Horation

But none of them called it a defect, they almost always called it a choice they didn't like. Unfortunately, your are not the ultimate purveyor of the truth, so you can't just unilaterally declare that something is atrocious* You are not god, nor do you know everything, nor do I, case is closed. *(even if many others agree with you, since there as many who don't care and even more who might actually like them, don't forget the principle of the loud minority, since I hope you do realise that there were many people complaining about Nixon's job as US president in 1972, didn't stop him and his silent majority from winning in a landslide, nor is it going to stop the silent majority from buying this set en masse without caring for your problems with it) At least we can all agree the black docks were a great idea right? Oh you don't like those? It's a shame you can't order black parts on the same website that you ordered the set on...oh wait you can, didn't stop you from claiming you couldn't...

Aw shucks, but we were just getting started, ah well that's a shame...

As you can see, me and @F1stzz get along like a cat and a dog... Nope, I said that I quite liked the design as it was, and that it reminded me of unwashed uniforms, not that Lego did so for that exact reason, but you insisted that this was a defect, and that I was trying to convince everyone that it was an intentionally good decision (which I wasn't trying to do). Now it ain't the same thing to be saying I think a choice is OK and saying I think it was the best choice ever, cut the cringy made-up lies about my arguments already, lad, and instead maybe read what I wrote instead of what you wish that I wrote...

Order, order, the court asks all lawyers to remember that this isn't a court of law and that there is no court, please take all statements within the context of the message instead of literally in some sort of weird practice for your LSAT, they actually don't depict any drug, just occasionally a syringe or the likes (which could contain anything from a saline water solution to blood samples to maybe drugs, but it is not made clear so...). In other words, in the case of MAB vs SpacePolice89, the court rules 5-4 (with Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Barrett dissenting) that TLG did not depict any drugs directly and at most merely implied their existence, as such the court has decided to do what that one Shakespeare play suggested : Kill all the lawyers!

Here's the new table

EB_vote_tracker 1.xlsx Alright, here it is, I have DannyBoy_4 at 15 votes, very likely a misplaced vote, if someone else would validate, I'd hugely appreciate it

I told you it was intentional from the start, but apparently I was gaslighting...

I actually did make a spreadsheet, for the express purpose of being able to compare users' votes (but I ignored F1stzz a while back, so his vote didn't get counted-will fix that now) I don't know how to share files, if someone tells me how I will definitively do so (to compare more easily with @Yoggington, who is 4 votes away from tying for the top spot) Also, @Mister Phes, any update on MyFirstMoc-Hun and his hungarian army? It would make voting calculations simpler

I know, he's one of those that did do both categories, but he did it very early on so I had to make sure he wasn't forgotten about Also, I did a little table of all the contestants votes, here's the tally :

About the MyFirstMoc-Hun issue, I just noticed that GabKremo only gave votes to MyFirstMoc-Hun in the main category, which is suspicious to say the least...

Hear hear, the user literally says his entry is eligible, but the rules clearly specify that you are supposed to have built your entry after the start of the contest, it's unfair for people like @zinnn, who made a great creation that would likely have gotten many votes (and was one lie away from having it be valid), but who instead did the right thing and self-disqualified his build.

[A]- so you want either a 400$ playset which is playable and easy to rebuild or a 400$ hyper-detailed MOC and anything not corresponding to one of those two criteria exactly is a waste, correct? - interesting how the one part you can easily rebuild is "not for you", it appears that you only like playfully rebuildable sets when they don't exist, because when a set does have rebuildability, you don't like it (and you conveniently "forget" that you could modify it, in a way that somehow makes your argument stronger, hum...interesting [C]- why do I think that neither of those options would please you? Here, let's look at you comment : Now you yourself admitted that 10305 is full of play features, but because it is "dollhouse style", you suddenly really dislike it, so a playful set displeases you because of a minor issue (and it goes from : you are fine with it to : you don't like it) When talking about 10497, you once again admitted to it using somewhat advanced techniques, but because it doesn't do this in just the right way and doesn't make just the right kind of windscreen and what not it displeases you (and it goes from : you are fine with it to : you don't like it) Notice a pattern? Here let me spell it out for you : you are a never-satisfied chronic nitpicker (I generally have the same issue, believe it or not). Those MOCs that won an Ideas vote were often too unstable or used new colours for parts, so they were modified a little to make them more market-friendly, in other words : to target a BROAD AUDIENCE that isn't just FINE WITH but actually LIKES the product, which is why they will aim for a balance of the two, a set that has no play features isn't going to remind adults of their childhood fun and a playset which looks bad on display is rarely "cool-looking" to kids, so it has to go for a middle point of the two aspects. [D]-Let me re-explain for you : you said you wanted a set that is ideally playful and rebuildable but also full of little details and greebling, while wondering if such a thing was possible, the answer is clearly not, because you didn't like the lack of certain details on 10497 (which would have entailed more parts-hence less rebuildability), all the while complaining that the set is not playful (aka rebuildable), so you, in other words, want to make an already hard to rebuild set harder to rebuild so it has more detail but would also like it if it had more rebuildability, I'll give you a moment to think about that...even I am confused, and I'm the one typing this sentence To give you another example, you want more detail on 10305, because it is too much dollhouse-like, and the rockwork displeases you, so you want more detail, but you also want that set to be more rebuildable/playful (you use those words interchangeably), which can only be done with fewer details and less parts. See the issue yet? Here's a good summary of it : https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-is-schrodingers-cat Have fun @Merlo!

