Purism

[thekitchenscientist]

An interesting perspective to this discussion which hasn't been explored yet, is the official Lego Mindstorms competitions allow for use of art supplies. The cookie/egg decorating and drawing robots made using Mindstorms clearly aren't pure Lego. 

Are the Lego sins listed by @Sariel because these are things pretending to be/could be mistaken for genuine Lego? When you discover the truth it can be a disappointment?

Personally, as some of the others have mentioned, C-models are a favourite. Initially it was limited to the Mindstorms EV3 but more recently I have been making C-models from small sets (studless era). I enjoy the creativity caused by the limited part count and the sharability from using a common set of bricks.

[Andy D]

7 hours ago, Sariel said:

I postulate that you also breathe only the air from inside the Lego pieces bags ;) Seriously though, it's a very interesting issue and Erik has a point here. I think we can distinguish various degrees of non-purism, a few examples I can think of, in ascending order of "heresy":

1. custom stickers
2. custom-chromed Lego pieces
3. custom remote-control systems (SBrick and such)
4. custom power supplies (BuWizz)
5. custom tires on Lego rims
6. custom lighting (Brickstuff, Lifelites)
7. 3D-printed pieces
8. painting Lego pieces
9. cutting/gluing Lego pieces
10. modified Lego electronics (e.g. gutted 8878 batteries)
11. third-party motors

Personally, I can go up to point 7 just fine in justified cases (wheel covers are a good example where it's hard to get good results with Lego pieces but quite easy to do so with 3D printing) but not beyond. Perhaps it would be funny to write something like a Lego purist's 10 commandments: thou shalt not chrome and so on ;)

@Sariel Pretty much covers all the LEGO "sins" I can think of. I am not necessarily a LEGO "Purist", I just like to limit myself to using LEGO pieces (except for lighting) as it is part of the challenge. Since LEGO is about art and function for me, I like to see just what I can do using only LEGO pieces as intended (not stressed, cut or glued) The only non-LEGO piece I have is a 3D-printed part for a GoPro camera mount (I've not used it yet) but I like Sariel's "naked" GoPro camera mount much better anyway (which is pure LEGO). I also make heavy use of Brickstuff lighting for my Halloween and Christmas displays only because I want the lights and there is no LEGO solution that can give me the results I want. The lights make the display look better, however they do not require the lights.

As for Sariel's items times 1-5, well I just don't need those solutions, I don't make many remote controlled MOCs and I rarely use stickers as they do not add to the function (my constructions are more about function than form).  I have no problem with people who do use custom or cut stickers, custom-chrome pieces or non-LEGO Power Functions replacements. I think LEGO is going to jump on the bandwagon eventually with something like BuWhizz or Brick or other Blue-tooth controlled device eventually anyway, so the people using them are in a sense "early adopters". As for sins 8-11, I see no reason (for me) to use any of these techniques in my building, and to me they really are the biggest LEGO "sins".

But I will not sit in judgment of what anyone chooses to use any of this as it is their choice, but in accordance with most of Eurobricks contests non-LEGO pieces are usually not allowed in a LEGO contest as it is just not LEGO.

Just MHO, YMMV,

Andy D

[efferman]

I think iam guilty to start the third party trend with the third party tires thread, and printed pieces are started on eurobricks bye me too. someone has posted part conepts on eurobricks some years ago, and now some of them are official parts.  So i think non purist solutions are only solutions which are not yet used in a official set. 

But do i use much of them? Not really, even for my liebherr, which beggs for Sbricks to save space, i use power functions as remote. Why? It is possible.

[Didumos69]

2 hours ago, BusterHaus said:

We are constantly looking for solutions to mechanical puzzles. Sharing those solutions advances our hobby to new levels.  Using non-Lego parts is a shortcut to the solution, but the process of solving the puzzle is usually more rewarding.

1 hour ago, thekitchenscientist said:

I enjoy the creativity caused by the limited part count and the sharability from using a common set of bricks.

1 hour ago, efferman said:

But do i use much of them? Not really, even for my liebherr, which beggs for Sbricks to save space, i use power functions as remote. Why? It is possible.

