What about SNOT?

[blueandwhite]

In a recent thread, Starwars4J and I were having an interesting conversation on the utility of SNOT. For those of you who don't know what SNOT is, it refers to Studs Not On Top. Essentially, any building technique which places the studs of a brick in a non-upright position is referred to by most AFOLS as SNOT. Common bricks for SNOT work include, but are not limited to bricks such as, , and . Essentiall, any brick which changes the natural upward position of the LEGO studs may be used to create SNOT. There are also less-conventional ways to achieve such a result.

What I wonder is, how important is SNOT to you when your building a MOC? And more importantly, when used properly by someone you consider to be an expert builder, do you think SNOT can improve the look of a MOC, or do you simply think its a waste of time, and that a similar effect could be achieved through conventional means?

Personally, I feel that SNOT is not (nice rhyme) in any way, shape or form overrated. I don't feel that it is essential in all circumstances, however in many cases, SNOT is the only reasonable solution to an otherwise insolvable building dilema.

So, what do you guys think?

[Jipay]

I don't think SNOT is the ultimate solution. After all, lego is about studs, those are essential to the toy and I like having some studs appearing. I think it's like everything, it's good when used if necessary.

[Starwars4J]

My opinion pretty much mirrors Jipay. While I view SNOT as very useful in a variety of situations, it's by no means, in my opinion of course, necessary. I've seen many MOCs that are great AND SNOTless.

Of course it's very handy for certain things.

[Cutty]

I would use SNOT more often if it was more intuitive to employ properly.

Almost all the usual SNOT-pieces have some wierd degree of superfluous height to it (headlight-bricks, etc.) that makes it difficult to realign bricks orderly to give the creation a polished look to it. Ok, "real" SNOT-masters might calculate that Lego-mathematics with a quarter-volume of their brain, but for non-nerds like myself it's kinda hard to figure it out. Ok, that might be a stereotype, but I'm not really into calculating brick-heights and stud alignments before I get to build.

Same thing is valid for jumper-plates wich create an offset. If you're not really deep into these things it's hard to use their potential to its full extent.

One question that bugs me right now is the obvious latest fad of the master-builder-crowd: building and leaving no studs or undersides of plates/bricks visible (obviously to create a smooth surface, mostly achieved through SNOT).

Does one really HAVE to master that technique in order to be recognized as a good mocer?

[Thrash]

I don't see the point of SNOT. If I don't want studs showing, I simply use smooth peices on all visable studs.

[Kikuichimonji]

SNOT is quite important. It can add to a great MOC in the right circumstances.

It's by no means necessary, I can build a pretty nice MOC without using SNOT. However, when I use SNOT, it looks even better. So it does add to the MOC, but it's not a necessity...

[Sir Dillon]

I too voted for the second option. I don't think that SNOT is necessary to make a good creation, but it definitely can help for certain MOCs.

[jonfett]

I guess I am with Kiku and Dillon on this. The building technique you use (in this case SNOT) in a moc depends entirely on the style and theme of the moc. For example, if you are building a space ship you would probably use tiles to get a sleek look, or in a castle moc you may use studs up for a rough path effect.

SNOT does give a better appearance to some models but if you overuse it, it stands out too much.

Jon.

[Norro]

I voted for no.2 as well but my sympathies probably lay between it and no.1. The more I discover snot the more my buildings improve to the point that comparing some of my old MOCs to newer ones is obscene. That said, a MOC that is clearly just built to show some technique and looks terrible, is worthy of very little respect.

God Bless,

Nathan

[ApophisV]

I really don't like comments like

"Your MOC isn't that great because you haven't used SNOT!"

Actually SNOT is just one technique among many, many others. It sure can add much to a MOC, but often there can be lots of other solutions to the problem you try to get over.

I honestly like to build using SNOT techniques alot, it is somehow real fun to me, but only because I like the technique and because some people think it is "in" to do SNOT, it doesn't mean everybody must use it. (Here are some examples of my SNOT MOCs: Rocket, Castor, Croissant, Dandelion)

If you like it, build with it, if you have other solutions for the MOC your qorking on, show us something different!

[blueandwhite]

I really don't like comments like

"Your MOC isn't that great because you haven't used SNOT!"

I think it is a rare ocassion when somebody says anything this blunt or hurtful to a fellow AFOL. Nor do I think that this statement is particularly true. Sure, a MOC may benefit from some form of SNOT-work, but even then, this isn't always the case. I don't always imploy SNOT in my MOCs, but I certainly acknowledge its benefits.

Actually SNOT is just one technique among many, many others. It sure can add much to a MOC, but often there can be lots of other solutions to the problem you try to get over.

Agreed. Of course, there are situations where SNOT is an appropriate solution.

