Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Jan 2002 05:55:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1319 times
|
| |
|
|
<snippage of old convos>
> > > 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.
First of all, bandwidth is not your concern. No matter how you spin it,
bandwith is not your concern. And that is not how this starterd, it started.
This started because Jon thought they were ugly and was tired of seeing them.
here:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=34987
Refresh your memory. The issue of bandwith only came in at a later time
after it was asked if they should be banned because they were ugly.
Secind of all, who are you to call them 'ugly' would you like it if I called
something you put work into 'ugly'? I know it is my right, just as it is
your right to call them ugly, but the point is would you *like* it? Would
you, or anybody *like* it if somebody called what they did ugly?
> > 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.
Again, how can you say they are no intrest to *anyone* and so what if there
are always new ones? They do have a right to make new ones right? Or are you
trying to surpress that right? And they are showcasing the persons work and
ideas, and that is what Lego is about. Just because you do not think they
"are not showcasing models or ideas or Lego information" does that mean you
can trash them, and the work that people do? People did work to make these,
whether it was 5 minutes or 5 hours they did work on them, and they like
them and they want to show them off. *Is that wrong?*
> > 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.
I think its a real shame you think your region of lego is any better than
anybody elses. And Mecha is *my* least favorite of all MOCs posted. But do I
think the region I like is any better then mecha, no I do not. Do I try to
ban mecha MOCs - no I do not. At least the bionicle is a region of Lego that
Lego has actually gone into....
> > 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.
Or are you saying no because you like mechas? How do you know these people
have not put alot of work into making thse images?
> > 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??
Obviously there are pepole who think they are popular. If nobody liked them
why would they be 'flooding' the recent page?
<snip more>
> 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.
Of course thats easy for you to say seeing that they are not being used.
> 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?
I find this comment to be one of your more childish ones. Promoting drug use
huh? Seriously, How do you know this? What gives you the right to say this?
Do you feel that because you feel this way we all should? I am not telling
how to think or what to like. If you do not like them thats fine - I never
said it was not fine. ANd I rather see these images than mecha mocs, so
there is at least one person who looks foward to these over any type of MOC
- blows your therory huh? Try not speak for every Lego fan next time, youo
just set yourself up for a very large fall.
> > 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. ;)
Well, not to a pre-pubcent bionicle fan I would wager. If the image is
innapropriate for the age group of the people who are viewing the page it is
wrong, and yes, I would say that image with the lego background would be
innaproperiate, because of the age of the visitors. But there is nothing
wrong with the bionicle avatars.
<snip more>
> > > 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.
Not to me. For the most part I could not care less to what some of these
people look like, or what their dog looks like. I would rather see a mecha
moc than a picture of you.
> > 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.
I have found pics of ebayauctions in brickshelf that I made a point to hunt
down on ebay, and try my best to win them. So I like ebay pictures very much.
> > What I would support is some mechanism which would trim these images from the
> > recent updates.
Yes, god forbid you be forced to look at them!
> I would support that if Kevin felt banning them was too harsh. I would hope >he looks at the traffic they generate, however.
Yes, these 3kb files are really degrading the preformance of brickshelf.
Thank the lord that this was posted:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=35017
Now maybe this convo can stop, and you can stop trying to hide your true
intentions.
tom
> Jeff
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bionicle Avatar pictures flooding BrickShelf
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 7-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
|
|
|
|
