July 20, 20168 yr Laughing at crap isn't negative, it is the foundation of the internet. It can be both. If it is the "Foundation of the Internet", which is a highly untestable and unprovable claim, that doesn't mean it's not blatant negativity.
July 20, 20168 yr This is not the sort of thing that would ever, ever be made this way: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148092 And this is very well built, but a blatant ripoff of Research Institute: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/147690
July 21, 20168 yr It can be both. If it is the "Foundation of the Internet", which is a highly untestable and unprovable claim, that doesn't mean it's not blatant negativity. Are you being negative about negativity? Do two wrongs make a right? Astro-Knights I find tagging your own project with "cool", "amazing" and "cool vehicle" to be rather bad form. If someone else wants to call it those things, that's fine. And this is very well built, but a blatant ripoff of Research Institute: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/147690 Very nice set, but an unforgivable level of rip-off, like turning it up to 11. Girls in STEM... If the Research Institute didn't exist (ever), then this would be a great original Idea.
July 21, 20168 yr Are you being negative about negativity? Do two wrongs make a right? Precisely! It's an intentional irony.
July 23, 20168 yr Author And this is very well built, but a blatant ripoff of Research Institute: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/147690 Related, this "idea" which is getting many votes: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/147876 My problem with is isn't the quality at all (well, it's a minifig pack, it can't go that wrong and it's well-presented enough), but that it's typical anti-feminism nonsense. First, because the message goes against the idea of anti-feminism. "Hey look, girls can do stuff TOO"... Second, imagine how a "men of NASA" project would be welcome by that same woman (checking her Flickr, strong anti-feminism propaganda there). But I don't know, maybe it's just a project surfing on politically-correctness & the success of Research Institute. I can well imagine Lego's interest in getting girls to play with Lego. Other than that.. Edited July 23, 20168 yr by anothergol
July 23, 20168 yr I think it worth noting Lego changed the name of the Research Institute from the original project title. While I think Lego wants to promote STEM, and women participating in those degrees; they appear to be avoiding any terminology that might start a social-political debate. And seeing how the new Ideas rules make it blatant that "New Ideas can't be a continuation of previous Ideas products" I doubt Lego would ever again authorize a Research Institute like set.
July 24, 20168 yr Related, this "idea" which is getting many votes: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/147876 My problem with is isn't the quality at all (well, it's a minifig pack, it can't go that wrong and it's well-presented enough), but that it's typical anti-feminism nonsense. First, because the message goes against the idea of anti-feminism. "Hey look, girls can do stuff TOO"... Second, imagine how a "men of NASA" project would be welcome by that same woman (checking her Flickr, strong anti-feminism propaganda there). But I don't know, maybe it's just a project surfing on politically-correctness & the success of Research Institute. I can well imagine Lego's interest in getting girls to play with Lego. Other than that.. I don't find it anti-feminist, and I confess I don't understand your thinking on it. Moreover, this project, while undeniably conceptually related to the Female Minifigure Set / Research Institute, isn't really the same thing; more like a spin or variation on the idea. That earlier project and set portrayed women in vastly different sciences (astronomy, chemistry, paleontology), while this one is more unified (they all have different jobs pertaining to space exploration). The build concept (a series of vignettes) is similar, but the actual builds are totally different. This one also includes an additional build (the frame / case) completely absent from the Female Minifigure Set / Research Institute. And most crucially, this one portrays actual, real-life individuals, rather than "generic", unnamed scientists. This last feature is a pretty significant departure from the earlier set, and gives this project a distinct character of its own; note also that it means that if produced, the resulting set would be populated entirely with fleshtoned minifigures rather than yellow ones, which would mean that in addition to the set's worth as a design in and of itself, it would also be immeasurably valuable as a parts pack (in adding five female heads and torsos in fleshtones, making it highly desirable for MOCers who build in licensed themes). All this makes it sufficiently distinct from the earlier project and resultant set to give it its own identity. And the tremendous success it's having - over a quarter of the way in less than a week - clearly indicates there's an audience for this project that finds it really, really desirable. Edited July 24, 20168 yr by Blondie-Wan
