Subject:
|
Re: SciBrick is looking for you!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.scibrick
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Oct 2004 21:41:36 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
3492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.scibrick, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
SNIP
> Further, I also ask that if
> someone presents a damning critique, that SciBrick is given the chance to
> rebuttle. Swooping in, saying we are elitist pigs, and then refusing to
> discuss that accusation doesn't exactly help us grow much (this has happened
> before).
Fine. You want an open discussion about what I found wrong with Scibrick? I
tried going back to the website to find the list of rules and regs, but the site
is down for maintanence. Fortunately I still have most of my email I had sent
to Joe Meno about my leaving Scibrick and the reasons thereof.
I had sent the email via Yahoo, and neglected to save a copy for myself, so this
is coming directly from Joe's quoted reply (I have removed Joe's responses for
privacy's sake).
Remember this was written nearly a year ago, so some of my points may now be
invalid. Since I can't view the rules and regs I cannot know for sure.
------------
Hey Joe (and Mark),
I can understand. I was willing to give you a week to
find the post before I took any further action. I see
that Mark Sandlin also found my post today, and
replied to it. I'm guessing either he found it first
and told you or vice versa.
My problems with the SciBrick Bylaws and procedures
are these:
1. "2. Potential members must meet a current Member
(referred to below as the Sponsor) in person before
they can officially be considered a Member, preferably
as a participant of a display." Meeting with an
existing member in person before you can join - This
is very poor judgement in my mind. We (AFOLS) are a
group based online, and a group as such shouldn't
require this. It's a lowsy way of making people feel,
having them not part of the group they're displaying
with. I can just imagine people asking them questions
- "Are you with Scibrick?" "No, but I'm trying to
join." It's like a bad frat house movie and they're
the pledges. If SciBrick is trying to display a
professional appearance at all times at displays, this
doesn't seem to fit in with that goal. Most people,
or at least I would if I was a non AFOL, would expect
only full members to be displaying.
2. "The member candidate will be introduced to the
group by his/her sponsor, including any experiences or
skills that the member candidate offers, and barring
objections, offer the member candidate Membership."
This is either elitism or nepotism, I'm not sure if I
can decide which I'd rather view it as. Why can't the
candidate represent themselves? What will the
existing member know that they couldn't find out when
the candidate represents themselves to the group?
Yes, you can weed out the few who are unsavory, but
you're still going to make them feel bad having one or
many tell them 'no.'
3. " Members will be considered "Established" when
they have actively participated with SciBrick for two
years, or are well known through the online LEGO¨
community. " Scibrick isn't even six months old, by
definition it doesn't have any members yet. The only
reason why it does is because the people who founded
it wanted to be enrolled sooner. And 'well known' in
the community? That sounds an awful lot like "If we
know you, and we like you, you can join." I was
refused access to a lot of tree houses because of
rules like that.
4. "Q: There is an upcoming SciBrick display in my
area. How do I participate in the display?
A: First, fill out the Event Participation Form and
send it to iinfo@scibrick.org. The Members will review
your submission and confirm your participation." This
is just too formal for our hobby. I understand,
again, that if you don't want to be represented by
inferior creations, but that is elitism. If someone
wants to participate, I believe they should be
allowed. "I'm sorry, your creation isn't good enough"
just doesn't fly with me. Now if I'm misreading this
and the 'review' of the submission doesn't mean that a
submission can be turned down, that all MOCs will be
accepted, then I apologize and I have no problem with
this rule aside from being an unecessary step.
I also have a problem with the 'fantasy' aspect of
SciBrick. Aside from the 'fantasy' page, whenever
SciBrick is described on the website or in documents,
it is never mentioned. Here's one example: "SciBrick
is specifically a science fiction LEGO¨ model oriented
organization. That includes spacecraft, aliens, mecha,
Moonbase Modules, and other creations that are
recognizable as science fiction models." I understand
that some people view dragons and such as 'science
fiction', but personally I view 'fantasy' like LOTR as
being something totally seperate from 'science
fiction'. I view 'science fiction' to have anything
to do with technology or higher thinking, whereas
'fantasy' is more involved with magic the other side
of the spectrum. It gives me the impression that the
'fantasy' part of SciBrick was simply thrown in to
make a place for Lenny and myself. Flattering as that
may be to have a section created for oneself, I don't
feel that it 'fits' with the organization. Heck, the
'fantasy' link on the sidebar menu of the website, at
least on my browser, isn't even in line with the other
three links (space, mecha, moonbase). Seems almost
fitting.
