Comments on: VOTOMS Scopedog

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:30:09 +0000

^ Name-calling and swearing warrant a reminder of our Terms of Service.

By: A Most Serious AFOL

A Most Serious AFOL — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 08:13:13 +0000

Ryan H says “if we let LEGO’s competitors become the majority focus of some posts, then it’s not a far step to blog other forms of models, non-stud-or-brick related. And then where is TBB’s integrity as a LEGO blog?”

I bet you’re one of those idiots that buys the ‘weed is a gateway drug’ bullshit, too.

By: gambort

gambort — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:25:52 +0000

^ I think we’re all hypocrites, or at least inconsistent. BBB wheels are fine by me, BA are not. I have a dressy argument for it but ultimately I think I’m just choosing what suite me.

By: worker201

worker201 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:43:08 +0000

Hmmm, it does seem like ‘cop out’ was the wrong phrase. Rather, it sounds like you’re making a statement about your feelings re: off-brand accessories which is both bold and subtle. Quite clever, carry on. Andrew’s such a nice guy that he probably appreciates the diversity of having a guy on staff who probably secretly thinks that he (Andrew) is a hypocrite for blogging about BrickArms on a strongly pro-Lego blog.

By: gambort

gambort — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:53:12 +0000

^ But what you think is acceptable mixing I consider to be just clone use… so why is your opinion more valid than mine? (NB. argument does not apply to Andrew whose opinion DOES count more than mine).

I dislike BrickArms and would generally rather see oodles of neat MB parts than a BA gun. So no, not a cop out, just a statement that is more truthful than the ‘fan clones good, competitor clones bad’ argument.

By: worker201

worker201 — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:07:29 +0000

“How does ‘brick blog with a strong focus on LEGO brand elements’ sound? ;)”

Well, Tim, it sounds like a cop-out.

I think off-brand accessories are not quite the same as clones. BrickArms, for example, are sold as bonus parts for use with Lego. MegaBloks, on the other hand, are sold as a replacement for Lego. That’s a pretty big difference. Therefore I don’t think it’s hypocritical to be a Lego purist and use BrickArms. So you can call it a Lego blog and still feature certain types of off-brand accessories.

By: gambort

gambort — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 05:36:18 +0000

Andrew> My form of purism makes it hard to call this a LEGO blog. There are too many non-LEGO accessories posted here. Thus my reference to it as a ‘brick blog’. That said I suspect you’ll find I’ve posted the lowest fraction of non-LEGO brand elements of anyone here except possibly Dan ;) Which goes to show how silly the whole purism thing is.

How does ‘brick blog with a strong focus on LEGO brand elements’ sound? ;)

By: EnduringCold

EnduringCold — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:20:35 +0000

Hi guys… I know I’m sort of late with my post, but I think that BTR bricks are the same as BrickArms, seeing as neither are Lego. All things considered, yes, BrickArms ARE nicer than BTR, but honestly, who are we to judge the quality of a mech based on the PARTS USED? I mean, yeah, okay, there were some Lego imitator parts used, but it’s still a great model with a lot of time and effort put forth, and hey, a mech’s a MECH. THAT is something to judge a model on, not the type of building block. I love Lego with my whole heart, but when people decide that it’s okay to judge something based on what was used than how it looks (and to discriminate against a spin-off Lego brand when another is considered perfectly acceptable?) seems unfair. I know I’m new to the Lego community (among Gods, I like to think), and my opinion is somewhat nigh, but it is a great model overall, regardless of pieces. If it makes anybody feel better, we could ask Mr. Tang to rebuild it as a Purist would? 8 ]

By: eilif

eilif — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:17:42 +0000

First post here at BB, but this one drew me in. I’ve been following BB for a year or so now, and it is clearly a site about the LEGO hobby. It’s covered such things as LEGO movies, LEGO events, LEGO MOC’s, LEGO clubs, LEGO food, LEGO employees, LEGO companies, LEGO pets, etc, etc. In addition to these, one of the things alot of AFOL’s like to do is occasionally mess about with LEGO clones.