There are many people that have rebuilt or modified 10305, if you haven't seen any you haven't looked, you are correct that it is a large build, so fewer people will take it apart, but that doesn't make it any worse at that job than any other similarly large set (ex: 3x the creator castle, which would be a similar number of parts), the set can also absolutely be expanded upon without too much difficulty if you have the means (space and parts) to do so. Now if you are saying that TLG should only make smaller sets so that people can rebuild them very easily, say so or else make your actual opinion clear. So the set has to look "playful", it looks as such to most people here, if you feel like there is too much grey or the likes, you should look at the interior and the foliage, which really help solve that problem. Now onto the GE, you are correct that it is a jack of all trades, but neither of those two option appear to please you anyways ("I'm fine if" is rarely used to say that you really want something, it sounds more like "I tolerate if"), so even if it excelled at one of these, you would only be fine with it, so why should any company try to cater to a customer who, at best, will be OK with a product of theirs when they can make a product that is halfway between these two criteria and sell way more copies, you still haven't made it clear what you want the set to look like... "My original criticism for a lot of sets its that Lego wants to have its cake and eat it too, so the sets end up being okay from a play perspective and okay from the looks perspective. I'd love them to be great at both but I'm not sure that is possible. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the way I see it the set can be smaller, rebuildable, playful (which GE is not) or it can be a full blown grown up set with wonderful details, greebling, etc (which GE is also not)." I agree it is not small, but it does have quite a lot of detail, except of course if you want a UCS millennium falcon style set with tons of wonderful details, greebling (and grey...), which would be hard to rebuild afterwards, and wouldn't meet your "small and playful" criteria at all, I quite enjoy spaceships which don't look like if someone vomited greebles on them, but if you, the guy complaining that 10305 is hard to rebuild want a set with so much detail from small parts, which would make it even harder to rebuild, and which is a small set with tons of playability, which would have less detail and greebling (where 10497 is not fitting that category but the creator castle is, despite them both having a similar amount of features...), sure sounds to me like you are the one trying to have your cake and eat it too, or else we'll need Schrodinger's Merlo's Lego set : simultaneously small (easy to rebuild) and large (hard to rebuild), simultaneously playful (with less detail but more rebuild ability) and displayable (with more greebling and less rebuild ability). You are absolutely correct that this is probably not possible, although if you connect your set to a decaying atom, and when said atom decays it breaks a vial which releases the first type of set but when it doesn't it breaks another vial which releases the second type of set, and you put your contraption in a box, the superposition of the two states will create the two sets simultaneously, now you only need a quantum physics degree and a bit of cleverness to pull this off, good luck, and see you at your Nobel prize ceremony in ~20 years!

Quite frankly, @Merlo really had quite the skills if by age 12 : he could build such a type of tower that looks almost round, and had decent rockwork skills, and was clearly able to make a sturdy crane (which is not that easy to your average 12 yrs old), now I will agree that maybe reddish brown would have worked better, especially on this side (would create some sort of contrast), but the quality of the picture (low) makes the whole build look so, so much worse, the blue looks like if it has a different shade than the real one, and the angle is cleverly selected to hide as much detail as possible. Now I'm all for criticism, but this is borderline cherry-picking. To get back on topic, I quite like these remakes, if they aren't always perfect, they at least respect the originals, what I really dislike are reimagined versions , which are kind of like taking your favourite pie and running it over with a bus for the sake of making something new, I mean sure you can still tell there was a pie there, but it doesn't really look like what it used to. Though 10947 could have been smaller, I will concede.

