Subject:
|
Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 May 2002 22:54:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
786 times
|
| |
|
|
> Does this sound like a good solution to you?
Nope, and I'll tell you why.
It is my MOC which is subject to debate.
In my shrimp rover, on one of the wheels I used the non-lego parts which are
in question.
Here is the picture:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=154965
Here is the MOC:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=14018
As you can clearly see the two plastic shims used on this one particular wheel.
I was not trying to hide the fact.
The rules already allow for non-technic elements, and as I already stated,
my shrimp rover would work just the same without those pieces.
How are things such as ballast be allowed in the contest where these shims
are not. Ballast effects over stablity on structures and without it, some
structures will not work. There are even lego elements which are
specifically designed for this task.
I can agree that I broke the exact interpretation of the rules, but is this
cheating? No, I dont not at all believe this is any means of cheating.
Punishable by disqualification, not at all.
Since I believe this is a severe punishment, I would like to see a break up
of who voted for it and against it.
-Brian
In lugnet.technic, Tobbe Arnesson writes:
> <<snip>>
>
> > The MoTeC rules of today does not allow such modifications, the
> > question is: Should it?
> >
> > Perhaps one should allow more modifications and non LEGO parts? I
> > personally think the Technic genre needs more modified parts and non
> > LEGO elements then other LEGO genres.
>
> <<snip>>
>
> Hi, once more I manage to grow a big thread in lugnet.technic.
>
> I've read 'em all up to now and it looks like the "Yes"-side is bigger
> then the "No"-side.
>
> Still, I feel I don't want to let the modified and "pure" MOC's fight
> head to head with no limits and the amount of models that come to
> MoTeC is to small to have two separate classes.
>
> My suggestion is to _allow_ modifications _but_ these MOC's will be
> clearly marked as "Modified" on the vote-page and other pages on the
> MoTeC site. Also, the information text on the MOC's homepage _must_
> specify exactly what parts have been modified, the amount of parts and
> how they are modified - or if there is non LEGO elements in the MOC
> that should also be clearly specified. If the model is on Brickshelf
> there should be a info textfile with this information.
>
> This way it can be up to the voters if they like or dislike modifying.
>
> The relevant model that sprung the question will be disqaulified from
> this May voting process and the new rules will spring to action
> starting with MoTeC June, when the model might enter again should the
> creator decide so. I wont reveal what model it is but it's out of the
> competition for May - unless the creator feels ok with that in which
> case I'll remove the entry from the vote page ASAP.
>
> I will also add a text about pneumatic housing and make it clear that
> it may be cut into good length and might also be non-LEGO brand, just
> like string and rubber bands. This kind of modifications will not
> "punish" [1] the MOC's into the "Modified" marking.
>
> Cutting tubes (corrugated and flexi) counts as modifications.
>
> Another way to "punish" non-pure MOC's would be to decrease the amount
> of votes with a set percentage like 10% or so. But I feel that clearly
> stating the MOC's modifications should be a more exact science (and
> educational both for the viewers and perhaps for the creator that
> might receive tips on how to do the same thing purely.
>
> Does this sound like a good solution to you?
>
> 1. I suspect MOC's with the "Modified" marking will get a lower amount
> of votes since a "pure" MOC should impress more on the voters then a
> exact replica with modifications. Still, a modifed MOC might be better
> then all of the other MOC's in a given month and win the lot. Only
> time will tell.
>
> /Tobbe
>
> http://www.arnesson.nu/lotek/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: MoTeC rule question.
|
| <<snip>> (...) <<snip>> Hi, once more I manage to grow a big thread in lugnet.technic. I've read 'em all up to now and it looks like the "Yes"-side is bigger then the "No"-side. Still, I feel I don't want to let the modified and "pure" MOC's fight (...) (22 years ago, 11-May-02, to lugnet.technic)
|
40 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
