Slegengr

@davidek_20 There are a lot of interesting builds in those idea books! I was always partial to the Castle, Space, and Pirates themes as a child but definitely remember the town builds such as that helicopter! @Divitis That was the first one that came to my mind as well when I considered my favorite Classic Town helicopter! Here are a few other helicopters I like (helicopters were a childhood favorite vehicle for me): (where is the "Classic Town" line of distinction? I'll still include R.E.S. Q)

Indeed: small, iterative changes are one of the best ways to gather data for testing validity for the long term without having too ruinous an effect. Some of the reasons I am interested in these discussions are that a good foundation that can pay off within future expansions is quite important, and that we are working from a foundation that has worked for EB for years that is a good reference point for these considerations. These nuances are quite important if we need to narrow in on a defined and acceptable system. I have withheld most opinions on details of methods so far in this discussion, as I want to see the need for working out the details of those methods before I know which details to focus on. The best answer I can give right now to this question is that tag filtering priorities seem to me to be driven by preference, which is what makes this complicated along with the fact that efficient tag usage does not seem to have been a priority for most on the forums before, so needing to rely on tags (efficiency and accuracy) would be a fairly radical change on the forum. I also think there would become two separate tag systems to help deal with different brands: some tags relating to the brand/part system in a unique set that is likely helped with a managed list of options, and some tags like they are now that are up to the community to manage (with an undefined set of options, no matter how unusable some tags are in practicality). As I see it, most of this nuance relates to the consideration of a need for tags as the primary filter option which does not seem to be the likely option from the poll, so I find more benefit in the discussion of general usefulness of and effective ways to use tags for filtering in general rather than narrowing into brand/system-distinction in too much detail just yet. Agreed, tags are one method we even currently have available to give quick clarifiers to those who are interested. With the LEGO-centricity of the forum to date, tags were an option left up to choice and worked according to the chosen uses and community 'regulation' (so to speak, based on how people chose to use or not use them) rather than needing direct moderation, as the tags are quick guidelines for searching or simple header points about a build aside from the description and presentation of the build. I find tags most useful when I choose them without mandate, especially when others choose a similar structure that works together under shared understanding. Since moderation and mandating tags would get complicated very quickly, I think there are better methods for forum structure and information categorization that are more important than tags. Just to be clear to give credit where it is due, it was @General Magma who suggested the structure; I merely restated the structure to make sure I understood. I had not thought of this solution before the prior discussions, and the validity of this option now seems quite apparent to me. If only there was a way to get input on these ideas from those who voted on the poll, but not by requiring additional input with another poll or such-like. I would guess from my experience in the EB community that most would not object to a new category under the theme subforums for MOCs using/significantly other brands, as this does not have a noticed effect on the current structure but does allow for the inclusion of alternate brands, but I cannot answer for anyone but myself. Agreed; I do find this discussion on tags useful and interesting though I have not had the time yet to delve into details of what options we currently have or what updates could be simple versus difficult for new tag options.

Yes, I understand the idea of compromise; that quote is applicable! What I have gotten from our discussion is that your preference for merging across brands (or not further dividing theme forums while including other brands) is likely the least-popular option according to the poll regardless of my opinion, so it is probably not the direction that will be taken on the forum, so some compromise may be needed. Maybe nobody gets exactly what fits personal preference, but maybe that is an opportunity to learn and broaden our own understandings relating to the community and tolerance. I'm fine with community response or feel/vibe on the individual subforums to determine where the separation lines are, as trying to remain strictly purist has not been the stance of EB throughout really all of the forum's history, merely LEGO-centric and avoidant of direct discussion of alternate brands on the main forums due to constraints from the LEGO Ambassador's Network. Of course, the loss of LAN inclusion for EB is at the heart of the discussion about including other brands, so some changes are quite reasonable to consider now. I think most of my thoughts have been shared here; this discussion has a lot of useful information for the moderators to consider incorporating different opinions and options for compromise; therefore I await their decisions regarding this topic/discussion/poll. Indeed, this is fine with me.

I'm glad you have been willing to start these discussions, which is why I am willing to ask questions and share thoughts to engage with these discussions. My opinion is that this topic has value. Discussing tags to try for better uses of them and more options to make them more efficient seems beneficial to me even though I know most do not use them so far. I think we just need to be careful not to conflate this thread with discussion from the other thread; I will probably try to not engage on this thread with discussion better suited for the other thread, since the proximity of the two threads has been seen by some, causing the issues to be crossed together. I agree that tags are difficult to work with and are not complete in most (if not all) examples; are there ways we could better utilize them to help with the search function on the forum? ...ways to encourage members to use them, as they have potential to be quite helpful? Can lists be made that are preset suggestions while still allowing the input of a custom new tag? I'm not sure if this works in that manner now on the forum, but I have seen it on other forums. I am not confident we can get a perfectly functioning tagging system that would eliminate the need for subforums, so I am not thinking in this manner. Rather, are there benefits of tags that we as a community are missing out on with the minimal use of them on the forum? I do not think I ever found a direct encouragement or introduction to guidelines on the benefits of and effective use of tags on the forum and am wondering if this could be helpful, not as a requirement but as an encouragement and sense of good etiquette. There is another discussion relating to the considerations of including other brands that might be better for discussing your last comment. I agree that there is a difference between handling products and MOCs. I think tags can be an additional benefit regardless of category if we as a community make better use of them.

I agree very much! I am also glad that working through this discussion may bring about an agreeable compromise if it works for MOC posting to add a new forum under each theme/genre for specifically "MOCs of generalized/all brands" that I had not previously considered. I do not know if this is the direction with support from the community or poll, but I am quite comfortable with it myself as an option for the moderators to consider. If there is one thing my experience has shown me about myself, it is that I compel others to dig deeper into their understanding by my own delving deeper into mine. Some people may get scared by this and reject it (and possibly me in the process), but I am always glad to find others willing to give the respect to delve deeper in discussion together even (maybe especially?) when there is an apparent disagreement. It shows that we care enough about the same things to try to work out a solution! Agreed, and I support you as regulators/moderators and Guild leaders in making the final decisions. Though I still prefer to build within the limitations of the LEGO palette myself, I do not have major concerns that the LEGO-centric nature of the Guilds will be completely overrun by that which is not as relevant for me with too many brand-specific part designs to account for. Maybe it is due to my past activity being mostly in the Guilds, but I do think the conversations there have been pretty clear so far about the use of non-LEGO elements, so it does not have to leave me wondering; I suspect this could continue well with this inclusion of alternate brands. Also, activity in the Guilds in general (mine included) has been less of late than years ago, so new engagement might prove quite interesting to me!

