2GodBDGlory

Sorry, just edited that post to try to make it more clear

Hmm, are you thinking that it would look like putting something in the rules for new users to read, saying "If your MOC uses functionally different third-party parts, please try to mention it somewhere in your topic so that people can better understand what constraints you were working under?"

One question I'd like to ask is what the potential "problems" there are today that we would be trying to fix. Compared to the status quo, are people saying: 1. "I wish we could talk about these cool third-party sets" 2. "I wish everyone would stop talking about these third-party sets" 3. "I wish I could use these cool third-party parts in my MOCs" 4. "I wish these people would stop using third-party parts in their MOCs" In my opinion, #1 is the only one that many people on here are actually concerned about. #2 shouldn't be an issue, because we barely do that. #3 shouldn't be an issue, because people are already doing that. Finally, I don't think I've seen any complaints about #4. I think discussion of MOCs in this context is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and runs the risk of causing more problems. Given that, I'd like to see the discussion move towards the question of: Should we allow discussion of third-party sets?

Hmm, what do you mean by that argument? I think I agree with you and @Jack Sassy that official clarification is not needed. I guess I was arguing that I find it hard to relate to and understand MOCs that have heavy usage of unique parts, but I don't think that means that we should try to enforce disclosure of all third-party parts. It sounds pretty unwieldy to achieve, and it's usually pretty obvious where builders have used such parts anyways. All I was trying to say is that accepted community norms influence the way people build. If the community likes 100% pure models, feedback will encourage such models. If the community likes 95% pure models with third-party electronics, feedback will encourage such models. If the community dislikes 90% pure models with a bunch of third-party structural parts, lack of engagement will discourage such models. I don't think complicated rules about disclosure of what parts are used in MOCs is necessary

Yeah, and I think people simply don't forum-hop very much. I mean, we were always allowed to talk about third-party stuff in the Community forum, but nobody ever did. I don't see why it would be any different if we just added different forums for different brands. I think I still favour just having one authorized thread in each subforum for third-party brands

Hmm, if that really was what users wanted, I don't think I'd have an issue with it. What I am worried about is having people feel like they have to make obligatory posts about every new CADA set, or whatever. Currently on the Technic forum, the custom is to make a new thread for every single new Technic set, which is just fine. If we were legitimately interested in every new CADA set, and had good discussion about them all, I wouldn't mind having threads for them all, but what I'm afraid of is that someone would take it upon themselves to make new threads for them all, which would just be ignored, because there isn't actually widespread interest for them yet.

Yeah, I don't think people have any issue right now, unless it's obvious. I'd be afraid of doing something like that. At least in Technic, we haven't had any issues with the use of third-party parts in MOCs, and I think having to tag MOCs as such, or worse, moving them to a separate forum, would be a huge step BACK from where we were, and quite annoying to me personally!

I'd probably prefer to do nothing rather than split up forums like that. I like going on the Technic forum and seeing both discussions about sets and about MOCs, and I think splitting that up would lead to reduced participation. There are definitely different types of discussions that go on, but I think it's largely the same community. I think the status quo is already pretty permissive about having third-party parts in MOCs, which I like. I wouldn't mind some level of opening up to have topics about third-party sets as well, but I wouldn't want the forum to be flooded with them, and if other people object to them, keeping the status quo seems fine. Maybe set it up as follows within each subforum: 1. Discussion of official Lego sets, as usual 2. A permissive approach to MOCs with mixed parts (this appears to already be the status quo, at least in Technic) 3. A discussion thread within each subforum to discuss relevant third-party sets (with the existing CADA one in the Technic forum being a good example of this) I wouldn't mind going further, but maybe just having one third-party thread per subforum would make it easy for people to ignore that thread if they're not interested, and prevent flooding the forum with posts about such sets, while still allowing for discussion in a relatively convenient way

Yep, I don't think it's a problem, or something that we need forum policy to control! What I said earlier is: Stuff like Buwizz or metal U-joints are good examples, because it's very clear what the problems they're solving are, and why they're there. I can see MOCs with those and understand what's going on. I think it would be more when people are using different connectors on the interior of a model that the "shared language" starts to break down, and I can't understand the model. Did they use the part because they couldn't think of a solution using only Lego? Did they just use it because they don't care what parts they use, and just want to build the best model they can? I agree that this is on a cultural level, though. If individuals value "speaking the same language" as others and comparing their models on a shared basis of rules, they'll gravitate to relatively purist builds. If they don't care and just want to build something awesome, they can do whatever they want, and we'll judge it accordingly. I think I build models both ways. If I want people to take a 1:8 supercar MOC seriously, I'm going to avoid using non-Lego things for functional purposes (except maybe for a battery). However, if I want to build a high-powered RC car, I'll go all-out with custom electronics and modified or 3D printed parts!