These quotes very nicely describe what LEGO means to me: It's all about solving mechanical puzzles, trying to phrase your solution in a language called LEGO. And that is also what I appreciate the most: When I see a model that has been given some thought. Is it form-locked? Is the mechanism durable? Etc. And this immediately explains to me why I appreciate a model like @Appie's small 8865, even though I regard myself as a purist and legalist. The model has clearly been given a lot of thought: The challenging and appealing puzzle of replicating all functions of the 8865 in such a small scale was solved with mainly original LEGO pieces.

So for me, being a purist mainly affects my own builds. When I look at builds from others, I look at the puzzle they solved. When people have clearly not taken the effort to try to come up with a 100%-LEGO and 100% legal solution, I pass. When they did make that effort and could finish it even better with a few non-pure elements, they've got my attention.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Didumos69

[Meatman]

I don't really care for this new school style of sculpting models with beams and pin connectors over flex axles and cheesy connections. Lego would never do something like this because when you build a model from Lego, they want it to look exactly like the same model built by a different person.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Meatman

[Blakbird]

I tend towards the purism side of things since that is the challenge of building in LEGO, but I certainly have a few S-Bricks.  I guess to me the S-Brick has nothing to do with building, it has to do with control which is somehow a different topic in my mind.  I've also once used 3rd party tires just because they look so good on a model which is otherwise extremely scale looking.

I am also a proponent of purist connections.  This is not to say that every connection possibility is only legal if it is found in an official set, but I feel like TLGs standards of durability of playability need to be met for a model to be impressive.  A supercar with a beautifully sculpted bumper held on by only one stud which falls off when you take a breath does not meet this criteria for me.

[Attika]

I've found the opening post quite offensive too even though by those standards I'm one of worst heretics in this industry. Not because I don't like lego, I'm just not worshiping it. For me it is a tool. If I feel my toolbox is missing something I'll make an attempt to create it. Purist tend to behave like deeply religious people. Not the ones going to church on sunday but those who if  couldn't evangelize you than curse you. Where is the tolerance? Why do we need politics in a beautyful hobby like lego?  The other day I've got a comment on one of my youtube video: " Don't call this Lego...." The car in question contains about 1500 parts (let say) 9 of those are 3rd party including the 4 wheels. So what should I call it? I happened to have a titanium implant in my right arm due to an accident, so by the same logic I'm not a human being anymore? Actually the comment never appeared as the gentleman was coward enough to delete it straight away, but I had the notification email and of course a dislike at the same time.   It was funny to read in some replies above here that "I'm a purist too with the exeption of..." What to say? Any exeption makes you non purist. All we talk about from there is the level of non-purism.

I'm sad to see that talented builders like Appie being attacked on ridiculous reasons like taking a shock absorber appart. A part purposely built to allow disassembly without being damaged. Whats the next? We should not remove the tyre from the rim?

Our civilisation in every meaning developed only by breaking traditions or rules. And usually those who did it first got burnt or prisoned for doing so. Heretics were the ones who helped the world move forward. Without them we still would heve the geocentric worldview. Technology is developing by the same way too. Religion in the other hand.... you get where I'm going with this. 

 

 

[technic_addict]

Just curious why Chrome Plating is considered more acceptable than painting pieces?

As an example:  I wanted the Caterham 7 620R to match the real car better so I got a chrome exhaust and wheels.  Unfortunately the wheel cap I needed to use from Lego does not exist in black, so I spray painted it black.  I don't see the difference between chroming and painting in this instance.

 

[Lipko]

I don't think anyone is attaching anyone (at least not by intention).
And I don't think it has to do anything with religion. It's just a decision. For some of us, Lego is a tool for prototyping, for others it's a form of art, for others it's just to try out ideas, some do it for the money and fame (me, for example ), others for a cheaper and more flexible alternative to RC modelling, etc. The level of non-purism is just a choice.
I'm a purist in things that I do as "art" and non purist in everything else. In my daily job, sometimes I invent tools (software or hardware) which means the ugliest hacking one can imagine and pushing far over the limits the developing environment, since I want to get things done. With Lego, I don't just want to get things done, but to get things done beautifully and don't know why, I always want to be purist in such things, otherwise I would get on the slippery slope and start to question the very point of the whole activity.

[Meatman]

1 hour ago, Blakbird said:

I am also a proponent of purist connections.  This is not to say that every connection possibility is only legal if it is found in an official set, but I feel like TLGs standards of durability of playability need to be met for a model to be impressive.  A supercar with a beautifully sculpted bumper held on by only one stud which falls off when you take a breath does not meet this criteria for me.