I could get behind this. I would like to know if the majority of the votes intended for a completely separate sub-forum for all alternate brand discussion/sets/MOCs or if this would be an acceptable compromise. It seems to keep the LEGO-centric nature of EB while opening to discussion about alternate brands and allows those who want to see it to click into the sub-forum while those who want the same EB as now just ignore those sub-forums at their own discretion. It does not seem too hard to test with a simple new MOC sub-forum creation under each theme/genre for generalized/alternate brands if this is the decision of the moderators from the community discussion and poll on this thread. Of course, this still does not resolve a select case like Guilds of Historica, but I would guess the inclusion of alternate brands may be decided on small-community basis for such subcategories, much like Technic forums allowing some use of CaDa/GoBricks parts already.

If I am understanding this correctly, I think I could work with this concept in the following example: "Historic" sub-forum gets a new sub-sub-forum for "Historic MOCs (Generalized Brands/Including Alternate Brands) alongside other sub-sub-forums like "Guilds of Historica" or the like. I agree that it can be confusing discussing with terminology like 'sub-forum' which I understand in my head but do not know if others understand it the same way. To be clear, I still pictured a top-level forum separation for alternate brands that would add to the existing forum with minimal change to the existing structure. I certainly see how these decisions are complicated and nuanced, hence why I enjoy the conversation. Agreed, you have my support in making decisions as moderators. Indeed, sitting by quietly hoping for what we want does not contribute to working out a solution; while engaging in the topic, we should do our best to be empathetic and willing to give agency to others and consider their opinions while striving to recognize the foundations of our own biases to see if they hold validity. I suspect the only reason I was not on the list is that I already had a discussion about this thread with MKJ including details from his comment. Whether or not I want that specific label, I think "extremely vocal" is definitively one way to take my engagement on this thread! It is a topic of interest to me, and I find a growing sense of comradery working through this discussion, even with those who might disagree on the particular details.

I mean a set of sub-forums for LEGO themes/genres as well as a set of sub-forums for those themes/genres for all brands generalized, such as separate "Historic LEGO" and "Historic Any Brands Merged" sub-forums. I do think the issue becomes more complicated for sub-communities (sub-sub-forums?) like Guilds of Historica; this would either remain as it is with those being LEGO-centric (with community-derived guidelines on acceptability for 3rd-party/custom/alternate brand inclusions) and a separate forum for similar MOCs using primarily alternate brands, or would require individual decisions per sub-community on how to handle the inclusion of alternate brands within that sub-sub-forum. I would be willing to delve into details of proposed structures, but do not think the current poll responses warrant this at this time. Themes like "Historic" could still be separated between 2 separate forums: one LEGO-specific (as it is now, again caveat minimal inclusions of non-LEGO) and one generalized across all brands. I understand the wish for a single "Historic" forum without brand designation, but I also understand the wish by those who want to remain LEGO-specific as it has been thus far. Linking between separate forums could serve a function with the option for brand separation; I do see how this is similar to the proposed tag options, but the votes on this poll so far indicate a strong community preference not to mix the forums between brands.

Welcome back, @ApophisV, I definitely remember your name from years ago, though I do not think we had any personal connections. I understand from a different perspective about not having MOC time; I've focused more on collecting than MOC-building in recent years as my nephews are still young enough to benefit from building per instructions (mostly my nostalgic sets from the 90s), though I hope we will have the time and interest for MOCs in the future!

This is how I take the votes based on the available poll options, especially with the additional clarity in other posts. What is wrong with that interpretation of the poll? It looks to me like a literal reading of the poll options as stated on the poll on which we all are offered the opportunity to vote. If we are the ones reading it incorrectly, please explain our error. Option #1: Only LEGO (No Change) - this indicates leaving the forum structure as it is with the alternate brands directed only into the community section of the forum Option #2: Single dedicated forum (Mix all other brands) - this indicates leaving the LEGO forums as they exist but includes adding a new forum (or set of sub-forums) for all other brands together, which would include the generalized-brand MOC theme forums I've discussed Option #3: Separate Brand (Sub)Forums - this indicates leaving the LEGO forums as they exist while also creating a new forum or set of sub-forums for each legitimized alternate brand (Cada, GoBricks, Pantasy, Lumi bricks, etc.) which would require the highest number of new forums created and would also most likely lead to the most ghost town sub-forums due to minimal/no activity. Option#4: Fully Integrated (No Brand Separation) - this indicates leaving the forums as they are, just removing all association with LEGO and incorporating all brands within the same single set of sub-forum categories. I agree with the clarification on this: the 57% majority (options #2,3) indicate a preference for keeping LEGO separated along with a willingness to give alternate brands (together with each other or separated) their space as well. That is correct, but dismissing the poll entirely does not seem a good option, either. The terminology on the options is clear enough that it likely captured the proper intent of many of the voters, especially since multiple votes are allowed. Agreed, the poll does not make the distinction between set discussion spaces and MOC spaces. For my part, I recognized this distinction at the start of the thread and have directed my conversation accordingly. Though it would be nice to somehow take this into consideration on the poll options, that is not reasonable at this point in the voting. The original poll still has enough distinction to be useful in the moderator's decision and precise details on how the forum will be managed will be made by the moderators and possibly offered to the community for consideration with more detail on a future poll, if deemed useful. I've made this clear before: if a MOC contains parts in the LEGO parts catalog but do not have the LEGO logo due to being manufactured by another brand, there is no difference in terms of how to post the MOC, as they are essentially indistinguishable like you mentioned; it likely already happens at times for the common and directly-interchangeable parts without needing comment on the forums currently. The distinction is with the functionally different pieces of brand-unique designs. You may say that 'brand' is not necessarily the most useful organizing property for the finished creation (and I would agree it is not by necessity, but rather one possible opinion based on preference), but your opinion is that theme alone is the best method for organization while others still consider it of significant value to know what system was used for a build; many here on EB to date are building within the LEGO system and want to still have that space. I do not know how this is still insufficiently argued at this point. The only points of argument are the nuances of differing opinions that cannot be strictly substantiated by fact or logic any more for either side than the other. This is also why there is a poll to take the votes of the community and why we must defer the final decisions to the moderators. I quite well understand at this point that you prefer sorting by theme, and I can understand the logic behind your preference well enough to acknowledge that it is one valid option based on your preference. Others here prefer to keep LEGO in a separated space for equally valid personally preferential reasons that have often been dismissed on this thread as only being derived from brand loyalty or feelings with no rationality behind them. I've presented rationale beyond my feelings; I do not know if this is being acknowledged or addressed in the discussion... Indeed, this is why the final decision is not simple and must be deferred to moderators' decisions. There is no way to separate this from opinions, of which there are many. I've wondered about customizing forum layout per theme, but do not know how to discuss this yet without knowing what directions of considerations are the priority for the moderators and community. Sorry, I know nothing about whether it can be done, as I have no forum moderation or technical experience.

