Can we write the unwritten rules?

dhc6twinotter · September 24, 2012

Today a modded tank made it to TBB

Cutted tracks and aftermarket parts. A true sinner, but looks very good.

That is a good looking tank, although personally, I would not have cut the tracks. Everybody has the right to build and modify as they wish, and if a blog wants to feature a moc with modified parts, they have the right to do that as well.

I may have my own rules that I build by, but I don't expect everyone else to follow the same rules. Like I mentioned in my first post of this thread, I do have some exceptions as well. I love the chrome parts on your (bricksonwheels) trucks, as well as the chrome wheels on Crowkiller's cars. Someday, I may have some parts chromed as well. :classic:

Meatman · September 24, 2012

I really don't consider modding and creating parts that didn't exist before and having professionally chromed parts the same because the structure of the model doesn't change based on the parts being chromed. For example, Paul's Vamp GT looks amazing with the Red Chromed wheels, but the same exact model can also be built using the traditional black or the light blue gray wheels as I have seen various people do on brickshelf. Same thing with bricksonwheels trucks. He could also just as easily use the light blue gray or gray parts instead. But creating parts to make a model work structurally or mechanically to me is not so impressive and dismissive.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Meatman

**Anio** · September 24, 2012

Let's look at a model to see what it can do, instead of focussing of what it can't.

And what about what it must at least do ?

A tank that can't even roll ?

No, thanks.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Anio

jorgeopesi · September 24, 2012

And what about what it must at least do ?

A tank that can't even roll ?

No, thanks.

May be a City tank it doesn´t roll like a house in City doesn´t open windows or doors :laugh: . Just a joke forgive me Lego City.

Erik Leppen · September 24, 2012

And what about what it must at least do ?

A tank that can't even roll ?

No, thanks.

It is not a tank. It is a model of a tank. If it were a tank, then yes I understand why it should be able to move. But it's a Lego scale model. Why must a model of a tank at least roll? That's your opinion. And, you and I both being Technic people, I can understand why you think that. But someone who thinks otherwise isn't wrong.

**Lasse D** · September 24, 2012

Interesting discussion. Some people don't think it is a MOC anymore when parts become damaged (Because damaging parts would not make it "my own creation"...)

Now consider this:

This is a GBC module made from 100% official LEGO parts bought through retail with 100% legal building techniques.

Now this is the same MOC after a week of LEGO World exhibition. The balls have drilled small indents in the bricks:

How do you guys feel about this?

And how about my latest MOC?:

At first you might think it's fine, but looks closely. This is one of those models where I am pretty sure that in a few years, no one would think "illegal parts" were used.

**Anio** · September 24, 2012

It is not a tank. It is a model of a tank. If it were a tank, then yes I understand why it should be able to move. But it's a Lego scale model. Why must a model of a tank at least roll? That's your opinion. And, you and I both being Technic people, I can understand why you think that. But someone who thinks otherwise isn't wrong.

Well, actually, I think that a tank must roll not because I like Technic, but rather because an armored vehicle that can roll on the ground is what is a tank. :)

With a given scale, I consider a MOC as a whole thing that much complies with several specifications.

I mean, does creating a nice little tank prevents it from rolling ? I doubt it.

Well, I confess that I have strong requirements regarding MOCs (whatever they are ; Technic, Star Wars, diorama, etc). :cry_sad:

This must be the reason why I think the tank must roll. :laugh:

Now this is the same MOC after a week of LEGO World exhibition. The balls have drilled small indents in the bricks:

It seems there is indeed no illegal builds (but this is not my point here).

Just a nuance. For TLG, having strong standards regarding a kit is not only considering the legal/illegal built. For example, as we have seen in this thread and in the other thread, the clutch power must not be too strong, and built that can't be unbuilt must be avoided, etc.

But abrasion also has to be considered. We all remember 8043's story if this aspect is not taken into account.

The illegal/legal build are just one of the aspects Lego has to deal with. :)

Edited September 24, 2012 by Anio

Ralph_S · September 24, 2012

who'da thunk it?! lol!

shame on me! look, the original quote was "requires creativity", not "increases creativity", so your smug stridency in the matter is unfounded and, quite frankly, unnecessary and unwelcome.

KEvron

If you support somebody's statement (which I apparently misquoted) and somebody else disagrees with you, referring to whoever made the original statement instead of supporting your position with an argument did strike me as a cop-out. I understand that this is unwelcome, but so be it.

Anyway, a couple of pages ago I already wrote that this sort of discussion always strikes me as a bit pointless, to then get involved in it after all. That was bad judgement on my part and it ends today. Have fun.

Nazgarot · September 24, 2012

This is a GBC module made from 100% official LEGO parts bought through retail with 100% legal building techniques.

Now this is the same MOC after a week of LEGO World exhibition. The balls have drilled small indents in the bricks:

This has nothing to do with the discussion. It's simply destructive abuse of Lego, and should be avoided at all cost!! :tongue:

This reminds me of some of my more usable Technic creations before my dark ages. There was actually a few liftarms that was worn through by axels, and that as well without any illegal builds...

As for the tank... It seems to simply be a display model, and as such it's ok. But I'm not impressed, as most of what is done could be achieved with unmodified parts. I would be a lot more impressed by a model built under stricter rules, and that is probably the core of it. The rules makes for a more challenging build, thus it's more impressive if it's built by the rules. Only problem is, everyone has their own rules... I usually just avoid making comments if I see a model where I feel the builder has made unnecessary shortcuts, sometimes, how ever, the limitations of these fantastic toys (or ones economy) makes it necessary to break the rules. And in those cases I might be just as amazed by a non purist approach.

