Portal
Do NOT assume he/she is:
- "[arguing] with [you] about why [you] are wrong"
- "[forcing you] to agree with [them]"
- "constantly ripping into the work of other builders"
- "knocking into [you] for failing to achieve perfection"
- "[dragging your] efforts through the mud"
- "taking it all way too far"
These people are, most likely, AFOLs with a great amount of love and respect for the original source material to the point that they feel it is absolutely essential to incorporate an amount of it into an MOC. This does not mean they are wrong; it does not mean you are wrong. It's simply a different approach, and they as AFOLs and fellow members of KOTBR wish to help you improve your MOC in the way they know best.
Do NOT counter with arguments such as:
- "TLG's proven willingness to simply invent new vehicles, sets or otherwise take significant creative license shows that screen accuracy is a very distant priority to simply making fun sets designed for children."
- "AFOLs only account for a minority of Lego's business, and thus they have no real obligation to only satisfy you."
- "Not that 'accuracy' really has much meaning when discussing something that doesn't really exist at all."
- "LEGO models are not exact replicas, especially when they're not UCS; they're a representation of the ship."
- "[Y]ou should get more into die cast models or hasbro toys if you want interiors and high levels of detail."
- "LEGO is primarily a childrens toy."
- "...[W]hen people think the key point is ACCURACY! to the point that they can be called a borderline obscenity (see the first post), a lot of fun is sucked out of the process[.]"
- "[A]dvice should be to improve their design, not to turn it into your own. "
- "Once a project becomes a chore and finding solutions is not an inspiring and fulfilling way to channel one's creative energy, then I'd say that the border has been overstepped and I'd really question whether it's worth the effort."
- "Accuracy to me is a bunch of MegaBloks. As long as I can recognize the ship even to the vaguest extent, I'm happy with it."
- "MOC should do one thing, make the creator happy."
- "A ugly but accurate moc, is still a ugly moc"
- "Of course we share, and give and get suggestions, but it should be in line with the target the maker was going for, and not some futile attempt to perfect your toy ship."
- "It should be good-looking however you define good looking, but it by no means should be able to hold up to a comparison picture of the 'real' vehicle. It's made out of pre-formed LEGO bricks; at the minifigure-scale, there's just no way it can be accurate."
- "Should anybody really care that all precise angles from the source material be met in the MOC, and even if someone does, should they say so?"
- "For one builder, colour and proportion may be of the highest importance. To another builder, the angles of shapes and elements may demand priority. For a third builder, texture and recognizability may be key goals. It's not possible to achieve all of these things with LEGO bricks."
As these AFOLs tend to stand firm in their belief that accuracy is, in fact, possible to some degree with LEGO (Yes, it's true!) counters like these will only anger them. They may feel as if they are being spoken to by someone who is relatively inexperienced and does not realize the full potential of LEGO elements.
If and when you encounter one or more of these unique and often experienced AFOLs, it's best not to argue with them. Should you disagree with the pinpointed suggestions for accuracy they are spouting you should explain, politely and respectfully, that you do not hold accuracy to as high a regard as they do in relation to other factors such as stability or aesthetic appeal. Keep in mind, however, that it is very possible to maintain both of those qualities while incorporating a significant degree of accuracy.
Most important of all, do NOT act as if accuracy is impossible to achieve with LEGO and that it is unreasonable for anyone to think so. Accuracy is very much possible, and I can vouch for these accuracy sticklers (being one myself) in saying that I have seen many fantastic MOCs, UCS or otherwise, which retain a relatively high amount of accuracy.
Flame wars from either faction on the subject of accuracy due to failure to take these suggestions into account will result in some serious discussion with the moderators on the issue of learning to understand and respect the views of others and presenting your own views in a mature fashion.
- "[arguing] with [you] about why [you] are wrong"
- "[forcing you] to agree with [them]"
- "constantly ripping into the work of other builders"
- "knocking into [you] for failing to achieve perfection"
- "[dragging your] efforts through the mud"
- "taking it all way too far"
These people are, most likely, AFOLs with a great amount of love and respect for the original source material to the point that they feel it is absolutely essential to incorporate an amount of it into an MOC. This does not mean they are wrong; it does not mean you are wrong. It's simply a different approach, and they as AFOLs and fellow members of KOTBR wish to help you improve your MOC in the way they know best.
Do NOT counter with arguments such as:
- "TLG's proven willingness to simply invent new vehicles, sets or otherwise take significant creative license shows that screen accuracy is a very distant priority to simply making fun sets designed for children."
- "AFOLs only account for a minority of Lego's business, and thus they have no real obligation to only satisfy you."
- "Not that 'accuracy' really has much meaning when discussing something that doesn't really exist at all."
- "LEGO models are not exact replicas, especially when they're not UCS; they're a representation of the ship."
- "[Y]ou should get more into die cast models or hasbro toys if you want interiors and high levels of detail."
- "LEGO is primarily a childrens toy."
- "...[W]hen people think the key point is ACCURACY! to the point that they can be called a borderline obscenity (see the first post), a lot of fun is sucked out of the process[.]"
- "[A]dvice should be to improve their design, not to turn it into your own. "
- "Once a project becomes a chore and finding solutions is not an inspiring and fulfilling way to channel one's creative energy, then I'd say that the border has been overstepped and I'd really question whether it's worth the effort."
- "Accuracy to me is a bunch of MegaBloks. As long as I can recognize the ship even to the vaguest extent, I'm happy with it."
- "MOC should do one thing, make the creator happy."
- "A ugly but accurate moc, is still a ugly moc"
- "Of course we share, and give and get suggestions, but it should be in line with the target the maker was going for, and not some futile attempt to perfect your toy ship."
- "It should be good-looking however you define good looking, but it by no means should be able to hold up to a comparison picture of the 'real' vehicle. It's made out of pre-formed LEGO bricks; at the minifigure-scale, there's just no way it can be accurate."
- "Should anybody really care that all precise angles from the source material be met in the MOC, and even if someone does, should they say so?"
- "For one builder, colour and proportion may be of the highest importance. To another builder, the angles of shapes and elements may demand priority. For a third builder, texture and recognizability may be key goals. It's not possible to achieve all of these things with LEGO bricks."
As these AFOLs tend to stand firm in their belief that accuracy is, in fact, possible to some degree with LEGO (Yes, it's true!) counters like these will only anger them. They may feel as if they are being spoken to by someone who is relatively inexperienced and does not realize the full potential of LEGO elements.
If and when you encounter one or more of these unique and often experienced AFOLs, it's best not to argue with them. Should you disagree with the pinpointed suggestions for accuracy they are spouting you should explain, politely and respectfully, that you do not hold accuracy to as high a regard as they do in relation to other factors such as stability or aesthetic appeal. Keep in mind, however, that it is very possible to maintain both of those qualities while incorporating a significant degree of accuracy.
Most important of all, do NOT act as if accuracy is impossible to achieve with LEGO and that it is unreasonable for anyone to think so. Accuracy is very much possible, and I can vouch for these accuracy sticklers (being one myself) in saying that I have seen many fantastic MOCs, UCS or otherwise, which retain a relatively high amount of accuracy.
Flame wars from either faction on the subject of accuracy due to failure to take these suggestions into account will result in some serious discussion with the moderators on the issue of learning to understand and respect the views of others and presenting your own views in a mature fashion.
