| |
In lugnet.general, Stephen Wroble writes:
> WOW - Great discussion. I just happened to stumble across this discussion and I
> couldn't resist throwing my ideas into the pot.
:-) Glad you enjoy the discussion. Thanks for contributing to it - I think
it's a good thing to keep going a little bit.
I could have just emailed a few friends my original, but then thought, why
not post to everyone? Especially when I know quite a few others are
grappling with the same ideas. I think the discussion here is benefitting
everyone who engages it.
> The LEGO community is something like that. There are lots of smaller
> communities within the larger one, and some of the smaller communities think >of themselves as being the "real" LEGO community.
Yep, precisely.
> Jake's definition is probably as close as you can get to an all inclusive
> definition, but for better understanding, some of the words should be
> considered individually.
>
> One of the key words in Jake's definition is "relationships." A relationship
> could be something as simple as buying LEGO products. From LEGO Direct's point
> of view, those people are important members of the community. From LUGNET's
> point of view, they are not.
IIRC, Jake didn't define it as specifically interpersonal relationships, or
business relationships. I *think* he meant more interpersonal ones, though.
The business relationship of customer purchasing LEGO product but not
actively forming LEGO-based relationships outside of their immediate circle
is of a different nature than someone who joins a local club, an FLL team,
attends a LEGOfest, goes to a truck tour and makes LEGO-oriented friends, etc.
For me at least, I like focusing on the interpersonal relationships formed
around LEGO.
> Another key word is "regularly." How often is that? I don't post very often,
> and I've never attended Brickfest, but I consider myself a member of the
> community.
That's really nebulous.
> Finally, the word "interacting" is important. There are a lot of passive
> members of the community. People who lurk may still be devoted to the brick.
> You could say that passive members may not be members of the community at all,
> but I would argue that they are not ACTIVE members of the community.
Doesn't being a member of the community imply some level of activity?
I live on a street where it appears neighbors rarely talk to each other or
get together. Last fall we had a block party, and it was the first time I've
ever met many of them. Since the block party, I haven't really done much
with any of the neighbors I met. Are we a community? If we are, we aren't a
very strong one. Are the people who didn't even show up to the block party
members of that community? They're not active. It depends on how broad of a
definition you want to have.
Different definitions fit better for different applications. If you're the
LEGO Company, trying to sell product, you reach your customers no matter
their level of involvement in the "LEGO Community." But, if you're the
organizer of BricksWest, you draw off of the very active "LEGO Community" as
well as reaching out to other organizations such as the Official LEGO Club
and FIRST LEGO League.
> I have to
> admit that I was a closet AFOL for many years simply because I associated LEGO
> bricks with childhood and didn't know that there were other adults like me out
> there. I stumbled across the adult LEGO community completely by accident
> through the internet.
That's where evangelizing the hobby comes in. It's great opening closet
fans' eyes to the depth of the LEGO hobby. More often than not those people
choose to participate in the LEGO hobby in some way, and end up joining a
LEGO community, be it on the global level online, or the local level with a
club.
> (It would be good if the LEGO Group formally acknowledged
> the adult community in some way.)
They have :-) They're very active at adult LEGO fan events, and their
representatives (such as Jake here) have begun to support adult fan efforts
and form relationships with adult fans. It helps that Jake was an adult fan
before he took the job at LEGO :-)
> The word "community" is pretty slippery. I think the best definition of the
> LEGO Community should be as inclusive as possible but should acknowledge the
> concept of "degrees" of membership.
Sure.
> The LEGO Community includes both children and adults.
Definitely.
> It includes people who simply play with the bricks once in a long while and
> people who have devoted whole rooms in their home to LEGO play.
>
> It also includes collectors. (There are people who never even open the box!)
>
> It includes "purists" and it includes people who like to mix LEGO bricks with
> other toys. It includes people who believe it's OK to modify the bricks and
> those who don't.
>
> The LEGO Community has its conservatives and its liberals. Some people don't
> regard Technic, Bionicle, and Galidor as "real" LEGO and some people think
> they're great additions.
>
> And then there are the themes. Some of the themes seem to have bigger
> followings than others (or is it simply that they have more active followers
> than others?) There seem to be a lot of LTCs (LEGO Train Clubs) but I have
> never seen a LEGO Castle Club or a LEGO Space Club.
>
> I don't know if this helps or just confuses the issue more. I've discovered
> it's pretty easy for me to define myself and not so easy to define the larger
> group. It might actually be easier to define the LEGO culture or the LEGO
> philosophy than it is to define the community.
Well, I think it's a good idea perhaps to separate 'levels of involvement'
from 'attitudes, likes, and dislikes.' So, you would classify someone based
on their level of activity in for example, the LUGNET community separately
than you would categorize them based on how much they like/dislike new LEGO
themes such as Bionicle, newer style Technic, etc.
Not that a formal classification system is in order or anything!! Ick - to
me that would be WAY overdoing it. But, it's nice to be able to measure
larger trends in the community, rather than categorizing specific individuals.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
200 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
|
|
|
|
