| |
In lugnet.org.us, Shiri Dori writes:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm posting here to explain my opinion(s) about the age limitation in NELUG.
> I've talked to many people about my stand on this, especially during and after
> the WAMALUG Brickfest. Many people there expressed their agreement with what I
> said, and some people encouraged me to post about it - so here I am.
I am glad to see you took that advice, Shiri. I have been in opposition of
this from the start, unfortunately, as an outsider, I've felt my statements
were little more than smoke in the wind to NELUG...
> In case someone missed this, one of NELUG's conditions for membership is that
> a member must be over 18.
> NELUG has explained their reasons for this, mostly due to liability issues and
> the fact that "they don't want to baby-sit". That was over 7 months ago. See
> here.
> http://www.lugnet.com/loc/us/ma/?n=140
>
> Let me give you some background about me here, so you know why I'm attacking
> this decision.
> I recently turned 16. I've lived in Newton (a Boston suburb) for a year now.
> As much as I've tried, I do not fit in here. As much as this might seem
> unreasonable, my *only* friends at this point are people I'm corresponding
> with online and/or by phone. Some are friends of mine from Israel, others are
> AFOLs.
> At this point I'm craving for some human contact. The Brickfest was the best
> thing that happened to me all year in that I could talk to people who share
> the love to LEGO, and it was face to face.
>
> It was then when I realized that being kept out of NELUG, I'm missing out on
> something great. Earlier, I was just disappointed that they don't allow me to
> participate. But now I feel horrible that I'm missing out, and I'm getting
> more upset of it with every NELUG post.
As you should. After conversing with you for a number of months, and meeting
you in person, I have come to the conclusion that you are more mature than any
other 15-16 year old I've met. Much more mature than some people I've worked
with over the past four and half years (the stories I could tell...). If
immaturity is what NELUG fears, they have nothing to fear from you.
> Up to here the background.
>
> 7 months ago, Eric Kingsley give a few reasons for the age limitations:
> > 1. Legalities - This has been discussed at length before and I don't want to
> > rehash that again.
>
> I have no interest in rehashing this either. My parents agreed to release
> NELUG from any liability issues in a written document, if neccessary.
Currently, I believe VLC has a required permission form for those under age
that must be signed by a parent. I'd be interested in hearing how well this
works, and why this doesn't seem to be an option for NELUG. We at WAMALUG have
yet to encounter an occasion where this would be required, as every person
under 18 has so far been accompanied by a parent. We should probably discuss
this further, however. I will go on record and state that I would fight tooth
and nail any proposal to completely ban people under a certain age, as I feel
it is just plain wrong.
> > 2. Our origional "Mission Statement" - NELUG was initially started with the
> > only goal to be to get AFOL's together in an environment that we could have
> > adult conversations about a hobby we share. Please don't harp on me for the
> > wording here. We know that you all share the same hobby and that most of you
> > are very mature and converse with Adults fine. For more explination please
> > see #3.
>
> Eric answered his own question here, I think. We all share the same hobby.
> Once you pass the "5-12" age recommendation on the box, most people are
> scorned or at least misunderstood for their hobby. Naturally this increases
> with age, but believe me at 16 I'm getting as much weird looks as I'm sure
> some of you are at 30.
> As for maturity, I don't see how this applies when coming from people who
> repeatedly declare their inner-children to be under 12 and some even younger.
> Personally I'm often told I'm mature for my age but that doesn't/shouldn't
> matter.
Age does not equal maturity. I know 30 year olds less mature than I, just as I
know 15 year olds who are more mature than I. Besides, Shiri and the other
under 18 crowd are just as out of the "acceptable age" as you, so I don't
understand the age limit either. Also, Shiri has proven time and time again
that she is an extremely valuable addition to the community, and would not in
any way be detrimental to your group. This statement is from numerous online
conversations and 3 days of face-to-face interaction. Also, from personal
experience and conversations with other people, the fifth grade seems to be the
last time Lego is an "acceptable" hobby. After that point, they have two
options when it comes to human interaction in the Lego hobby: none or adults.
and the latter was really only made possible with the widespread use of the
internet. When I was Shiri's age, I had *no one* to talk to about Lego, and
lapsed into a "dim" ages, where I still occasionally built and bought, but not
as much as I did before or after (but still a whole lot more than a true dark
ages).
> > 3. The snowball effect - If you make one exception where does it stop. Say
> > we raised the age limit to 16+ well now we will have all of the 13+ people
> > wanting in and so on and so forth. For us 18 is the best cutoff mainly
> > because that is the age where by U.S. law we are all considered Adults and
> > responsible for our own actions. This is a relatively easy age cutoff for us
> > to defend because of that.
>
> OK, so you took the easy way out. That's real nice, and even slightly
> understandable, but very unreasonable. Think about it for a second. You're
> setting an age limit at the most comfortable age, but it seriously isn't the
> right age. At 16 I'm on par with a 40 y/o as far as *LEGO* is concerned. Sure,
> the 40-y/o probably has a larger income and possibly more lego than me (not
> neccessarily the latter either) but the main point is we share the love to
> lego, and in the *same* way, which is (naturally!) very different than the way
> a 7 y/o loves lego. The cutoff shouldn't be at 18 - maybe at 12, or 16, but
> NOT 18. There's just no logic in that.
I heartilly agree. I see no difference between Shiri Dori, Tim Courtney, Tamy
Teed, and Todd Lehman when it comes to Lego. All are great builders and
contributors to this hobby. Banning any simply because they are younger than a
certainly point (but still outside TLC's "age range") can only be detrimental.
> > 4. We are not a babysitting service - OK don't throw stone's here we know
> > you don't need babysitters but once exceptions start being made this is where
> > this can lead. We don't want to end up having parents dropping off their
> > kids for a couple of hours and expect us to monitor them for free. This is
> > not why NELUG started and in my oppinion if this started happening many of
> > the Adults in NELUG would stop comming to meetings and we don't want that.
>
> Sorry, can't help but get mad about this one. I babysit, and I don't think
> people would trust me with their kids if I needed a babysitter myself. I don't
> think I need "monitoring" either. If my parents "dropped me off" it would only
> be because I can't drive alone (yet). Maybe I'd take the T if that'd make you
> feel better.
Excellent point. If you can get there or home unnassisted, NELUG is in no way
"babysitting". Obviously, your parents feel you are mature enough to be out on
your own. Perhaps that should be the requirement, instead of age.
> Another point I'd like to bring up is that NELUG is the only LUG that has a
> cutoff age, to the best of my knowledge. Many groups don't have a clear-cut
> rule about this. It is much easier, and more fair towards the people pending,
> to deal with this issue on a case-by-case basis. NELUG decided to have a
> cutoff, and I respect that - it's your choice. If you still want to have a
> cutoff, that's fine by me. But *please*, at the very least, reconsider the
> age.
I believe you are right. I've spoken to and read posts by members of other
orgs, and the closest I've heard is parental accompanyment or signed sheet by a
parent.
Jeff
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
258 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
|
|
|
|
