| |
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:Fx5tJo.F84@lugnet.com...
[... snipped ... ]
>
> I'm just glad that the most instrumental person in starting NCLUG has kids • so
> that we won't go through this same exclusionary mess.
>
> Frank
I just returned from my parents house (Northern Virginia - I did make it to
the LEGO Outlet, you just gotta like the scratch and dent table) to find
this thread. The last time I went on vacation without my laptop the Blue
Hopper brew-ha-ha (long nasty thread about the Blue Hoppers that Busy Bee
had obtained that got gobbled up very quickly) erupted and I spent several
hours reading the whole thing. That thread also got very nasty and bitter
and in the end, a bit out of hand. 200 posts later and I will weigh in with
my thoughts.
As the person that Frank referred to in his post, I will try and articulate
where I am and where I expect NCLUG to end up on this (obviously) very
touchy subject of minimum age requirements.
Early this year, NCLUG was really in its infancy (which other than having a
web site now, it still is) and Frank Filz and I had traded some e-mail on
the formation of NCLUG. Our biggest debate was forming a LUG versus an LTC
(LEGO Train Club). We settled on a LUG because there are not many of us
(yet) and we wanted to welcome anyone with an interest in LEGO. In early
April I replied to a posting where Eric Kingsley had posted a reply
regarding a Brickwars event in New England.
In Eric's posting he had mentioned that NELUG had a minimum age requirement
of 18. Since this was an issue I was personally wrestling with, I wanted to
understand some of the thinking from a group that had already been down this
path. Eric sent me back a very thorough e-mail outlining the decision
process that NELUG went through and I thank him for that.
The decision I have come to is essentially this: NCLUG will welcome members
under the age of 18 (maybe 16 but for now I am thinking 18) as something I
am referring to as, for lack of a better term, associate or junior members.
These members will be welcome at meetings (if we ever have any) provided
some other law doesn't prevent them (like meeting at a bar or some other
similar venue) from attending. The one caveat will be that these members
will have to be "sponsored". A sponsor could be another NCLUG member or a
parent or guardian and will have to be in attendance. This may create the
"bored" chaperon situation but I am willing to try it and see how it works
out. The allowance for a member to sponsor a younger member could also
alleviate the bored chaperon without eliminating the accountability.
Why allow younger members? Were it not for my son, I might not have ever
gotten back into this hobby. I am not going to exclude him (he is five)
from any events therefore all kids have to be welcome. There are a number
of other adults (who are not active on LUGNET but lurk from time to time)
who are interested in NCLUG solely because their children would be welcome.
I see this as an opportunity to get more adults involved in our hobby by
providing them an opportunity to do something with their kids. The way I
see it there are a whole lot of closet LEGO enthusiasts who would be willing
to get together for an event if their kids were involved.
The whole subject of exceptions is (IMHO) a bad path to go down. All it
will do is create popularity contests and bad feelings. Rules are much
easier to enforce and defend.
I respect NELUG for making a decision and defending it. All I have (for
NCLUG) are the thoughts in my head. They are entitled to write their own
bylaws and restrict membership. They have posted their bylaws and they are
enforcing them. While I don't agree with their decision (on the minimum age
requirement), I thank them (in particular Eric K.) for sharing their
decision process with me as I worked through some similar issues.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh@mindspring.com
http://members.tripod.com/mike_walsh
http://www.nclug.net
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) This sounds like a good policy to me. The idea of a sponsor allows a junior member to attend if they are able to convince at least one person to give them a chance (and contribute sufficiently to the activities that the rest of the members (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nclug)
| | | Re: Age limitations
|
| "Mike Walsh" <mike_walsh@mindspring.com> wrote: <chop an excellent disertation> (...) ...When we (WAMALUG) were making up our Charter, we wrestled with the jrfol issue some too. Some of us, myself included, wanted to be part of the club mostly to be (...) (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.org.us.nclug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) to (...) based (...) that (...) NELUG (...) that (...) having (...) Well, frankly (to be frank as is my right as a Frank... :-), I see NELUGs insistence on being adult only as being stupid and political. I think that such attitudes have no (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us, lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