I honestly like to build using SNOT techniques alot, it is somehow real fun to me, but only because I like the technique and because some people think it is "in" to do SNOT, it doesn't mean everybody must use it. (Here are some examples of my SNOT MOCs: Rocket, Castor, Croissant, Dandelion)

If you like it, build with it, if you have other solutions for the MOC your qorking on, show us something different!

Nice work there.

Again, I agree with most of what you said. As a fan and a builder, I find that the AFOL community is overwhelmingly positive. Yes, there may be the odd jerk who belittles or insults the work of their fellow fans, but the majority of us are friendly, and share only kind words and helpful criticisms.

Later.

[Starwars4J]

I'm confused though, wasn't your argument in the first place that all great MOCs use SNOT?

[xwingyoda]

Voted for n

[blueandwhite]

I'm confused though, wasn't your argument in the first place that all great MOCs use SNOT?

No.

At no point in any thread did I make such a statement.

I am simply of the opinion that SNOT is a great tool, frequently utilized by the best AFOLs. This doesn't mean that SNOT is always used, or must be used for a MOC to be great. It simply means that it is a great technique, readily used by the community's best builders.

And yes, in my experience, many of the best builders do make extensive use of SNOT. This is not the same as exclusive use (the position you assert I have taken). Simply put, a builder who knows how to effectively use SNOT has a greater arsenal of techniques at his or her disposal. THis doesn't mean that SNOT is necessary, but in circumstances where it is appropriate, the expert builder will undoubtedly employ it to better his or her MOC.

(I voted for No. 2, in case you were interested)

Later.

[Starwars4J]

I thought you voted for number 1, as there was only one other vote when I voted for number two, and there was one vote for each one and two, and the first posted said he posted for number two...

Anyway that's what I was getting at in the other topic we were talking in. That you don't need SNOT for a MOC to be great, and that the common idea that it's NEEDED is what bothers me, as plenty of great MOCs are SNOT-free.

Now I wonder who voted for number 1 :-P

And I agree, the better builder will employ it when appropriate as there are many cases something can be done just as easily with regular techniques.

[Chuck]

I voted for numero uno. I personally find SNOT extremely helpful when building Mecha !

-l2k-

[5150 Lego]

I really don't like comments like

"Your MOC isn't that great because you haven't used SNOT!"

I think it is a rare ocassion when somebody says anything this blunt or hurtful to a fellow AFOL. Nor do I think that this statement is particularly true. Sure, a MOC may benefit from some form of SNOT-work, but even then, this isn't always the case. I don't always imploy SNOT in my MOCs, but I certainly acknowledge its benefits.

Unfortuntly i have to disagree with that coment. Recently i have seen a couple of members basicly bash others mocs. Telling them that there technique of building wasn't any good. This really bugs me. There's nothing wrong with giving some contructive critisim, but i don't fell ANYONE has the right to bash anyone elses techique.

Anyways, back on topic, i voted for number 2. I think its usefull, but not a neccesity. Though i have found myself using this "methoed" a bit more.

To be honest, i personly don't have a paticular builing style. I just do what looks good for what ever prodject i'm working on.

[Hobbes]

I think it is a rare ocassion when somebody says anything this blunt or hurtful to a fellow AFOL.

You don't read LUGNET, do you?

Nor do I think that this statement is particularly true.

I agree.

A bit OT:

Reading the online community (not just LUGNET) now for almost 2 years I've noticed that there actually are two sort of AFOLs: those who enjoy LEGO as an adult, period, and those who you could call "model designers".

I have a "problem" with the latter, though, especially some American LUGNET members: the better they get the more "intense" they get and the more serious they take their hobby. Too serious. I see discussions that, IMHO, have nothing to do with "LEGO as a hobby" anymore. It's all about professionalism - which in their opinion isn't without SNOT. I'm not saying that their work isn't interesting, on the contrary, they build some fantastic models. And I understand that if your skills evolve you just want to build better models. But somehow their "personality" changes with it... I dunno. That's the impression I got...

Then there's places like EB where there are ppl who "just" enjoy LEGO - in any way...

Back on topic:

I voted for #2.

Edit: Talking 'bout SNOT, how about that: http://news.lugnet.com/build/schleim/?n=299. Sure looks interesting...

[blueandwhite]

I think it is a rare ocassion when somebody says anything this blunt or hurtful to a fellow AFOL.

You don't read LUGNET, do you?

Unfortunately.

LUGNET has really become an unfriendly place. There are far too many elitists there for my tastes. Long-time members of the LEGO community who seem to believe that they are better than everyone else are far more common over there.

Still, I think people tend to focus on a select few negative comments, overlooking what usually is an overwhelmingly positive response. Not everyone is going to be nice, or have kind words for you, no matter how good you are at building. I've seen AFOLs tear into some of the best builders out there. Its not like such behavior is the norm.

Of course, LUGNET isn't the only unfriendly LEGO site. Look at some of the reviews over at MOCpages. Some phenomenal builders have recieved horrible reviews, while some average builders manage amazing scores. Funny thing is, most people who see fit to leave a poor review, seldom give reasons or their name. Some people are simply too harsh when reviewing the work of others.