I agree as well if that is the direction this topic goes; it should not be about how tags work for combined-brand forums, as that is not the popular opinion on the poll. The discussion on this thread should focus on the use and efficacy of tags in general, otherwise it is certainly premature if not statistically illegitimate. I've tried to give a sketch that seems to be the same as others are suggesting: Leave the sub-forums as they are for LEGO; add new sub-forums for each brand deemed legitimate to discuss sets and products directly (maybe with sub-forums per set/product theme if so desired); add a new set of MOC theme sub-forums for all generalized brands. This seems to be what option #2 on the other poll suggested directly and seems a type of compromise between option #1 (exclusion of alternate brands) and #3 (too many sub-forums for every added brand to be manageable or to receive significant traffic as you mentioned). Agreed, this discussion is probably better for the other thread topic. Just for clarity, I think the misdirection of this discussion stems from the way you presented it. If we want to discuss use of tags, options, and efficiency, it is best kept separated from the other discussion as though this discussion is trying to solve a way to make that poll option #4 work when it is the significantly-least-voted option. Better to discuss on the other thread, but I am still unsure as to which important questions have not been answered? I think I've made a fairly clear set of distinctions on how the proposed forum update for including other brands could work with separate sub-forums (LEGO as-is, new category of theme sub-forums generalized across all brands) without creating all ghost town sub-forums; my proposed solution just is not to your liking, but the poll shows your preference in the minority. Again, it might be best to take this discussion back to the other thread, or we will struggle to discuss the tag options here with constant derailments per the other discussion. Indeed, this should not be too quickly dismissed or overlooked. All other 86% of poll responses advocate for separation on the forum between brands. 71% of votes indicate acceptance to alternate brands on the forum... 86% of the votes indicate preference for separation between brands. The poll does not exactly cover the nuance between sets and MOCs for different or mixed brands, but I do not think it should be treated in too dismissive a manner either. I agree with the numbers, but not the conclusions about forum separation/merging or the relevancy to tag discussion. 86% of votes are cast for forum separation, which would leave tag usage (or lack thereof) as it currently is; no change needed. I'm still interested in discussing tag usage, options, and efficiency for sorting/filtering regardless of the moderators' decision from the other thread. Indeed, this is quite correct in my estimation. Again, not to bring the other thread discussion here instead of there, but how are you interpreting the options on the poll? It seems quite clear to me: Option #1: Only LEGO (No Change) - this indicates leaving the forum structure as it is with the alternate brands directed into the community section of the forum Option #2: Single dedicated forum (Mix all other brands) - this indicates leaving the LEGO forums as they exist but includes adding a new forum (or set of sub-forums) for all other brands, which would include the generalized-brand MOC theme forums I've discussed Option #3: Separate Brand (Sub)Forums - this indicates leaving the LEGO forums as they exist while also creating a new forum or set of sub-forums for each legitimized alternate brand (Cada, GoBricks, Pantasy, Lumi bricks, etc.) which would require the highest number of new forums created, which would also most likely lead to more ghost town sub-forums due to minimal/no activity. Option#4: Fully Integrated (No Brand Separation) - this indicates leaving the forums as they are, just removing all association with LEGO and incorporating all brands as a single set of sub-forum categories. Am I understanding the poll options incorrectly? If not, 86% of votes (for options #1,2,3) indicate a desire for separation between the current forum categories for LEGO and whatever might be created to include alternate brands. I agree with this thinking for sure. The current community was built with what we have to this point; though new changes might welcome new members, I think it of reasonable interest of a forum board to also seek to retain the current community members. The way to balance both is with carefully considered, small, iterative changes that seek to add without taking away from what is already there. Now, how do we separate the discussions to their respectively relevant threads? I still want to know more about what can be done with good tag usage, as I have no experience or real understanding of the technical side of forum operation...

Sorry, I was not referring to the specific situations, as I had not looked into them. I came across something about the Buc-ee's situation that gives more reason to see their actions relate more to paranoia rather than just protecting their brand image. I am by no means certified to answer to what is litigated; I have to defer that to lawyers and international trade laws. My views on the principles still stand in what I believe to be respect for someone else's design/creativity/art/whatever even though I doubt the world legislation will ever align precisely with my feelings. Sorry, I am not trying to delve into the actual litigation of specific brands or circumstances, merely saying that there are principles behind the purpose of IP laws that seem to be based on what most agree with. There is a reason lawyers get involved in the actual litigation; I certainly do not have or want to spend the time learning all of the details of the law to be the one trying to set some corporation straight on IP laws. Indeed, I do not find an increase in my personal respect for a company when they seem to be chasing down smaller companies over too-far-stretched assumptions about infringement of IP. I certainly agree that big companies are not always right just because they can afford lawyers to argue some way to get them what they want against the little corporation that cannot afford their own counter-lawyers. In a world ruled by revenue, though, I do not think my stance can get very far in the corporate world; I'll try to live the example of what I want (respect for others to find my community instead of selfish pursuits) in the hopes that I find others with the shared value and can have my small place in this world. I still appreciate respect for designs whether or not it can be precisely litigated, especially when it comes to the views of a volunteer community like EB. If we start treating each other in a litigious manner, I do not find that helpful to the community. This is why I have an openness to the inclusion of alternate brands, even at what could be considered equal standing with LEGO, but I still would like to be able to find builds using the same types of pieces I already have in my collection rather than it being fully open to all brands spread across all forums. Not to reignite this discussion on the wrong thread... As we can see even within this thread, the details of IP litigation are quite challenging, especially across different nations and cultures. I still hope we have an appreciation for the principles behind why most people support a need for IP litigation (regardless of the precise details of exactly how it works out legally in each case).