Completely agree. I've noticed that generally most car mocs that have the best looking appearance usually have the weakest and most questionable build techniques.

[Didumos69]

7 minutes ago, Lipko said:

I don't think anyone is attaching anyone (at least not by intention).
And I don't think it has to do anything with religion. It's just a decision. For some of us, Lego is a tool for prototyping, for others it's a form of art, for others it's just to try out ideas, some do it for the money and fame (me, for example ), others for a cheaper and more flexible alternative to RC modelling, etc. The level of non-purism is just a choice.
I'm a purist in things that I do as "art" and non purist in everything else. In my daily job, sometimes I invent tools (software or hardware) which means the ugliest hacking one can imagine and pushing far over the limits the developing environment, since I want to get things done. With Lego, I don't just want to get things done, but to get things done beautifully and don't know why, I always want to be purist in such things, otherwise I would get on the slippery slope and start to question the very point of the whole activity.

This is very nicely put and also quite recognizable. The level of non-purism is just a choice and luckily this forum leaves some room for interpretation as to what qualifies as a LEGO model. That's a good thing and need not change imo.

 

[nerdsforprez]

Indeed this is a great topic.  So much to say, but I think I will just discuss my thoughts on the purist versus non-purist argument, rather than my thoughts on any trends or personal preferences (which will likely already be obvious at that point, if not already).  As a caveat I want to reiterate that I do think it is a great question, that I mean no offense by my comments, and that although I don’t personally adhere to Lego purism I respect and understand those that do.  To Erik – wonderful thread and totally respect your efforts of remaining and advocating for Lego Purism. 

Here are my thoughts on the argument:

I think the “purist” definition is itself a slippery-slope.  The “Puristic” definition that we are discussing is being applied to Lego, but every year Lego is coming out with new parts.  How can something be purist when itself is changing?  Purism due to certain geometric shapes built with certain combinations of pin and axle holes I could understand if there was some underlying absolute, infinite, unchanging physical law that defines it. But there is not; elements are always being revamped.  The “absolute,”  “unchanging” and “infinite” law upon which all elements (Lego pieces) are built upon has nearly nothing to do with the laws of physics but rather the simply laws of business, or worse, the simple fact that new pieces facilitate easier building and more possibilities; hence, their changing nature.   

This thread is highlighting some of the problems with 3D printing.  The rationale involved in 3D printing is something like this “wow, this piece (individual idea) would work great and be very useful, therefore I am going to print it.”  This is being criticized for being a “cop-out,” “cheating” or other derogatory terms.  However, is this not the EXACT SAME  RATIONALE that is being used by TLC themselves when they come out with a new element.  They come out with a new model (new BWE for example), and need a new element to build it. So they create the element, and “voila”! There it is and they use it for their build.  How come no one is chiding TLC for being “lazy” or admonishing them for not building it out of what Lego pieces already exist?   Can you just see how ludicrous this sounds?  How funny would it be if I wrote a letter to TLG and said “I am not going to buy the BWE b/c it is not a purist model.  You (TLG) could have made the BW out of the available pieces to date (prior to 2016).  You should have done your research and figured it out from the pieces that are already available.”

There is an endless list of examples as above.  Purism itself doesn’t have a definition unless we want to define purism by years or (everything prior to say 2010, or whatever).   Again, if there were absolute physical, geometric, or mathematical laws that dictated possible Lego pieces (not connections) then I would understand the rationale to the argument, but there are not.  Heck, just a little while ago we had a debate among builders on this very forum about official Lego elements that “feel” or are “considered” as cheating because they “make things to easy.”  So even official Lego elements are “cheating”?  I mean com’on, there doesn’t seem to be anything more subjective or whimsical than that.   To me it seems that the whole idea of Lego purism is built on an ideal with a complete and thoroughly lacking definition.  What happens, if in the first half of 2018 TLG comes out with the pulley wheel (wedge belt wheel per BL definition; as discussed at the beginning of Erik’s initial post) with no axle hole, but pin hole, through the middle?   All the sudden it becomes “legal”?  Personally, there is not nearly enough rationale in that argument to hang my hobby-hat on.