"Don't give me a big expensive set that's neither detailed enough nor it can be played with and rebuilt easily, and 10305..." is what you said, if you were talking about a different set, it wasn't very clear, so you were presumably complaining about it, now if you would please point me to a better castle, I'd love to see it, but most people tend to quite like it, sounds to me like you just don't like castles all that much (or that you expect a 10 000pcs+ MOC which has way too much structurally-unstable detailing), does it use some interesting techniques? yes it does. Does it use a variety of colours, most of which are also used in kid's sets? Yes, but that's part of what Lego does, reuse similar parts across different themes. Please do tell me what it should have looked like, because it sounds like complaining is easy for you, but are solutions as easily proposed? Just point me to other manufacturers' builds or to MOCs which fit the bill, or otherwise I fail to see the substance of your complaints.

Wait, 10305 has the colours and details of a kids' set? Did you even look at it? Are we really talking about the same set here? It's a set with dozens of strange angles, multiple hidden, but easily accessed, rooms, many easter eggs to older themes (shields, the little yellow castle, etc...), a working threadmill, multiple frogs (including a cleverly hidden one...), a drawbridge (cleverly positioned so that it doesn't make the build uglier) that drops enemies into the dungeon, a back entrance that's only accessible through an angled staircase leading to a door opened by a hidden mechanism, a trap door inside the castle, a lot of fancy printed parts (and NO STICKERS), a number of detailed rooms, including : an armoury filled with weapons, a dining hall, a children's room, a kitchen, etc... and did I mention that it comes with 20 printed minifigs (plus a wizard and skeleton), most of these with leg printing? Yeah sure sounds like a sparsely detailed set if you ask me, but sure, point me to a similar set that does it better : so no stickers, a similar (or better) amount of playability and better details (though I must really question your sanity if you find that set under-detailed), and of course it must have better colours (though please do show me a kid's castle from any toy company with so much grey and we'll be talking).

I'm quite tired, so I'll do one part of the vote today and another later (maybe tomorrow) Main Building category 6269 Islander palace by BrynnOfCastlegate (the best entry, in my opinion) The Hurricane by Marooned Marin Skull's eye schooner by Quotenotto Imperial trading outpost by aex383 Rock Island refuge by CaptainDarkNStormy Mini set category 1872 imperial guard camp remake by Rogue Redcoat Caribbean River soldiers by Rogue Redcoat King Kahuka's Outrigger Boat by kritch

1 point each : 8 6 5

1 point each : 2 5 13

1 point each : 13 18 2

I like the chapel, the enlarged rooms and the added details, but there are some things I dislike : the original set has water running under the drawbridge, and it seems like you are covering up said water with rocks (or creating a needlessly small river underneath), the mixing of guarded inn and 10305 doesn't work because of how different those two sets are, I also personally prefer entirely brick-built foundations to burps, but I'll admit all of these are personal choices, and the overall layout looks great.

Nah, that's when they realised they had made a mistake. They did this AFTER having given people the choice to pick the one which they prefer because it was clear there was no favourite and it would leave a popular theme in the dust. Then again they've always kept star wars as one big thing and have never split it for say, the clone wars or something...

Welcome, I also like books! I'm in the middle of reading Kafka's metamorphosis. Are you reading anything fun as of right now?

Except that it does, each movie had it's own branding as well, and while it's true that none of the themes had direct overlap, things like blacktron 1 and 2 sure were not at all similar They didn't change it because of "outraged fans'' who were angry that all of the subthemes were separate, but rather because TLG felt like it would split the space themed votes too much so...

Nobod said it had to be blacktron, Ninjago achieved such a percentage, I believe. Hi nobody, please stop taking literally everything you read literally and interpreting things whichever way best fits your desired narrative, it's mildly annoying at best and frustrating at worst. By the way, the rise of skywalker was given the worst rating of any live action star wars movie to date, so... And while I'm at it, how is releasing new iterations of an existing idea (spaceships and the likes) to keep up with youth's changing interests not proof that it was one large theme, are you saying castle was never around for long because the original crusaders were replaced by lion knights? By that logic star wars as a united movie franchise hasn't existed for any time. Various subthemes maybe (prequels, sequels, etc...), but not as a singular theme of stories set in the same time period.