Subject:
|
Re: Age limitations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.us.nelug
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Jul 2000 14:20:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1792 times
|
| |
|
|
Alright, I'm going to jump in here (I suppose it was inevitable) and say I'm
agreeing with Todd--
In lugnet.org.us.nelug, Matthew Miller writes:
> That's definitely important. But it actually _is_ important to some members
> (not unshakeably strongly for me, but maybe for some people, and I think
> it's a completely valid viewpointpoint) that it be an _adult_ group. After
> all, this is a hobby where in a certain sense (recent overtures from Lego
> Direct not withstanding) adults are officially Not Allowed. It's satisfying
> and refreshing -- even freeing -- to turn that around. That can be seen as
> silly, but it's still real.
Well, I'll jump in here real quick with a minor point-- Lego's attitude has
rarely (if ever, aside from the recent UCS sets and potentially LD) addressed
the over 16 crowd-- and most system sets (for all us minifig scale modelers out
there) are 8-12... For the sake of allowing those previously "Not Allowed", the
age bar should at least be dropped to 16, if not even younger... (but you
mentioned that later anyway)
> Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote:
> > I disagree with the first statement there -- I think everyone (myself
> > included) is getting tripped up over the word "adult." Do you really mean
> > to say that it is important to us (NELUG) to be a group of 18-and-older
> > LEGO fans? I think what's important to us (NELUG) is to be a group of
> > "adult-acting" LEGO fans.
> ...[Matt again]:
> I think this explains a lot the general desire to have membership limited to
> adults but to still have unofficial or even semi-official events at which
> younger non-members are welcome.
I think it's something different than "acting adult" that we're really talking
about-- (as said before, the line was even pondered at 21) And I sadly DO think
it's agism. After all, one of the desired 'points' of NELUG was to have a group
of us that would go out periodically for a meeting (or drink, even) and just
generally hubbub about Lego. And I think there's a kind of 'thing' we've got
against seeing youngsters being there that changes that atmosphere. I don't
think the original intent was to go to a restaurant/bar/whatever with
teenagers... they just didn't fit the picture. There's an appeal of being
around people your own age, where youngsters don't fit, and I think that is
what this "desire" is... And that's not to say that NELUG hates <18 year olds
or even that we want nothing to do with them, it's just what some people
pictured about NELUG as an organization, where 'kids' just didn't quite fit
into the picture. After all, to put it into the more absurd, would REALLY be
the same idea if we invited a 9 year old to come along who was just simply
REALLY mature?
However, that's A: not what it SHOULD be, and B: not what it HAS been. I can
see the desire for the whole getting together with people your age idea, but
that's not really what NELUG should be about-- if the 'adults' of NELUG want to
go and hang out or whatever, it's perfectly within their power to do so, I
think, without younger people, if it is indeed an activity where <18 year olds
don't belong at (main implication being going out drinking) But really, for the
sake of getting together, showing off models, sharing news etc, and talking
about Lego, there's no reason to discourage <18 year olds I think (at least not
in principle). Certainly, in a perfect world, mature-acting 9 year olds would
even be welcome... And as for what meetings HAVE been, I don't think there have
been many where younger people wouldn't have fit in (there was a probable
exception on the 1st night of Mindfest if I recall correctly).
Anyway, perhaps that's what has been alluded to so many times already in this
debate, even sometimes more directly-- a "sense" of wanting an 'adult-only'
club. However, I think that such a thing IS agist. In reality, I think the only
requirement to join LUGNET *should* be a level of maturity. That is a tough
line to draw, but I think we can dare to try lowering our limit, if only to
experiment, as I believe Todd suggested earlier... If we find for some reason
that 16 year olds ARE disrupting the atmosphere, we can change back. And as for
the matter of not wanting to tell these that they're too immature, I think we
can handle it. To be sure, we're all adults here...
The only other issue in my mind though, is liability for minors. That's the
only stopping block I can see in terms of not changing the rule. And as far as
that goes, there are most likely ways around our problems... between
'permission slips', many capable adult witnesses, etc., I think it is likely we
can work around legal issues.
Hence, at this point, I think I'd agree that perhaps the best course of action
would be to lower the limit to 16, and test it out... If it proves to be a
mistake for our atmosphere or facade, it's easy enough to change back. The only
danger being a legal mistake, which I don't think is anything we can't handle,
especially if we prepare for it beforehand.
Until the meeting, my $.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Age limitations
|
| Uhhh... tiny nitpick :-) (...) ^^^^^^ (you do mean NELUG, right?! just checking... didn't know there was a requirement for LUGNET too!! <grin>) Otherwise, you brought up some extremely valid points. -Shiri (24 years ago, 6-Jul-00, to lugnet.org.us.nelug)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Age limitations
|
| (...) That's definitely important. But it actually _is_ important to some members (not unshakeably strongly for me, but maybe for some people, and I think it's a completely valid viewpointpoint) that it be an _adult_ group. After all, this is a (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jul-00, to 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
|
|
|
|