While I (and most folks) think that BB should be mostly focused on “real” LEGO, no real BLOG about the LEGO’verse is complete without the occasional mention of LEGO clones.

So thanks BB for keeping a wide vision. I don’t want to see this kind of thing every day, but for taking a little risk (and pissing off a few purists) I say to thee BRAVO!

By: marnicq

marnicq — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 20:03:48 +0000

(I haven’t read all of the above so sorry if I say something that has already been said)
I believe using clone bricks is quite lame …
But just like one of my friends once said to me ‘what if the clonebrand has pieces that Lego has never produced, yet are really handy and have the same plastic quality and to lego fitting colours; then those bricks would be certainly really nice, and even more when they’re ten times cheaper!’
I’d have to say he has a point in it, but I, personally, like pure Lego better (without customs, nor clonebricks)

Anyway I do like this build, but pretty much the same thing could’ve been built in official Lego bricks (:

By: fallentomato

fallentomato — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:55:48 +0000

^ I’d say it’s a little bit of both. Obviously people wouldn’t buy LEGO if they didn’t enjoy building the models (unless there’s someone out there with a house full of MISBs and nothing actually built), but the brand loyalty fans have for LEGO is clearly very strong.

By: Marc Nelson Jr.

Marc Nelson Jr. — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:46:01 +0000

Do people build with LEGO because they like creating models out of little plastic bricks, or because they have a deep and abiding love for a Danish toy company?

I don’t know about anyone else, but for me, it’s the former. I don’t buy a lot of non-LEGO products because the colors don’t match (same reason I don’t own any bley).

But if, like the majority of the AFOL community, you don’t care about the color change, why should you care about which corporate entity manufactured your building medium?

By: Luke Chapman

Luke Chapman — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:18:38 +0000

^ Your neat little list of, what I’m presuming you deem to be, “negative” attributes is only slightly offensive, there.

Plus string in Lego predates the minifigue, so go… figure.

I guess I’m what you’d call a “purist”, I don’t know why, I just know I have an intrinsic aversion to clone brands and mutilating my precious LEGO, probably dating back to some childhood trauma.

By: LegoFace42

LegoFace42 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:13:16 +0000

Reading through what the so called ‘purists’ have to say I can surmise that they are either (a) immature, (b) mildly retarded/slow, (c)work for, or have stock in Lego, (d) juvenille, (e) mentally ill with some form of psychosis, (f) all of the above.
But seriously, I get it with ‘purists’…they’ll only support the brand not the brick pieces even if someone does something spectacular with brick pieces. You know I bought the Lego Agents Dr. Inferno Robot and guess what…the little 4 wheeler had a rope/string to haul down the Robot. I guess we can use string now for our models since Lego (the all powerful and knowing) have deamed it so. Oh, but wait…it must be ‘Lego STRING’.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:00:04 +0000

This continues to be an excellent discussion, but I’m ready to put my Editor-in-Chief hat on and clarify my own vision for what The Brothers Brick is and should be.

I won’t call gambort’s distinction between “brick blog” and “LEGO blog” patently ridiculous, but I do want to state Jai is correct in identifying TBB as a LEGO blog. For me, that does encompass fan-created accessories, and I tolerate a few non-LEGO elements here and there, but — as examples — we would never feature product news about Mega Bloks except to poke fun at it (as we did with the Halo license announcement), nor do I think that a creation built mostly from non-LEGO elements has a place here.

To be fair to Nannan, this isn’t something that I’d made explicitly clear to our contributors (thus my defence of his choice to blog it). Going forward, however, I expect our contributors to avoid creations that include more than a very small percentage of clone bricks.

Feel free to continue the discussion, but that’s the editorial stance I’ve taken myself, and that I intend to apply as a guideline for everybody who writes for TBB in the future.