I have to say this, and truly don’t mean to offend, but sometimes I get the sense that the “purist” argument is getting propagated with a hint of a feel of intellectual or elitist superiority.  I could understand this if the purist argument were built on something foundational, objective, or at least on tradition scientific ideals.  But as I see it, given all the above information it seems to me that it is built on anything but that. It completely lacks any objectivity.

Truly, I think that the real value of Lego Purism exists much better embedded in an argument of consistency than anything else.  What I mean by that is the value of something being “purist” lies in defining something as Lego and it actually being so.  That is a wagon I can hitch my trailer to.  If someone builds something and calls it 100% Lego then it should be just that.  100% Lego.  If not, then simply define what part (s) is/are not.  That easy.  I can really understand the frustration of something being called Lego when it is not.

If anything in my above argument appears extreme, well then you are right.  I think “purism” itself is defined by extremism.  I mean, that is its meaning… right?  “Pure” is by definition a categorical term whereas “purity” is one of a continuum.   I hear comments by some that they accept third party (TP) string, or tires, or whatever…. But in all other things remain “pure” and therefor call themselves “purists.” How can that be when the exact same logic that they use to build with TP elements [i.e. “Lego is so inferior with this (tires, string, whatever) that I have to use something else"] is the exact same logic that non-purists use to get where they are in using many non-Lego parts for their builds.  As brought up by Erik in his initial post…. Where is the line drawn if not by an exclusionary black/white dichotomy?  Why is it okay for people to build with custom stickers but not whatever else if the logic for doing so it the exact same? 

That being said I totally agree with @sariel and suggest a inching away from the purist verses NP argument and look at purism from a continuum POV like Sariel mentioned.  Everyone who in the first page said they were purists really are not…. B/c they build with either TP string, tires, etc.   Rather, I think most are actually non-purists just to different degrees….

[Sariel]

1 hour ago, technic_addict said:

Just curious why Chrome Plating is considered more acceptable than painting pieces? 

I think that one is dead simple. Lego is chroming pieces but not painting them (I mean, details may be printed on a brick, but the whole brick isn't painted over to change its color). So if we have access to the same exact chroming technology that Lego is using, why is this even an issue? By custom chroming, we simply go from "a genuine Lego piece" to "a genuine Lego piece chromed just the way Lego would chrome it if it chose to". But when you spray-paint a piece, what you get is something Lego has never done.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Sariel

[agrof]

Agree, everyone does it in own way, I found my challenge in using official parts only, but like to follow and anlyse all of the ideas around. No complains recently about if it is illegal, or non purist, can be considered as increase of general tolerance too. 

58 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

However, is this not the EXACT SAME  RATIONALE that is being used by TLC themselves when they come out with a new element.  They come out with a new model (new BWE for example), and need a new element to build it. So they create the element, and “voila”! There it is and they use it for their build.  How come no one is chiding TLC for being “lazy” or admonishing them for not building it out of what Lego pieces already exist?   Can you just see how ludicrous this sounds?

I hear comments by some that they accept third party (TP) string, or tires, or whatever…. But in all other things remain “pure” and therefor call themselves “purists.” How can that be when the exact same logic that they use to build with TP elements [i.e. “Lego is so inferior with this (tires, string, whatever) that I have to use something else"] is the exact same logic that non-purists use to get where they are in using many non-Lego parts for their builds.  As brought up by Erik in his initial post…. Where is the line drawn if not by an exclusionary black/white dichotomy?  Why is it okay for people to build with custom stickers but not whatever else if the logic for doing so it the exact same? 

I would put my thinking on these. I don't think it is ludicrous, because the key factors for parts are: availability and quality. New parts from TLG becomes widely spreaded in a well known high quality, thus anyone has access to them. Same is true for third party strings and tires, and also for stickers nowadays (not to mention: stickers are always just nice visual add-ons, but not structual and essential parts). They are easy to get in superb quality for a wide audience.

What differs 3D printing from this? It is still in it's cradle, still too expensive, still not nice enough, still not easy to get, also needs quite some additional equipment (software and hardware wise too). I see time will come when it can be part of daily LEGOing, but in a far distance.

Of course some hardcore fans can make this into a religious debate, and don't forget, there are even extremists, who just don't consider Technic as LEGO.  