I can agree there that brand tags would need to be from a list. It would also require there to be 2 separate tag categories, as brand would be requested or mandatory with presets while most typical tagging would be nice to continue with the open-ended format currently. I think we need to maintain a freely picked tagging option regardless of other decisions; this is one part of letting the community move and grow together. I agree on the poll indications and the concerns with tags as well as share your preference for subforums, but I am withholding my specific thoughts on that issue until I know if it is relevant. I think the discussion here is mostly about effective use of tags and methods currently available or wished for when using tags. This benefits the community regardless of forum structure even though proper use is not inherent to most new users. Having resources to better utilize tags for search and sort seems to be only a net positive to me. Some can be in the thread title, but I also prefer short tags only in the title, as it could drag on too long if too many tags are moved into the title instead of attached tags. I'm not even sure that I personally prioritize the title tag (LEGO) ahead of the title tag (MOC); I think I consider the latter personally more useful within the title, though I would want to be able to sort by LEGO in any forums with brand-merging.

I thought we were more on the same page than translations might sometimes indicate! At the start of this discussion, I recognized your username from some past Star Wars MOCS (even though my interest in that theme is fairly small). We might have crossed paths a few times a few years ago with the Pirates set contest entries in 2023; I'll have to check. Of course, we might still have some disagreement on preference for what precise path the forum should take for including alternate brands, but I think we are talking about the same points and can find a way to work together between preferences. I do not know if I can agree that I have it better today than I did in the 90's with LEGO, since that is the peak era for their original themes and I think LEGO prioritized quality more then than they do today; maybe alternate brands will help force them to actually try to consider 'only the best is good enough' again! I am neither LEGO-loyal or a LEGO hater, so I think fair criticism is warranted and competition can be a benefit in this regard. I'd take a store purchase any day when possible instead of an online purchase, but I do frequent BrickLink quite often for my individual part needs. Indeed, I try to keep discussion rational when possible to avoid such issues like translation tone shifts. I'm sure I don't always do a good job of it, but I do try. That is part of why I like when we speak the common language of brick-building, and can accept plenty of accents, dialects, and even different languages as valid even if I do not understand them as well personally! (this applies to alternate brick brands as well, whether or not I try to learn them personally or not).

Thanks for heading this discussion, @aFrInati0n, especially since you may be taking part in the background IT on this forum for implementing these functions; I know I could not do it (give me something mechanical instead!). I have not tested yet the current options to see if this is possible. What I am mostly wondering is if we can filter a sub-forum by tag (not just using the EB search function; I am aware of its function and uses) and if a tag such as '(Brand)' could be given importance over other tags. This would certainly be relevant in a merged-brand structure across the forum, as it could allow filtering for relevancy if there is some way to encourage each MOC topic to include a chosen brand tag and there is a simple way to filter a sub-forum by these tags. I'll try to do some testing as an end-user and see what I find.

Agreed, I hope that can come across in my comments, but I wanted to make that clear as well. Yes, that is what I think as well. I've often found people with only casual relationship with me to receive a question or challenge from me as a dismissal or disrespect to their idea. Instead, I wish all could see that the discussions I am willing to invest in are ones that matter to me, and, if I am questioning or challenging your idea, know that it is because I consider it worthwhile enough to try to understand better!

I wonder if this would be the best solution for the tag-filter discussion specifically. This could benefit the EB community regardless of option on this thread poll, but certainly seems to matter if decisions are made according to poll option #4. My thought right now, though, may be to wait until further direction is given from this thread before we delve into specific methods of application. Of course, a thread discussing tag-filter options does not have to relate directly to this discussion and could be created for our own separate discussion at any time, if you ask me (and you did, I guess! ).

Ah, I see and think I was understanding from following along. I still prefer a similar forum structure to what we have now for LEGO themes with a new set of forums across all brands, but this will probably always be a matter of personal preference without a precise, rational answer that works for all. Also, I am not diametrically opposed to the merged forum structure, but I do not know if it could ever be my preference. Indeed, the only reasons I can come up with for brand loyalty as a customer are for the system at play (incompatibility of competitors) and the quality (competitors being significantly inferior)... but both of these are no longer held only by LEGO at this point, so I am not one to claim brand loyalty on the product, even if my large collection to this point is essentially 100% LEGO only. That may be changing as LEGO continues to go in directions away from my preferences and alternate brands continue to make improvements in the directions I prefer. We will see what the outcome is for the forum by the moderators' decisions. Also, for the language issue, your prior comment made it look like you were saying that 71% directly wanted alternate brands to be included on the forum, while your rephrasing is more accurate to what you meant, what I think, and what the poll seems to indicate: 71% are open to inclusion of other brands on the forum. I've also wondered before and still now if I sometimes misread the tone of your messages for reasons that may come down simply to difference in translation; I do try to keep this in mind with my responses not to let emotions get invested before careful consideration!