Ok yeah, we don't want to make the moderator's jobs any harder! Are you thinking the difficulty is that moderators over multiple subforums would get confused about what the rule in each forum is? If a moderator is dedicated to one subforum, it doesn't seem too hard for them to enforce whatever rule that subforum decided on, but I suppose that's not how it works? I'm not certain, but I suppose moderators do look after multiple subforums each, and there's also overlap with multiple mods per subforum? Yeah, maybe laziness isn't the best term. I'll try to explain better. When I see a model posted, I generally try to decide how impressed I am with it. If it's got a ton of functions for its size and looks great, I'll be impressed with it, because I know that that's hard to do! However, if I look closer and realize that they used dozens of unique third-party parts that I don't own, and maybe wasn't even aware of, I lose a frame of reference to judge their model from. Maybe using those parts didn't make much difference in the difficulty of building the model, but on the other hand, maybe it greatly simplified some of the challenges. There's nothing wrong with that, but if the builder is using too many special parts, I won't know how difficult it actually was to design, and consequently won't be as impressed.

As a Technic-forum user, I think what I would like to see would be the freedom to create new topics for things like impressive new CADA sets, rather than lumping them all into our existing CADA topic on that forum. Given that we're already talking about them, it seems reasonable to give them the benefits of the order and structure that comes from separate topics for individual sets. I don't know that we would need to create topics for every single set they come out with, like we do for Lego sets, but having a bit more separation there might be welcome. Given that, I would probably find myself voting for option 4, full integration, since that seems to be what would make life easiest on the Technic forum. One question, though: Would it be reasonable to decide on a forum-by-forum basis? For example, maybe choose option 2 or 3 for Eurobricks as a whole by creating one or more new subforums for different brands, but then if us Technic folks decided we wanted more integration within the Technic subforum, we could allow free posting about CADA sets or whatever, while (for example), the Historic Themes people might decide they want to keep their subforum as strictly Lego as it is today. I don't really follow the other subforums closely, but I wouldn't be surprised if acceptance of alternate bricks varies widely by theme. What do you mean by his idea? Allowing MOCs with parts from other brands in any forum? At least for us in Technic, we're generally quite open to using clone parts and third-party electronics, but while I don't think we would using functionally different alt-brand parts, there's maybe some unofficial loss of prestige? For example, if I build a MOC using entirely parts from other brands that directly copy Lego parts, I would earn just about as much MOC-designer cred as if I had built it all out of Lego--it really doesn't reflect on my design skills in any way. However, if I build a model that heavily uses unique CADA parts to greatly simplify the design process, people wouldn't be as impressed with the model. Sure it might be cool, but I'm kind of playing by different rules than everyone else, so the quality of my MOC can't really be compared to other people's. Maybe I'm building right to the limit of what is possible with CADA parts, but maybe I'm just being lazy and using a ton of specialized parts to take shortcuts. In that way (at least in Technic where the internal structure is fairly visible), it seems to be self-policing. You can use special parts Lego doesn't make, but we might not be impressed with your model if you do

That's disappointing to hear! I have all the sets I need, and am too cheap to justify buying ones I don't need, so pretty much my only source for new sets the past several years has been attempting to win Eurobricks contests! Other than that, though, it doesn't sound like much will change. It's definitely better to let Eurobricks continue being what it always has been without interference than to make compromises just for a few free sets to distribute. Unless there were other benefits, but it doesn't sound like there were! Thanks to everyone running the forum for navigating this change, and for the excellent community you've built!

Looks nice! I'm liking how the suspension links attach directly to the XL motors

In order to post bigger images on here, you need to upload them to a photo sharing website, and then embed a link in your post. You can use something Lego focused like Bricksafe or Brickshelf, or something general like Flickr or Imgur (Though I understand that UK-based users won't be able to see Imgur ones)

That's an interesting product! Very compact indeed, but rather disappointing that the amperage available is so low. According to the website, it may not have enough power to run L or XL motors in strenuous applications, which is rather disappointing. They also mention it being the start of a larger system, I believe, which is interesting! Perhaps we'll see a SBrick style controller from them at some point