So there are definitely levels of engagement towards parts usage, all of them has the own ideology, audience, but most importantly: all adds value to the whole universe of BUILDING. 

"Studded or studless. All to build you have to."

Edited May 12, 2017 by agrof

[HallBricks]

I think this is a very interesting topic, but I don't think anyone should feel attacked. It's just about different tastes, all of us prefer different building styles which is quite interesting to discuss and talk about. There's not any right or wrong here, I prefer the "purism", but the imagination is the only limit and any model can impress me regardless of the building techniques used. 

[Paul Boratko]

This has been an interesting read..

Here is my thought on this subject after having watched AFOL Technic building evolve online over the last 15 or so years... Build what you want, any way that you want, but just don't expect everyone to accept your final product with open arms...

In the last few years, I have been trying to build about as pure as I can, (Mainly not using any chromed wheels for eye candy) and I still get hate because I don't like to motorize everything that I build.. Is this critique going to force me to change my style for future builds..? Absolutely not.. I like to build what I think is interesting...

 

 

 

[dr_spock]

l generally lean towards purism.  But I do make my own el cheapo 3D print parts at the local public library or BT controllers with inexpensive arduino boards or custom stickers.  I think there is fun in making your own compatible things.  Sometimes it depends on whom or for what you are building for, whether you should or could use 3rd party parts. 

At end of the day, it's your hobby. Do what turns your crank or gears.

[Saberwing40k]

Honestly, the only things I consider cardinal sins in Lego are cutting pieces, and using glue. I hate people who glue sets, because that completely misses the point of Lego, while other things we on the Technic forum do not. I once heard about some moron on ebay who was offering glued sets, and when confronted, she said that she glued all of her son's sets and he still had them. Congratulations you idiot, you have completely missed the point of Lego, and ruined all of your sets. There is no good reason to use glue at all in Lego, unless it is an official Lego display. Hearing about that moron just filled me with rage. It's not a cardinal sin, but I also don't agree with painting pieces some of the time. If it's to get a piece in a color it is not produced in, that's fine. If it's recoloring a piece into a color that it is available in, that is not okay, and is slightly stupid. Honestly, I feel like most of the problem, with those two threads the OP mentioned, is that 3D printing or modified parts are the first solutions people come up with. I don't think you should pursue solutions like that , as a crutch/cop out. 3D printing is a good idea to supplement Lego, but should not be the first solution you go for. Also, I have no problem with drop in stuff like SBricks or Brickstuff lighting, as that is little different from actual Lego parts, even if it is not made by Lego.

Although, I must confess, I have considered modifying parts, but not new ones. I have a bin of various broken parts that I keep if I want to modify something, but I would never do that to new parts.

[Aventador2004]

3 hours ago, Attika said:

I've found the opening post quite offensive too even though by those standards I'm one of worst heretics in this industry. Not because I don't like Lego, I'm just not worshiping it. For me it is a tool. If I feel my toolbox is missing something I'll make an attempt to create it. Purist tend to behave like deeply religious people. Not the ones going to church on Sunday but those who if  couldn't evangelize you than curse you. Where is the tolerance? Why do we need politics in a beautiful hobby like Lego?  The other day I've got a comment on one of my youtube video: " Don't call this Lego...." The car in question contains about 1500 parts (let say) 9 of those are 3rd party including the 4 wheels. So what should I call it? I happened to have a titanium implant in my right arm due to an accident, so by the same logic I'm not a human being anymore? Actually the comment never appeared as the gentleman was coward enough to delete it straight away, but I had the notification email and of course a dislike at the same time.   It was funny to read in some replies above here that "I'm a purist too with the exception of..." What to say? Any exception makes you non purist. All we talk about from there is the level of non-purism.

I'm sad to see that talented builders like Appie being attacked on ridiculous reasons like taking a shock absorber apart. A part purposely built to allow disassembly without being damaged. Whats the next? We should not remove the tyre from the rim?

well spoken, i am not a purist exactly. by some peoples logic i am not because i use 3rd party rubber bands because a store nearby has them. they are easy to get which annoys me very much that people are like, "it is a 3rd party element not lego".

and @Appie should not be attacked for using a spring piece. they are meant to be detachable and used as such.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Aventador2004

[Appie]

Thanks @Didumos69 and @Attika

3 hours ago, Attika said:

I'm sad to see that talented builders like Appie being attacked on ridiculous reasons like taking a shock absorber appart.