This would be a good starting point in testing the validity of tag-filtering methods behind the scenes if we would want such an option to go along with the decisions from this poll and discussion. Yes, a good working tag-filter solution may be an acceptable compromise for me even if it would not be my first preference and does seem to be a more significant change to the forum than should be tried first. I think the way I see it for the forums would be to add a new set of MOC sub-forums that would be generalized across brands, with those sub-forums broken out across the themes as they are now. If someone wanted to post a MOC without concern for brand, post the MOC to the relevant generalized-brand forum. If someone wanted to work within the limitations of the LEGO system specifically, they post to the current LEGO sub-forum for the relevant theme knowing that most traffic or engagement in that subforum would be from those with a shared interest in the creative challenge of LEGO parts. Whether or not anyone would want this subcategorization for other brands is yet to be determined; to date, EB was essentially LEGO-specific and still drew the current community, so I do know there is some interest in this for LEGO parts beyond just my personal preference. Also, I see this being moderated by feeling and guidelines more than by strict rules, much as the community has been to date. Though I do not prefer to use them myself so gain little value when seeing others use 3rd party accessories, I do not feel disgust when seeing a large build with the inclusion of a few 3rd party figures or accessories; If incorporating full openness to other brands across the forums, though, this becomes more significant in my view than before, as it becomes harder to distinguish what system was used for those of us that might choose to care. For your example, by strict logic in this system of forum separation, the MOC would go in the generalized-brands MOC sub-forums since the use of alternate brands for specific design intent was utilized. Of course, this is the current situation with the Technic subforum where many non-LEGO deviations are allowable within the community, so some categories could be treated differently if that is the feeling of the community. If these alternate brands have enough traction to make the generalized MOC forums the main hub of activity or most people who previously preferred the LEGO system choose instead to post to the generalized MOC forums and move their activity as well, maybe the separated sub-forums would not be needed in the future. The way I see it, though, this is a very significant change to the forum that needs data to justify such a change, and that data is probably quite difficult to accurately collect with this poll, even trying to follow all of the discussion on an open public forum. Another big component for me is preferring when clarity is given for me to consider acceptance of the use of alternate brands in my own set of interests. If you posted your car model you gave for example and specified that your solution to the stability and connection problems was to use a few non-LEGO components, I can work with that. It really comes down to how much extra information is brought into the forums through including alternate brands. I would prefer if my main forums to visit for my LEGO hobby did not get overwhelmed with non-LEGO builds, since it does not suit my personal preference and think forum separation may be a solution to this problem. I do have a measure of trust that we could use merged forums (if that is deemed necessary; it is the lowest-voted option on the poll currently) and let community members choose to do their part in giving effectiveness to tagging options or explaining where they chose an alternate brand and why, like your example. This does not currently bother me and would not significantly bother me in the outlook on the future, other than if most builds end up utilizing a majority non-LEGO parts that are currently irrelevant to me. Sorry, I'm going to find this difficult to fully articulate, but I think I would personally be fine with defining the lines somewhere like 90-95% LEGO (much like it is today as the general acceptance) and leaving this up to community acceptance or discretion rather than laws. Another element of this is that I want to always show respect to others and hope that others return the same; as such, a MOC on the borderline or even one that is significantly non-LEGO could be politely redirected into the other forum (where it might even get more attention, who knows yet?). One question I have about this discussion is that I will find it difficult to compare systems like this without giving specific details on how it could be done, and I do not know if suggesting specific system solutions is what this tread is going for, if that makes sense? Should we continue this discussion as it is, move it to a new thread, or wait to discuss the details until the moderators propose a resolution from this poll and discussion? I do not know if it is obvious or not, but I feel like I am someone who understands and tends quite significantly towards the LEGO themes, and by extension this system of parts limitations, due at least in part to my large collection of LEGO parts, but I am open to consider the inclusion of other brands as well, especially as I see no reason to be brand-loyal for the sake of loyalty alone, especially when much of what LEGO produces today is not to my liking. This also ties in to a level of openness and possible acceptance of brand-merged forums, but it is far from my top preference right now and does not seem to be the preference according to the poll. Typing on a forum is too limiting for me, and I could ramble endlessly on this topic... I really wish we could somehow discuss this in person!