-ED-

KEvron · September 24, 2012

If you support somebody's statement (which I apparently misquoted)

both you and the person whom you are championing misquoted dhc6twinotte and, by default, me.

and somebody else disagrees with you, referring to whoever made the original statement instead of supporting your position with an argument did strike me as a cop-out.

shoulda, coulda, woulda. i don't feel any compulsion in debating flawed premises. i don't feel compelled to debate anyone ever, for that matter, so spare me your personal mandates.

i directed him, albeit obliquely, to his mistake. as that didn't end the matter, i was more direct with you.

I understand that this is unwelcome, but so be it.

yes, unsolicited character judgements based on a faulty premises do tend to rub some people the wrong way. go figger.

you want me to properly respond to being told that i am, of all things, narrow-minded because i believe necessity tends to precipitate invention, although you both insist i'd agreed to something else said? yeah, okay, i'll respond:

go dance in your mothers' bloomers.

better?

That was bad judgement on my part and it ends today.

now who's copping out? lol!

KEvron, one mutha of invention

Edited September 25, 2012 by KEvron

KEvron · September 25, 2012

About the other half of your quote: we play with Lego ... by building with it. The build is the play, at least, for me.

okay, you got me there. it's not as if i actually need anything i build (except for the canasta deck cradle!). it's not product for sale. heck, it's not even art for public display. it's a personal diversion. it is my play. my play and my rules.

and my rules to break!

KEvron

kibosh · September 25, 2012

However, you can't expect to present that model to the world and have it accepted with open arms...

Many people may want to rebuild your MOC, but not so many people may be willing to alter and modify parts, which could be a turn off to most...

Sorry. I build for me. If people like what I build, that's awesome. I don't need anyone's acceptance. It's nice to have, but not why I build.

This is a very valuable learning experience for children - finding out when they start finding something "too rigid". Or, in a border sense, finding out what they find fun. If you're speaking from experience of your own children, cherish it when it happens ;)

By the way, I think that even the fight itself is a valuable learning experience. I'm sure none of the children actually wants to hurt any of his mates - after all he just had fun with them, so he likely wants to keep them his friends so he can have fun with them in the future. The fighting sounds like a regulation mechanism.

If noone gets injured, let them fight their way out of it. They gotta learn that too. ;)

Very much speaking from personal experience with my kids. I do find their interactions fascinating. "Fight" might have been a strong word. They (almost) never get physical. More of the if-you-don't-do-it-my-way-I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home kind of fighting.

And how about my latest MOC?:

Just have to say, that is a gorgeous truck!

Erik Leppen · September 25, 2012

Very much speaking from personal experience with my kids. I do find their interactions fascinating. "Fight" might have been a strong word. They (almost) never get physical. More of the if-you-don't-do-it-my-way-I'm-taking-my-ball-and-going-home kind of fighting.

Well...let them "take their ball and go home", just to find out that that's actually not very fun :wink:

(PS I'm not speaking from experience. I'm not a parent. Also, sorry for offtopic :look: )

Sorry. I build for me. If people like what I build, that's awesome. I don't need anyone's acceptance. It's nice to have, but not why I build.

Actually, I think almost every AFOL builds for him- or herself. That's the key defining principle of a hobby, if you ask me ;)

And actually, even if someone were to build for the reactions, he's building for himself, because then he's probably building because he gets a good feeling reading the reactions.

Lipko · September 25, 2012

Actually, I think almost every AFOL builds for him- or herself. That's the key defining principle of a hobby, if you ask me ;)

I don't think that's true. It's sounds like BS to be frank. Anyone who is seriously doing something wants to be really good in it. The feeling that you are not able to ever produce anything as cool as the cool guys (which you can see on the net unless you close your eyes) is just destroying.

Unless you are Buddha, creations need to be compared to other creations. And comparisons need at least some rules.

This whole "I build for myself and whatever fun blahblah" sound just a Facebook slogan.

Erik Leppen · September 25, 2012

The feeling that you are not able to ever produce anything as cool as the cool guys (which you can see on the net unless you close your eyes) is just destroying.

I didn't say that. I didn't talk about thinking not being able to reach the top. I said that satisfaction is probably a main goal for many.

jorgeopesi · September 25, 2012

The feeling that you are not able to ever produce anything as cool as the cool guys (which you can see on the net unless you close your eyes) is just destroying.

Another matter of taste what you call cool guys sometimes are not so good for me and viceversa. There are a bunch of great builders that produce awesome and complex technic MOCs like machines, clocks or GBCs and they are not called cool guys but for me they are.

Lipko · September 25, 2012

Another matter of taste what you call cool guys sometimes are not so good for me and viceversa. There are a bunch of great builders that produce awesome and complex technic MOCs like machines, clocks or GBCs and they are not called cool guys but for me they are.

That doesn't change the ""fact"". At least if "cool guys" is not some agreed term about some specific guys. If I'm a GBC guy, then the "cool guys" are the GBC guys. If I'm a car/vehicle guy then the cool guys are the car guys.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Lipko

Meatman · September 25, 2012

If people only built models for themselves, then it would seem to me that they would not bother to take pictures and post them online at all. I think of "Cool Guys" as some of the pioneers in their field who's inspirations have spawned off many other builders.

jorgeopesi · September 25, 2012

If people only built models for themselves, then it would seem to me that they would not bother to take pictures and post them online at all. I think of "Cool Guys" as some of the pioneers in their field who's inspirations have spawned off many other builders.

And seeing theirs pictures I learned a lot in this 3 years, thanks to all of them. For me "cool guy" is the one who produce something that I have never seen before and it hasn´t to be a great MOC a small good idea often surprises me much more, Sheepo´s gearboxes, Majhqa´s chains idea or Sariel´s autovalve are good examples.

Edited September 25, 2012 by jorgeopesi

Blakbird · September 25, 2012

After 144 responses in this thread, I think we are now in a position to definitively answer the original question.