July 24, 20168 yr Edit: apologies for the back-to-back posts; I made them close enough together that I thought they'd be automatically joined, but I was wrong. I think it worth noting Lego changed the name of the Research Institute from the original project title. While I think Lego wants to promote STEM, and women participating in those degrees; they appear to be avoiding any terminology that might start a social-political debate. Yes, though it also reflects the narrowed focus of the final version compared to the original proposal, which just had a bunch of women in a wide array of professions, most of which had nothing to do with each other. The Ideas team commented on the project saying that work as a cohesive set, it should be pared down to perhaps three or so vignettes that have at least a little in common other than just being women at work. Alatariel, being a scientist herself, decided to focus on the three scientists, and that let the three be tied together as a multidisciplinary Research Institute. And seeing how the new Ideas rules make it blatant that "New Ideas can't be a continuation of previous Ideas products" I doubt Lego would ever again authorize a Research Institute like set. The rule applies to IPs; they won't accept further projects for specific licensed things like Back to the Future, Doctor Who, WALL•E, etc., or further models of specific, real-world named things like Hayabusa and Curiosity. The Research Institute wasn't licensed from any previously-existing institute, or a fictional work portraying one. And even if it were, it wouldn't preclude this Women of NASA project unless it covered the same specific subject matter - a set covering NASA's general history. After all, the Back to the Future set didn't prevent the Ghostbusters one from happening, even though they're both licensed cars from mid-'80s sci-fi/fantasy movies, or the Doctor Who one, even though they're both licensed time machines from sci-fi franchises. Why would the fictional, original, imaginary Research Institute preclude a set based on the work of women from throughout the history of NASA, which is very much a real thing? Edited July 24, 20168 yr by Blondie-Wan
July 24, 20168 yr I think the description is more entertaining with this one than the model itself! https://ideas.lego.com/projects/146295 This one amazingly got past the submission process with such a zoomed-out picture. Also unrealistically sized. https://ideas.lego.com/projects/146572 How'd those even get by without 4:3 pictures?
July 24, 20168 yr I went browsing through new projects, and I found something awful: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/145188 Who would consider this a good set?! Or this: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148333, maybe even this: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148341
July 24, 20168 yr I went browsing through new projects, and I found something awful: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/145188 Who would consider this a good set?! Or this: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148333, maybe even this: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148341 I see absolutely nothing wrong with the first and last creations of your post, they're both perfectly acceptable builds with a good back story. The second creation isn't great, but with a bit of touching up I'd say it could easily improve. It's a good foundation for a build.
July 25, 20168 yr I went browsing through new projects, and I found something awful: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/145188 Who would consider this a good set?! Or this: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148333, maybe even this: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148341 That second project is the type of thing that just clutters up Ideas. I see no reason for it to have passed through the posting process.
July 25, 20168 yr Clarification: The Spider-Furno thing is basically just the constraction equivalent of the "someone's first time using LDD" models there are so much of here. Also, it's ugly, uses out-of-production parts, and doesn't seem to be able to hold its own weight with that design. I understand someone put thought into it... but that's not something that would become a set. As for the space freighter thingy... it just looks terrible, and again, I can't think of any conceivable way it could be a set. I'm sorry, I don't.
July 25, 20168 yr I'm sorry, I don't. I'm sure the creator of the project is very pleased to have your apology.