I actually don't mind this. Some people don't like this way of using a Lego part. That is fine, we have different views on that then. What I found offensive is that that according to @Erik Leppen I did not have an alternative solution for the problem at hand that would fit his standards. 

Want to know how many times I thought how freaking easy my little bulldozer would have been if I just caved and used a 3d printed smaller diff from @efferman? Alot!  But I stuck with it and got a full sized original Lego diff in there and I like the model more for it. I like that Lego puzzle as much as alot of guys here. 

The same question returned on the mini 8865 for the diff, but I did exactly what @Erik Leppen expects people to do in that situation: dropped the feature and went with a legal Lego solution.

So to come here and read that I couldn't find a solution in Lego that fits his purist standards for the suspension on the mini 8865 is insulting. I found a solution for my purist standards and offered a solution for his standards. 

[offroadcreations]

Here is what I've got to say:

I am not a purist. I use and SBrick and Minizip myself. What "crossing the line" is to me is cutting or modifying parts. If you use something to add to a model, like a BuWizz or custom tires or 3D printed parts, that doesn't bother me. What I don't like is gluing and painting one parts that are visible. I myself have even created a custom 3.5L axle to try to make a suspension with a CV-joint work better, and took apart suspension pieces, but those were on the inside. But If you cut something or modify something on the outside that is visible, I disagree.

4 hours ago, technic_addict said:

As an example:  I wanted the Caterham 7 620R to match the real car better so I got a chrome exhaust and wheels.  Unfortunately the wheel cap I needed to use from Lego does not exist in black, so I spray painted it black.  I don't see the difference between chroming and painting in this instance.

For example, I find this to be more like a hobby model than a Lego model. When considering what has actually been done to the parts, I don't like it as much as thinking about it as a hobby model. But hey, It's still pretty cool, and as a model I like it. 

Also, I don't mean to hurt anyone, this is just my opinion. Hope my standpoint makes sense.

[Attika]

Well it seems like we continue to coexist the way we are now, but I have to admit that the frequency of "heretic cases" are growing. I accept it could be disturbing for those who don't like it. Probably as a guide we should use some coding to represent how severe method was applied in an actual build. Using for instance @Sariel's "list of sins". Like an MOC -that has 3D printed part- would be HC7. One with custom-chromed parts would be HC2. HC stand for "heresy code" . And you extend the title of your moc or video with the code when you publish it, giving a straight forward information about how it should be considered. It's like the PEGI system in the tv and movie industry for age limits. If you couldn't decide yet if I'm speaking seriously I tell you, I don't know either. It's a rather strange idea, but not that bad. Is it?

EDIT:

As further I think this as better the idea appears to be. Here is why on my example: When I posted the drift wagon I had a bad taste in my moth. I wanted to share it for obvious reasons but I've expected being told off despite I've noted all those things doesn't match purity requirements. Well it did not happened and hereby thanks for the community swallowing it so politely. I know it was way out of the mainstream. But if I've used the code there HC7 I was gonna be more relaxed to release it. So from my point of view it isn't stigmatizing rather classification. Additional benefit if it spreads that just by using the code we could search for moc's on similar level. 

As the scale models have been lifted out from here for a reason, so it would separate the guideline of "judgement" of course in this case without having to change any particular layout of the forum.

Edited May 13, 2017 by Attika
developing insanity

[PorkyMonster]

 

3 hours ago, Attika said:

... Like an MOC -that has 3D printed part- would be HC7. One with custom-chromed parts would be HC2. HC stand for "heresy code" . And you extend the title of your moc or video with the code when you publish it, giving a straight forward information about how it should be considered...

I like this idea! 

As for the "classifications", perhaps some generalization would be useful, less confusing, and easier to include new "acts of terror" in future, for e.g.

1. Custom Decoration (to include custom stickers and custom-colored/chromed Lego pieces, even include custom tyres and lights) - Rationale is that these actions merely "decorate" the otherwise pure Lego models in harmless ways.
2. Lego-fitting Custom Pieces (SBrick, BuWizz, 3D printed parts, etc.) - rationale is that these were created (in whatever means) to fit nicely with existing Lego pieces without causing any damage.
3. 3rd Party Electronics (RC Class Electronics, motors, servos, etc.) - these serve more functions than mere "decoration", and they don't fit nicely with existing Lego pieces. If parts modification is needed, additional classifications like HC4 will be necessary.
4. Lego Parts Modification (cutting/gluing Lego pieces, modified Lego electronics, etc.) - these actions harm Lego pieces, full-stop.

