| |
Shiri Dori wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Respectfully,
> -Shiri
>
> P.S. I've posted about this 8 months ago (and countless times between then and
> now). Feel free to read it here.
> http://www.lugnet.com/loc/us/me/?n=116
I cannot help but agree with Shiri here. If you are old enough to drive and to
babysit, that should be sufficient. Shiri has demonstrated a maturity level that I
feel would put some of the rest of us to shame (at age 16 that is). And if her
family offered to sign a waver, that would be ideal. Just keep her away from the
punch bowl. :-)
Gary Istok
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