Interesting that you feel that statement does not represent you well, as I did not intend it directed at you. Limits of an open public forum. It is also interesting to me that I think another user earlier in this thread was much more directly misrepresented for a stance taken and, when giving reasons that go beyond personal opinion, was still challenged as sharing only opinion. I could run circles around this chasing my own tail since it is so difficult to narrow down the 'facts' in this sort of discussion. I agree that substantiation beyond opinion is best in order to have this discussion. I also think the poll and topic at hand rely more on opinion in the end than you might have first assumed. If you are understanding but just not convinced, is it not possible that some of us with differing opinions are understanding you but are just not convinced? Is not this still rooted specifically in differing opinions that cannot be objectified? I've seen your stance quite clearly that you think MOCs should be in the same sub-forums across the brands. I think I've understood your reasons why and have given reasons why that might not be the same reasons for others that might want forum separation. For your comment about me practically diminishing my thought by my own admission, this is the opposite of the point I was making: the fact that I am not interested in everything is the reason why I appreciate sub-forums to help guide me to what I find relevant instead of me needing to do all the filtering myself. If (not saying at all this is where we are headed, just giving an example for the point) the forum becomes like most social media threads that have almost no sub-categories and rely on tags/hashtags that are based on every user's discretion or accidental omission, I would find the forum very difficult to navigate for my interests. For my example for tags versus themes, I understand what you want to see as the result. My question is: if tags serve the purpose of filtering enough to warrant the merging of forums across brands, what makes them insufficient for filtering other categories, such as Space versus Historical? If we are looking for common logic instead of opinion, the logic of having sub-forums for different themes relates to the same logic for why I prefer separate sub-forums between brands: there is a reason I could prefer a sub-categorization that others may agree with enough to want a unique sub-forum. Your statement is a reframing of your opinion on how it could work, stated as how it should be rather than a reasoned option to consider. Ultimately, the moderators will decide. I'm not sure I could make it my intention to change your mind on your preference; rather, I want fair consideration for opinions of others as well that I think are just as much (or, truly, as little) able to be based on fact instead of opinion. For this example again, what is the fact (not based in opinion) that merged forums with tags to sort are better than separated forums? Nearly every reason I've seen given on this thread is able to be reduced ultimately to a matter of preference rather than arbitrary fact. This is why I am interested in weighing the effects of different options or opinions before a decision is made that will have a noted effect one way or another on the EB forum. It would indeed be difficult to moderate any arbitrary line of distinction, which is why I prefer the sub-forums as guidelines rather than strict rulings. I do not think this is any more or less difficult between merged or separate forums; either method uses some form of searching for relevancy. This is where I choose to trust the community to work together on whichever method is chosen in order to make it work best for all involved, as much as possible in compromising differing opinions. I would argue that it seems simple enough for those of us who might have a reason to prefer LEGO MOCs to have their own sub-forum while those who do not care could post to one generalized sub-forum per theme/category. Someone who builds only with LEGO-original pieces but does not care about systems could still post to the generalized sub-forum that includes all brands. I might be fine with a sub-sub-forum under the generalized sub-forum for LEGO-specific submissions, but I would like to feel like this is indeed the broader wish of the community before we take this route. This is why I still prefer and aim my discussion towards trying separate all-brands sub-forums instead of overwriting the current LEGO structure too quickly, but this too quickly gets dismissed as strict brand loyalty too often. About the invalidation feelings, is that not exactly what is meant by personal opinion and bias rather than logic? If we are starting from the feeling that LEGO is superior and all other themes get shifted off to the inferior island when I do not hold that belief behind my opinions and have other reasons to prefer separation, what is this really based on other than differing opinion and perceived judgment? I think this is part of what makes this discussion difficult to find agreement on: there are a lot of past emotions/opinions/feelings that are brought to bear in the discussion if we do not do our level best to perceive and mitigate our own biases. Per the filtering a little more, I am not saying it is too hard to do more filtering, and I have even stated as much directly by my willingness to consider tag sorts/filtration; this does not change my preference for separate sub-forums, nor does it avoid the direct logic that this would be taking the current status and adding a little more need for filtering. You stated as much that merged forums would add a little more tag filtering, which is factually more than what we currently have to do regardless of my personal opinion. That is part of the reason I commented to begin with: this topic may well and truly be inseparable from some effect from bias or opinion and should be recognized as such. I do not mean to belabor this point; I think we understand and are finding the type of difference in opinion that will have to be sorted by the moderators to make a decision such as the topic of this thread. P.S. I do check out sub-forums not of my direct interests every now and again for curiosity, so this really is not about keeping me from seeing scary alternate brands; I just prefer if that choice is simply ordered by sub-forum titles rather than just tags; again, my preference between 2 valid methods. For your questions: 'If the actual concern isn't manufacturer identity, then what is the underlying property you're trying to classify? If different part designs are the important thing, why does the presence of a particular design necessitate a separate forum?' This is back to my prior discussion on systems of limitations. This community was founded on shared interest in the systems of limitations within the LEGO product, so it should not be surprising that some (many? Options #1,2,3 might all apply) would prefer not to significantly change the forums as they currently are, preferring separate forums (at least initially, in my opinion) for the new additions. 'People can have different personally applied systems of limitation. What if someone wants to post a historical MOC made largely out of Galidor parts? Where does the line get drawn? Who decides? What happens with mixed MOCs?' This is generally understood within each community and I am fine with community moderation of the guidelines rather than rules on precise lines. Most would know that posting a Galidor MOC in the historical section will likely be taken in a humorous light since it differentiates so much from the standard flow within the sub-forum. Mixed MOCs would easily all fall in the generalized sub-forum rather than in the LEGO-specific one; I know you disagree with this method, but I do not think it is as easy to logically invalidate as you indicate, at least not when we try to look at the meaning behind the poll options and where the community votes indicate thus far. 'What happens with LEGO elements that are themselves unusual? Do separate theme forums split into tiny low-traffic islands? Why should the person who wants inclusion bear the cost of being separated?' Again, this has been answered through years of the EB forum's existence. Specific rules are not needed as such, but we get a feel for the communities we choose to take part in. As such, I will also iterate that I would have no problem with a MOC in the current sub-forums that does not have 'LEGO' embossed on every stud; I am interested in clarity whenever possible, though, on system deviations such as stud inverters, since I have a collection of almost entirely LEGO products to date (personal preference, not specific brand loyalty). I see this question so differently than it looks like you do: the person who wants inclusion gets inclusion in the generalized, over-arching sub-forum; the person who wants to see specifically LEGO builds can easily find this section within a separated sub-forum. Couldn't tags accomplish the filtering without restructuring the community? Yes, this may be one valid option; the discussion at hand is whether this is the preferred option over what I would argue is keeping the current structure of the community with separated forums. I am certainly open to considering this option and considering the restructuring of the community to include alternate brands within the same forums, but it still is not my preference. This is one of my concerns with the merged forums. Without the ability to have tag filters that could separate between brands, I would not want the merging of the forums. If this ability to filter is possible and the moderators choose this method of alternate brand inclusion, I will do my best to work with that system even if it would go against my personal preference. Sorry, am I conflating your point? Maybe it was not directly relevant to your post that I quoted, but are you not one who has been challenging those in support of separate forums as forming their opinions on brand loyalty? It is possible I am confusing you with someone else or with different comments... I'm still not sure if I've seen any responses in this discussion that argue for brand loyalty specifically. Does filtering the forum by tag already exist and function well beyond just using the basic search function? Can I go to the 'Space' sub-forum and filter for 'MOC' within the same thread list quickly and efficiently? I think this is part of the question at hand, not as simple as the current existence of tags.