Nor do I think that this statement is particularly true.

I agree.

A bit OT:

Reading the online community (not just LUGNET) now for almost 2 years I've noticed that there actually are two sort of AFOLs: those who enjoy LEGO as an adult, period, and those who you could call "model designers".

I have a "problem" with the latter, though, especially some American LUGNET members: the better they get the more "intense" they get and the more serious they take their hobby. Too serious. I see discussions that, IMHO, have nothing to do with "LEGO as a hobby" anymore. It's all about professionalism - which in their opinion isn't without SNOT. I'm not saying that their work isn't interesting, on the contrary, they build some fantastic models. And I understand that if your skills evolve you just want to build better models. But somehow their "personality" changes with it... I dunno. That's the impression I got...

Then there's places like EB where there are ppl who "just" enjoy LEGO - in any way...

Back on topic:

I voted for #2.

Edit: Talking 'bout SNOT, how about that: http://news.lugnet.com/build/schleim/?n=299. Sure looks interesting...

As someone who leans towards the latter position you mentioned (the so-called "model designer"), I feel a need to defend myself here. It certainly is true, that as your skills improve, you do tend to set your standards a bit higher. And yes, for some, it does become somewhat competitive. I fully admit that my focus as an AFOL will always be on MOCing (and I do take great joy out of seeing a wonderfully constructed MOC). For me, advanced building techniques are wonderful to look at. What this doesn't mean is that I will treat other less-experienced builders with distain. My perspective as a builder may have changed, but my personality certainly hasn't.

In my experience, there are jerks of all ages and abilities. There are just as many poor builders who act cruelly, treating others with distain while overrating themselves. They are just as rude as their more talented counterparts; willing to throw a few punches, but reluctant to take them. You don't have to be talented to be a jerk. Yes, I think it hurts more when somebody with more talent than you throws a jab at your work, but I don't think it means that the 'building elite' are the only persons who take these cheap shots.

Personally, I will never openly put down a builder or their MOC, simply because I know that my work is just as susceptible to insult. This isn't a question of talent or ability, but one of character. I am an intermediate builder, but that doesn't give me the right to insult somebody who is less-skilled than I am, just as it doesn't give an advanced builder the right to insult me. Being a jerk has nothing to do with talent.

One other thing.

I think some people tend to confuse constructive criticism with insult. Not every critical comment is an insult. Sometimes, an experienced builder will make suggestions that he or she feels might help out an intermediate or beginning builder. These comments are often taken as a slight, when they were intended to assist the MOCer. Alot of people ask for constructive criticism, yet they get upset when somebody actually gives them some. I think everybody is looking for some form of validation, but criticism can be incredibly helpful so long as it's positive.

Later.

[Kikuichimonji]

Edit: Talking 'bout SNOT, how about that: http://news.lugnet.com/build/schleim/?n=299. Sure looks interesting...

I saw that yesterday. I think I'll be 'borrowing' that technique in the near future ;-)

[Hobbes]

One other thing.

I think some people tend to confuse constructive criticism with insult. Not every critical comment is an insult. Sometimes, an experienced builder will make suggestions that he or she feels might help out an intermediate or beginning builder. These comments are often taken as a slight, when they were intended to assist the MOCer. Alot of people ask for constructive criticism, yet they get upset when somebody actually gives them some. I think everybody is looking for some form of validation, but criticism can be incredibly helpful so long as it's positive.

Later.

I agree. But the wrong perception of constructive criticism often has to do with how that comment was made. More than often I read comments like "You should have used blahblah". No "greeting", no comment about the MOC itself, no nothing. And that, without seeing the writer and his "body talk", can easily lead to a wrong perception. I think a comment like "Nice model/MOC. It could use..." or "Nicely done. I would have used..." would be much more appreciated than a blunt unpersonal comment. That's the disadvantage of the "written word"...

[keetongu]

You put that green stuff that comes from your nose called snot on your mocs?!?*Faints*

[xwingyoda]

You put that green stuff that comes from your nose called snot on your mocs?!?*Faints*

Would you be so keen to elaborate this comment a little more please keetongu ??

Tks

*yoda*

[Mithrandir]

Hey, you're all discriminating against us SNAA people!

(Studs Not At All)

Heh; 90% of my stuff is studless technic :P

Of course, I don't really build that much "model" stuff. I just like building mechanical machines like elevators and trebuchets and transmissions...

[john cleese]

its an excelent building technique, but i really dont like when they disect hinges or worse, destroy, aka modify, peices. These strange building techniques really bug me, so i guess you could call me an extreme lego purist. However i find im starting to contemplate fiddling around with a few peices, maybe create my own snot element. Mind you i am 14 and doubt ill actually make anything substantial.

Anyway, i voted number 2 because sometimes SNOT just cant be implemented.