| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> [...] I my opintion, Todd's position on clones is wrong. However, I respect
> his opinion, and I grant him the authority to limit how clones are discussed
> on Lugnet. I have consistently found that Todd's ideas on how to manage
> the site (as separate from determining it's content) have been the same.
> Again, this commands my respect. [...]
Thanks for the vote of confidence. But it's not my intention to "limit how
clones are discussed" here, inasmuch as no one is complaining about clones
so far. Rather, sensing (from private and publics discussions over many
years, plus a survey of almost 2000 respondents) that 90% or more of LEGO
fans detest clones, I thought it made sense to create a special group just
for clones (i.e., lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands) so that people who *did*
enjoy clones could go talk up a storm there without fear or worry of
constantly being degraded or flamed for being off-topic or heathens. When
we talked about creating the group about a year ago, the idea was well-
received, IIRC, both before and after the group's creation.
Now, given that there is a group dedicated to clone brands, then obviously
that's the "most appropriate" place to have the truly in-depth discussions
about clones. But that doesn't mean that they can't be discussed in other
groups -- it's just the "most appropriate" place -- the place to direct
followups to, etc., when things get nitty gritty, etc.
Personally (just me now as a person, not as a sysadmin) I think clones are
both a good thing and a bad thing to have in the marketplace because they
(presumably) bring prices down due to competitive pressures. That's good in
the short term for consumers, I think, but not good for TLC in the long-term,
and therefore bad for consumers in the long-term. (I am not an economist :)
But regardless off whether they're "good" or "bad" for LEGO, I'd be perfectly
happy never ever having to hear about them. But that's just me personally,
and should not be misconstrued as an official LUGNET position on the issue.
With regard to raw *data* about clones, on the other hand -- such as reviews
or parts, etc., that's something I have a hard time accepting as "mixable"
with the current groups -- especially for brands that have four-digit product
numbers as LEGO does (because of the potential for confusion), or similar
part numbers. If we truly need a group for non-LEGO DAT files, then that's
a far better thing to have IMHO than posting non-LEGO parts to LEGO®-intended
(note the ®) DAT groups.
As far as reviews go, I'd almost be surprised if fans of clone brands
wouldn't rather see the reviews in the .clone-brands group than in the
.reviews group, given the nature of the two groups. Then again, maybe not --
and maybe even though 90% of everyone hates clones, only 1% of people would
hate to see reviews of clones in the .reviews group. If so, then it's better
IMHO to talk about how we can "fix" the charter of a group and let me be
bummed out about it personally than for everyone to quiety but respectfully
disagree.
(I hope that all made sense...?)
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
105 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
|
|
|
|