To reiterate this point, preference for the LEGO system as a type of design constraint is not automatically 'brand loyalty' as you keep stating it. There is more to this discussion as I have tried to mention before about the systems of limitations personally applied in the hobby. To be clear (and I think this a reasonably sound argument, though it seems like it may be misunderstood or dismissed yet again), separation of MOC forums is the easier method when fitting this concept of 'systems of limitations' and does not include for me those pieces which are common between brands. I do not care what logo is on the stud, but I do want to know if parts from a different manufacturer are allowing a builder to do something that is not possible in the same way within the LEGO parts palette. This relates to the tagging option, and I am willing to consider how this may work and play out, but still firmly believe the simpler solution (both for the systems separation and for integration into the current EB format) is separate forums, even for MOCs. Even before trying a tag system, I would prefer to see how the community would respond to separate forums for this new change to the forum whose community has been built over many years. This is, indeed, my personal preference, so I defer to the judgment of the moderators as they follow this discussion and consider the poll. See answer above. I think there have been some sound arguments that you are not understanding, and this becomes challenging when your responses seem to reframe the differing opinions of others as being only 'brand loyalty' or without sound argument instead of having any acceptance for the possibility of different opinions that may be valid. Essentially, I think this discussion is benefited by less-absolute statements than you often give, as I think many of your points are also based on personal opinion and not as factually sound as you present. Hopefully you understand my intent here, as we have discussed prior; I am appreciating this discussion to be able to test my own preferences against my own biases and feel out what the community wants in comparison. I do not know if Divitis thinks differently (I assume not), but it is not about the logo on the stud, especially when it comes to what others choose to build with. It is about finding relevant information on the forum to my own interests; this gets more complicated with mixed forums, even with tagging options (though I am still willing to consider this option should it be chosen by the moderators). I understand we do not have to look, but more topics in the same thread that are not relevant to my preference certainly make it more difficult for me to find relevancy. To clarify, I am not saying perfect isolation between brands must happen, but there are valid reasons why some separation could be preferred without breaking it down as only personal preference with no rationality. P.S. I think I got your questions later in this response so I can share my thoughts there. This is part of the point: there can be advocation for separate forums without the assumtion those with that preference as trying to ban or exile anyone who does not build in the same manner. It is about finding relevancy (like my discussion prior on systems of limitations). Also, though I think some may want the forum to be concerned with the logo on the stud, I do think most of us are not concerning ourselves over the logo. It is about clear understanding to help us find relevant information to our own interests, hence the desire for separation between different types of specialized parts that directly impact the build experience. Your example focused on percentages could be based on stud logo, to which I have no problem, especially since this would be impossible to moderate; Have every MOC builder disassemble their build to show pictures of every stud to confirm brand loyalty?!? Of course, I think this ridiculous and suspect that most on this thread would agree. When it comes to different part designs, though, I prefer separations between different systems, much the same as I would not prefer to see most of the Historical sub-forum filled up with MOCs primarily built with Galidor pieces, even if they are official LEGO; it is not what I consider relevant, and I think I share the opinion of most on that thread. My positive outcome desired in participating is that we have a friendly and helpful community that can offer me information and interest that can include my personal preferences. This is a volunteer hobby after all, so I do not take it too seriously. For me, it is not at all about winning an internet argument, but about having open discussion about possible changes and effects on a community I have very much enjoyed taking part in. Winning is never the priority; coming to reasonable agreement so we can continue working together is the priority. Though not relating to my precisely current efforts, the direction this forum goes will have some impact on my plans for interactions as time allows in the future (and as my nephews get older each year and soon reach an age where we take time for custom builds as opposed to most of our focus right now being on building sets to learn techniques). I really think these discussion points are being viewed differently between us. What would be 'taken away from me' in an open forum would be the current automatic filtering towards what is relevant to me, as the current sub-forums are already LEGO-specific (with some community exceptions such as 3rd party accessories and custom sails, etc.; hopefully this is clear, as I do not think it worthwhile to make sure the forum is strictly purist). Even with a tagging system, more steps are needed to find what I consider relevant. Also, again to make this clear, I am not discussing the logo on the stud but rather the system based on different part designs. This is not me being unopen to considering tag options, for example, but another attempt to answer as logically/factually as possible why there are reasons for forum separation (relevancy). Open forums could make it less enjoyable for me to interact over my hobby if it makes it harder to find relevant information due to the inclusion of a lot more overall that is included. Not that I hold the extreme view that including alternate brands will make this a complete and total mess, but I think it a simple fact that sorting information becomes more difficult when more categories are introduced to the same forum. Again, hopefully if the combined forum option is the choice of the moderators, a good tagging system could help for each of us to find what is relevant to our personal interests. Inherently, a separate forum automatically helps towards finding relevancy, as it is a preset filtration without my input or sorting. To be quite clear, I am all for 'live and let live' with what you choose to build with and share on the forum, and I am not "scared" of seeing alternate brands on the forum, but I would prefer to still find similar elements of the same community I joined and took part in, and think that merging across a forum could introduce complexity that could result in hinderances to finding relevant information. Is your dissatisfaction rooted in personal opinion and misunderstanding of the counter arguments? Breaking this down on fact and logic I think is much more difficult than you seem to indicate. You state that there is 'objectively no good reason to divide the MOC section' while also not addressing the fact that open forum merges result in more topics within the same sub-forum which factually means there is more information to sort for relevancy. I am not trying to exclude alternate brands from EB, so I do not think my reasoning is rooted in xenophobic-type thinking, but I do have personal reasons why I find some information relevant to my own interests and would like a good method of finding relevant information. One way to iterate this argument could be the following: if tags are to be as fully effective as proposed, should we eliminate all sub-forums and allow tags to be used through personal filter choices to find relevant information? Why should there be any separation between Historical/Pirates/Space/etc. if not for the purpose of sub-dividing to provide options for relevancy to each user's preferences without the direct need for tags? Even more extreme, why even separate sets from MOCs when a tag could do all of this separation? Of course, I am not advocating for any of these options, but would like to consider what the points of discussion are here. Does a dedicated sub-forum for those that prefer alternate brands not give an official chance to those who want it? Would the creation of such separate forums not allow EB staff to determine statistically if there is enough traction in those subforums to warrant a significant change to the prior forum structure? Does forum separation not help us find our own communities with shared preferences while still allowing others to do what they want without me bothering about it? I think these same arguments can be taken both ways with equal logical merit, which is what can make it difficult to determine a fixed answer across the whole community. We've had this argument several times over on this thread though some choose to ignore the differing opinions as strictly intolerance or personal opinion. I think most in this community (certainly I am included) are welcoming to your inclusion, but would prefer to have separate forums for different brands. This is not based on considering others 'vile' or 'inferior' but simply a way of sorting information on a forum. Please do not automatically assume that anyone who does not support full brand integration across all forums must also be doing so due to superiority or strict brand loyalty, as there is much more nuance in this discussion than that. I agree with this and appreciate the distinctions on the nuances. Fairness to all includes everyone even if they have a different approach to the hobby. One point of distinction that has not yet settled in this thread is whether separate or merged MOC forums should be considered across the brands, and this one is likely to be permanently stuck in discussion between differing opinions that cannot be perfectly reconciled. Again, I think most of us that would rather see separate subforums are not doing so out of a judgmental hierarchy or banning of that which could be disturbing; It is about sorting the forum (equally, in my mind) by what we would find relevant to our own interests. I do not think it nearly as absolute as you tend to present it that the only fair option is to merge all brands and no argument for separation has any validity. I think many here are open to inclusion for situations like Bosquimani07's but may still have reason to prefer separate sub-forums. This is not an easy point to challenge with strict fact. Do separate forums between brands root only in 'brand loyalty' reasons in your thinking? Only option #1 would keep brand loyalty 'enforced as a site-wide rule' yet your focus seems to count this as the result of anything but option #4 as you prefer. According to the poll right now, though there is still a strong number of votes for option #1 (which is no surprise when considering that is how the forum has been to date and significant changes are not usually wanted by all), there seems to be a larger percentage that voted for inclusion of other brands on the forums. The discussion is about the finer points on how this could be done, not only 'brand loyalty' as is brought up so often. The only prize I care about is the continuation of the EB community as a fair and considerate one where we can find others that share in our interests. I do not see inclusion as any of the options listed, but I do prefer to be able to sort the forum to my own interests and think separate sub-forums are the simplest structure as well as the one with the least change for the first trials of this new consideration for EB to include more fully the alternate brands. That article seems to show the basic thoughts that most any company would have about IP/trademark/registration/etc. A community not officially endorsed by LEGO could share information that does not agree with the stance of LEGO, so they would want to keep a level of separation (such as not allowing the use of the most significant quick identifier of their brand: the logo) so they are judged for what they do, not by what others do with their product and surrounding discussions. 'Enthusiasts' would be inherently better for general discussion, as it implies interest and support whereas 'purist' implies a substantial precision in that it is LEGO-only at the exclusion of other brands. Some are 'purists' and would choose the label, but most are probably not strictly 'purist' to LEGO, especially not in how they consider all inclusions in the community. I can only generalize, not speak, for all, but I know that this is how I feel about the topic of this thread. It is not a matter of banning or strict segregation, but rather a way of sharing with others of similar interest to my own interests which will surely be incapable of including every other interest on the forum personally. I agree; the question is whether or not this added rule is significant enough to warrant a new sub-forum on EB or not, taking into account both what EB has been to date and where future changes could direct the forum. Much of what LEGO produces today is not interesting to me, and I think there is a lot of evidence of them not upholding their motto "Only the best is good enough" by cutting production and manufacturing corners to maximize profits. At the same time, the expiry of the brick patent and the increasing quality of other brands leads to a different market today than that of the past.