Just an idea .

Edited May 13, 2017 by PorkyMonster

[Boxerlego]

I describe myself a Purist. Lego is part Art and part Artificial Module Building Block or in other words part  Art and part Science. Understanding this idea called Lego Purism some people can see it as Strictly Building with Lego and that in its most pronounce sense means building what is made inside the LEGO instruction books and only building what is displayed inside the LEGO instruction books and nothing Else that is Lego Purism in the basic sense you could call this Group the Collectors. However LEGO Is very Unique because the collectors ideas and tendency are not in control of this idea as what it means to be a Purist and thus the Epiphany of Purist Behavior came primarily from the Builders becasue they were holding opposite views apart of the Collectors and the Builders Preferred to build what ever they could Imagine. However by Natural Outcomes the Builders inherently become blind to Ideas of greater illusion like Pro Lego Building Skill and then suddenly the idea of building what ever you could Imagine with Lego suddenly becomes Impossible because you simply don't have enough Lego to do it. The way the Builder see's it, is that there is no standard way of building so what is considered gluing Lego together for them is simply not the best thing to do but for some its just adding in an extra step in Lego Building. Now certain Purist builders will disapprove of gluing Lego but we must never forget (Purist) that there are pre-glued decals that can be put on the Models. Now this brings me to next group of Lego purist and to understand how these Lego Purist go about Building and collecting you must think that when it comes to building with Lego that I can be very creative even to a point where the Idea of building the impossible is possible is very possible Lego Purist Style and the fact that Lego is Art combined with Science Creates the Extraordinaire Purist. The extraordinaire will build with Lego like you have never seen before. Collectors and Builders are defined by whether if they Build by the Book or not by the Book but the Extraordinaire are defined by what they are capable of building with Lego. Now there are several Kinds of Lego Builders out there and this being the Technic Forum I will talk primarily about Technic Builders here but special take note that most Purist Never mix the Lego Bricks with the Technic Beams. Understand how Technic paved the way to a new method of Building with Lego which gave rise to the four wheel Lego Machines since that is what most consider Technic is about. Lego Technic brought a new Idea of Lego Purism to the table. Here we can see that there are two factions of builders one side is composed of Studded builders and the other side composed of Studless builders. These two Groups of builders envisioned the modern building techniques that are dominantly used today. However there was another form of Lego purism that was forming to create another kind of Builder and Collectors all based around the Lego Minifig which ultimately was the foundations for themes like Star Wars to Minecraft which brought forward a new form of Purism for Collectors and Builders called the Aficionado. My theme Is something I like to call "things that make stuff move" which are commonly referred as Engines and Motors. For me nothing says more then Lego then building with the basic building blocks of Nature that is called Magnets which is also the core component of any working motor or engine. The fact that Building with the basic blocks of Nature (Magnets) just shows that even the basic blocks of Nature are Naturally apart the of Lego System and thus must be consider Purist after all Nature tells us that the basic blocks are Naturally apart the of Lego System. Just something to think about.

[mocbuild101]

2 hours ago, PorkyMonster said:

• Custom Decoration (to include custom stickers and custom-colored/chromed Lego pieces, even include custom tyres and lights) - Rationale is that these actions merely "decorate" the otherwise pure Lego models in harmless ways.
• Lego-fitting Custom Pieces (SBrick, BuWizz, 3D printed parts, etc.) - rationale is that these were created (in whatever means) to fit nicely with existing Lego pieces without causing any damage.
• 3rd Party Electronics (RC Class Electronics, motors, servos, etc.) - these serve more functions than mere "decoration", and they don't fit nicely with existing Lego pieces. If parts modification is needed, additional classifications like HC4 will be necessary.
• Lego Parts Modification (cutting/gluing Lego pieces, modified Lego electronics, etc.) - these actions harm Lego pieces, full-stop.

I like this list, it is exactly what I think!

Lego parts modification is okay if you use parts that are already damaged in some way.