But now that I've complained about the rules and
procedures of SciBrick, let me save face and be more
constructive. What would I change or make different?
I would greatly more prefer rules and procedures
representitive of ILTCO, which seems to be much more
fair and reasonable. In ILTCO, joining requires you
meet three requirements:
1. Over 18 (a SciBrick rule I fully support)
2. A real person (as opposed to your dog or minifig)
3. An AFOL
If you meet those requirements, you send in an email,
your submission is reviewed by the officials and
you're either accepted or rejected. I've not tried to
apply, but from what I've read membership does not
hinge on your skills or experiences with displaying.
Every member gets a vote. However, ILTCO from what
I've read is set up like a republic, like the US.
Everyone gets to vote, and elect a representitive.
Some issues are voted on by the masses. The
represenitives (the afformentioned officers) vote on
the other issues.
Yes, they invite the slightly less committed into
their group, but only those who are committed reap the
benefits. Outstanding members can be nominated and
when approved they are given more responsibility and
no longer have to pay dues or prove themselves.
It's been argued to me that the rules are set up at
SciBrick for other reasons such as dividing the
spoils.
I.E. LEGO pays for airfare for SciBrick to attend an
event. Believe me I have experience with this. LEGO
wouldn't, not for the whole group. They would give an
allowance which would only pay for a few people, and
these few people would probably be the officers
anyway. TexLUG as far as I know is STILL trying to
get reembursement for the LEGO road show that we were
promised last June.
I.E. LEGO hands out 800 lbs of free bricks to
SciBrick. They could, but I have experience here,
too. TexLUG was given sets and bricks, with the
expressed idea that the bricks were given to TexLUG,
and NOT its members. Therefore the bricks could not
be divided up as they were to be considered community
property. Granted, LEGO never checked up to make sure
this is what happened, but had we divided it up it
would have been in bad faith, and that would
eventually leak out somehow to LEGO.
I am grateful that you offered me membership to
SciBrick, but with the rules such as they are, and the
theme such as it is, I just cannot and will not
comply. SciBrick is a great idea, but it seems to
have forgotten what our great and wonderful hobby is
all about. Having fun!
Make it easy to join SciBrick, make it easy to
participate, just make it hard to make important
decisions until you've proven yourself. Too many
rules and restrictions just stifles creativity, and
drives members and potential members away. Try to
remember that it is having fun that got you into
building with LEGO.
I have to remind myself that every day with
Classic-Castle.com. It is a lot of work keeping up
this website, and I'm not afraid of work. I work
because it is a labor of love, because I love LEGO. I
love building castles, and I have fun doing it, and I
want others to have fun too. So thus I work hard to
make sure that Classic-Castle is a fun place to visit.
It takes a lot of work and dedication to put on event,
and I know how it feels to be part of an event and
have people not participate fully, or take advantage
of the situation and only show up when it suits them.
But that's the risk you take with a public club. And
making rules to weed out the undedicated also weeds
out those who might be dedicated once they understood
in person what SciBrick is all about.
--Anthony
---------------------
Normally I wouldn't even bother with this, but I'm sick of being ignored by the
.spacers, people STILL refusing to talk to me over AOL Instant Messanger over
this, and Larry P. asked me a while back to bury the hatchet.
While this is not exactly burying the hatchet, it is making public my reasons
for being upset enough with Scibrick to make me want to leave, which IMO is the
next best thing.
--Anthony
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: SciBrick is looking for you!
|
| (...) Huh-- it's kind of interesting to see that some people are annoyed with SciBrick for being too elitist, but Eric seems to want to make it moreso: (URL) that I'm really for or against the elitism, I suppose. There's plusses and minuses on both (...) (20 years ago, 25-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.scibrick)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: SciBrick is looking for you!
|
| -snip- (...) Do you really think I'm trying to control the discussion here? Honestly.. is that what you think? By "legitimate" - I am only meaning that someone should not show themselves to represent the whole group when they only represent (...) (20 years ago, 24-Oct-04, to lugnet.org.scibrick, FTX)
|
74 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