I think I know your point and generally agree, but I think 'paranoid' is a bit reductionist, as brand identification or misidentification can have a huge impact in the public eye before damage can be controlled. Example: If someone uses a logo very similar to yours, then proceeds to exploit workers and disrespect IP laws, the public may confuse the companies and attribute fault to your company. Obviously, the fine lines of regulation require legal considerations to determine where and how patents/registrations/trademarks apply, but these issues are not just paranoia ('irrational distrust') but can have real impact on business.

That part of my comment was intentional hyperbole or tongue-in-cheek for the laugh, not at all a serious ask. I will definitely check our your recommendations for more information when I have the time! Wow, this is a lot more to look into when I find the time!

I'm quite interested in the topic, but do not have the legal experience nor time to help out right now. The main thing I think is to try to understand the principles that go into IP laws instead of just strictly looking at the current laws to understand what is likely the general opinion of most on what they find applicable or preferable in terms of copying. Though fact can be drawn around the precise laws, it requires a level of legal understanding that likely only lawyers have. When it comes to a community like EuroBricks, fact and opinion or preference seem quite difficult to strictly separate, as we discussed on the other thread. It would be nice if the baselines could always be set on fact alone, but I think this is quite difficult in a hobby open to all sorts of cultures and backgrounds. Businesses get legislation, hobby communities get vibes. I'll be following along to see if there is an easier way to know more about IP structure (nationally and internationally). Oof! This is what makes in-depth IP discussion difficult in an open hobby community. Thanks for sharing, your comment gave me a laugh! I work as an engineer at reasonably deep levels of technicality, but would still find this legal document very overbearing to understand fully. (...not to mention I cannot read German and must rely on translation...) What a fun idea! I'd want more than Space for sure, but Space is certainly included in my interests. Though I understand the purpose of some stickers and the idea that some children enjoy stickers like the random extras included with some sets to be placed by choice, I am a strong supporter of as many prints as possible and think it inexcusable that the premium market-leading brand (LEGO) still so severely minimizes the use of prints, in my opinion. Though I have not seriously entertained these thoughts yet, I am already countering LEGO's current market strategies that oppose my preferences by just designing my own sets for my nephews in the themes I like. It really is a serious commitment of time and effort though in designing structurally-sound playsets and accurate instructions! Without doing it primarily for fun as I do, it would take a lot of compensation to make it worthwhile to do for others beyond my personal interests. I still use LEGO parts only thus far, but that is due to my already large collection and familiarity with BrickLink for individual part needs. Other brands, especially Gobricks, are on my list to research more after these discussions. I still think an open community working together for the good of all interests would be the best solution possible, but geographic and economic constraints make this essentially impossible in the consideration of the making of parts and sets. We just need a benevolent benefactor to donate our community some CAD design software, mold-making tooling, plastic injection machinery, and sources of the best plastics! Then we can all just creatively pursue our interests without the need of a corporation in the market. In the business of design, it is a never-ending battle back and forth between the benefits of compatibility and standardization versus protecting intellectual property so it is worthwhile to invest the resources on new designs with reasonable expectations for compensation. Every company has to choose where and how they draw the line of compromise between the two ends. Interesting, I'm saving this for future reading.

Not that I am aware of, and this would be incredibly difficult given how much of the build is dependent on invisible sub-structure. The best that could be done accurately would be to make general assumptions of the structure and list visible parts. In my experience, the best solution seems to be to garner your own experience with sets and MOCs and ask for advice on the forum (though a fully dedicated response would be quite the volunteer commitment, especially on a build the size of the one you showed!). Also, one method worth trying would be to communicate with the MOC builder. Not everyone can or will want to give a full response, but you could ask. Without a digital model of the build or full instructions, it is a large task to pass on MOC information, even more so if the build was designed and built physically only.