July 25, 20168 yr I think we should close this thread. Or agree not to post new projects that are bad. This has really just turned into an argument over what constitutes a bad project. I agree with PicnicBasketSam that those three projects are bad. Are they terrible? Not really, the second and third just seem to need to be refined. This thread is just going to piss people off, and maybe make people feel bad about their project, even if that feeling is kinda deserved for posting a bad project. And yes, a foundation of the internet is making fun of stupid stuff, but I like to think that Eurobricks is above that
July 25, 20168 yr I get why people are beginning to not like this thread, but remember that half of these probably violated the 13 and under rule. Others violate the license rule, (i.e. {Perry the Platypus wouldn't work since Lego has that License, even though they never used it.) Or the "No bringing back old parts" rule. I think it's okay to rib on people who are to lazy to read the site guidelines The license rule currently applies only to projects from licenses that have already gotten CUUSOO/ Ideas sets (e.g., Back to the Future, Doctor Who, Minecraft, etc.), and even that rule wasn't around until a few weeks ago. It doesn't say anything about licenses that LEGO already has if they haven't had an Ideas set yet (e.g., Star Wars, Marvel, DC, The Hobbit / The Lord of the Rings, etc.). They do note in the guidelines that projects based on existing themes are less likely to be approved, but that's not the same thing as saying they flat-out can't happen. As far as we know, it is still possible to get a Star Wars or Marvel or whatever set through Ideas (it's also possible that one or more existing licenses can't be done through Ideas, but they're not in a position to let us know). The Perry the Platypus / Phineas & Ferb example would be a particularly unfortunate thing to bar, since they never actually released anything from it (and the fact they were planning that one set in the Games line, while obviously known to us here, isn't really common public knowledge). The "no bringing back old parts" thing is similarly nebulous - they can't expect everyone to know what constitutes an old discontinued part, since they actually do bring back old parts from time to time. There are some parts that we can be reasonably sure are permanently gone (monorail stuff, old magnetic couplings, 9v train motors, etc.), but even then, a project that uses them in its build isn't necessarily a problem, since all approved projects get redesigned for the final sets anyway, and it may be possible to execute the same concept with other parts.
July 25, 20168 yr Author If you browse today's batch, you will see that most projects have the exacy same comment: "So beautiful! Supported no 2 and following. Good luck!" (like, these 2 *cough* gems) https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148110 (<- this one I'm speechless. Where could all those terribad projects with detailed descriptions & proper grammar come from?) https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148454 Edited July 25, 20168 yr by anothergol
July 25, 20168 yr If you browse today's batch, you will see that most projects have the exacy same comment: "So beautiful! Supported no 2 and following. Good luck!" Yeah I hate it when they do that I don't how it just seems cheap
July 25, 20168 yr Yeah, both of those projects are terrible. I don't see how anyone would expect them to be approved.
July 27, 20168 yr Actually...That Ping Pong table is intriguing. Does it use a weird 4x7 plate? Or is it multiple plates put together? I would assume the latter, but I don't see any seams...
July 27, 20168 yr Actually...That Ping Pong table is intriguing. Does it use a weird 4x7 plate? Or is it multiple plates put together? I would assume the latter, but I don't see any seams... It's an interesting design in itself, but it's not a good Ideas project.
July 28, 20168 yr ^He has seams turned off in LDD, so I can't tell what he used. Probably a 4x4 and a pair of 2x3s with nothing connecting them. But my goodness, these projects are enthusiastic in their below-average-ness... oh, and this gem turned up in my "Similar" feed, viewing the pile of plates project: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/134175 Methinks it's just an excuse to put printed tiles on the market, but come on, who would buy it? Or, for that matter, this: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/117992 poor quality aside, Brent Waller's massively superior version already got rejected! If LEGO was going to make this, they would have already. EDIT: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/148788 Edited July 28, 20168 yr by PicnicBasketSam
July 29, 20168 yr Forget about Clinton, lightning tiger just writes "Good luck, supporting & following, Brick On !" On every post created. At first I thought he was a bot but then I realized he writes it slightly different or writes something after it half of the time.
July 30, 20168 yr He is also a friendly, positive guy and a very active MOCer & Eurobricks member, and is lately giving useful feedback, so I wouldn't be taking jabs at him. I'm sure we all get a bit generic sometimes when leaving feedback on eBay/Bricklink etc.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.