (which I honestly hope never happens), I
think you'd have to find some kind of category to put it into and get banned.
> > Well, Kevin has said in the past that a few personal images are of general
> > interest to the community, whereas family albums are not. ;)
>
> So how is someone's "a few avatars" any different? (except that they may
> be somewhat more relevant in that they are actually being used as part
> of the person's identity on a LEGO fan site)?
A picture of the brickshelf account owner is far more interesting to the
general fan community than an avatar image, of that I'm quite sure.
> (though someone looking to create an avatar may want to search them)
They'd be better off browsing the message boards. You see a lot more on a
single page, and don't have to deal with images that don't relate.
> I submit also that few people browsing the recent updates will find auction
> pictures interesting.
I disagree. Photography techniques, as in backgrounds, layout, etc., used in
the pictures are interesting to a number of people, I'm sure. In addition,
people may see a folder marked ebay, look in, see a set they want, and head
over to ebay to bid on it. Those two reasons make them of interest much more
than the avatar images are. Besides, never have I seen a flood of ebay or
brickbay images like I see with the avatar images, which changes things
considerably in my view.
> What I would support is some mechanism which would trim these images from the
> recent updates.
I would support that if Kevin felt banning them was too harsh. I would hope he
looks at the traffic they generate, however.
Jeff
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
