| |
In lugnet.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.general, Thomas Main writes:
> Yes, there are unwritten rules here, but violating them isn't the end of the
> world.
>
> > These people want to talk about everything _except_ the LEGO model I posted
>
> That's a perennial complaint. I've got a fairly strong opinion about that
> one, which I don't wanna share in this thread :-)
My personal feeling is that there are some unwritten rules that strongly
*discourage* talking about a LEGO model that someone posts. I certainly
have the impression that no matter how well-intentioned, if there is a
single sentence in a comment that isn't perceived as the most sugary-sweet
encouragement then there are more than a couple LUGNET mainstays who will
stomp the poster's throat for it.
There are plenty of models that I was fascinated by and would have liked to
post about, but it always seems to be a choice between holding myself to
that kind of Disney superficiality, or having any of the points I was trying
to raise get lost in the static of all the
"friendliest-place-on-the-internet"-nazis yelling at me afterwards. As a
result, I don't make public posts about models, period. Whether the LUGNET
community is worse off for missing my opinions is debatable of course.
With that in mind, let's take the 'LEGO community' question to a concrete
example: Matthew Moulton, a member or no? He seemed to be a fan of the
brick, had a lot of 'ideas' to contribute and made a pretty hefty effort to
promote them, participated like crazy (albeit in a wildly dysfunctional
way), and certainly made a big impact on the evolution of LUGNET culture.
I'll grant that in the present sense he's not a member of the LUGNET
community; I'd guess that he still fulfills the basic requirements to be a
member of the LEGO community (unless his experiences here turned him off the
Brick or something).
> I like the norms we have on LUGNET, simply because they make discussing a
> whole lot easier. Let words speak for themselves, no silly emoticons, font
> colors, sizes, crappy animated avatars, etc. Yet, to some, that's a turnoff,
> and an elitist attitude.
>
> But, I've seen where some people either can't, or think they can't discuss
> something adequately without those elements. To me, that just clouds and
> diminishes whatever the person's trying to say, and promotes less
> intelligent conversation.
I'm not a big fans of emoticons etc. either, but rational conversation isn't
everything. If you're in full left-brain mode, hashing out the finer points
of LDraw naming conventions or something, all the personal-expression
accessories are just going to get in the way. On the other hand, I think
there are plenty of areas in which communicating in emotional terms doesn't
makes you less intelligent or diminish your message. You can't really build
a sturdy community without at least some people engaging in the kind of
interpersonal communication in which limiting themselves to rational text
would just cloud and diminish what they were trying to say, and promote less
intelligent conversation.
Not that those kinds of messages really seem to be appropriate for public
LUGNET posts. It's always painful and vaguely horrifying when somebody puts
up some kind of dramatic emotional way-too-personal post around here;
fortunately it's pretty rare. Also fortunately, LUGNET is only one of many
centers for the community and there are plenty of other more appropriate
methods for community members to participate in that type of communication.
> One of the things Jake and I had a side chat about was a point he brought up
> - communities and relationships in them are good and bad. And I'm REALLY
> paraphrasing here, and adding to it. Incidents, discussions, people who
> aren't nice/positive/etc still exist in the community if they're active.
> "Community" in the real world isn't rosy. Neither is it in the LEGO world.
I think that people who aren't nice/positive/etc are crucial to a rosy
community, they're what gives it vitality and depth. Any time people get
together and are allowed to express real opinions there's going to be
conflicts at varying levels and to varying degrees. A community where
people are always nice/positive/etc is denying themselves a huge range of
the human experience; that's about as close to the opposite of rosy as I can
think of without being dead.
> > Is the future of the LEGO community more in face-to-face contact
> > or virtual contact? Both...but I think online contact will be
> > dominant for the foreseeable future. Although I do hope local
> > groups and small face-to-face communities grow (as I think they
> > will).
I disagree. Online contact will be dominant for the LUGNET community, but
there are a lot more people playing LEGO with family and friends than there
are people on LUGNET, and I think the communities of two or three people are
a lot more important to the LEGO experience than our community of several
thousand. I don't expect LUGNET will ever replace that dynamic or should
ever want to.
> I think that remains to be seen. As more ventures start getting the word out
> more and more about the hobby, we'll see some fresh blood and growth here.
It's always good to have fresh blood cycling through, but I'm not sure how
further growth will really make any relevant difference. I mean there's a
big difference between a community with 20 members and one with 2000, but is
there any real difference between having 10,000 people and 20,000? There's
only so many names and personalities you can keep track of before everyone
else just becomes anonymous background noise.
Just my two cents.
- Mike.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
