|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:06 | | Subject: | Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 276 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.
The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.
Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | manganschlamm | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.
The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.
Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
Actually the spokesperson from TLG stated that BrickLink wants contributions
and BrickLink wants an involved community. Let us take a step back and have an
objective look at recent actions and evaluate if this claim is meant as a true
commitment or not.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Andrsv | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:14 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.
The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.
Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
It is probably related to privacy laws. If someone deletes their account it is
for a reason, and many want their info removed. This is a guess based on related
issues on other places.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:28 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Andrsv writes:
| | It is probably related to privacy laws. If someone deletes their account it is
for a reason, and many want their info removed. This is a guess based on related
issues on other places.
|
This was done wholesale for a large number of users at the same time and thus
was likely NOT based on privacy laws. The likelihood that hundreds of thousands
of users simultaneously requested that their information be removed is remarkably
low.
The Help Center states:
If you have done any of the following, then that information and your user
profile cannot be deleted but all other information attached to your user profile
will be deleted:
•Placed or received at least 1 order
•Changed your username or a profile was merged into your username
•Added at least 1 item to the catalog
•Added at least 1 image small or large to the catalog
•Added at least 1 inventory of an item to the catalog
•Added at least 1 relationship to the catalog
•Added at least 1 link to the links section
•Added at least 1 inventory change request to the catalog
•Added weight, dimensions or color code for at least 1 item in the catalog
•Are an inventories verifier and verified at least 1 inventory
•Sent any messages to other members through the contact form
•Posted a message in our discussion forum and it is still there
•Moved a discussion forum post and the message is still there
•Are currently or have been before banned from Chat
I assume BrickLink decided that sentence in bold meant that the username was
part of the information that should be removed.
I get privacy laws and removing information attached to profiles, but taking
the username is what I have a problem with. I don't see any reason whatsoever
why it was necessary to go that far.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | […]
I get privacy laws and removing information attached to profiles, but taking
the username is what I have a problem with. I don't see any reason whatsoever
why it was necessary to go that far.
|
A username is personnal information that helps identify someone.
An example of what privacy laws entail:
When you go to the “I lost my password” page on a website, you enter a username
or an email address (another username, associated to an email provider).
The website should NOT answer:
“Sorry, this username/email-address is unknown.”
nor
“Okay, we know you, a message has been sent.”
The website should answer something like:
“If we know about that email address, a message has been sent.”
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | MidwestBrick | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:23 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.
The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.
Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
In the long-run, why does it matter? I can't recall if I have added anything
to the catalog but really don't care if my name is stamped on something or
not. The purpose is to get the information into the database so it can be utilized.
We all know that someone had to do it and we are all thankful of those contributors,
whether they did 1 submission, or 100,000 submissions.
Maybe it is my older age, but I don't need the "satisfaction" that others
know it was me that did something. My satisfaction comes from others enjoying
something that was done, regardless of whom did it.
This literally sounds like an employee of mine that needs to know for every task
they do that we all know they did it. After awhile, it doesn't hold any
merit and I really don't care. The task was completed and we can move on.
My suggestion, let it go and let those in charge, focus on things that need to
be done and let the trivial stuff whoosh right over our heads and leave us un-phased.
Not everything is going to be perfect and arguing over little things makes the
big things harder to accomplish.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | calsbricks | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, MidwestBrick writes:
| | In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.
The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.
Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
In the long-run, why does it matter? I can't recall if I have added anything
to the catalog but really don't care if my name is stamped on something or
not. The purpose is to get the information into the database so it can be utilized.
We all know that someone had to do it and we are all thankful of those contributors,
whether they did 1 submission, or 100,000 submissions.
Maybe it is my older age, but I don't need the "satisfaction" that others
know it was me that did something. My satisfaction comes from others enjoying
something that was done, regardless of whom did it.
This literally sounds like an employee of mine that needs to know for every task
they do that we all know they did it. After awhile, it doesn't hold any
merit and I really don't care. The task was completed and we can move on.
My suggestion, let it go and let those in charge, focus on things that need to
be done and let the trivial stuff whoosh right over our heads and leave us un-phased.
Not everything is going to be perfect and arguing over little things makes the
big things harder to accomplish.
|
I think most people would agree with you - the trouble is the big things are
taking much longer than anyone really anticipated to get to grips with so people
wile away their time with minor things. Maybe, just maybe if we concentrated
on the big things to let the new owners know our feelings we could help move
this along - maybe not - large corporates rarely listen in depth to what we have
to say (at least in the past, anyway).
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 13:41 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, MidwestBrick writes:
| | In the long-run, why does it matter?
|
You make a fine argument. And if we were all to agree with it, then this page
should be removed from BrickLink altogether (which you clearly support):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogMembers.asp
But to answer your question, I'll give you one way in which it actually does
matter. Catalog and inventory administrators sometimes have to make judgments
about the reliability of information that members submit. Contributors build
a reputation based on the quality of work they've done in the past.
Looking back on past work done to know how reliable it should be considered,
it actually does mean something to be able to identify a user and not just see
that one the blusers did it.
| | This literally sounds like an employee of mine that needs to know for every task they do that we all know they did it. After awhile, it doesn't hold any merit and I really don't care. The task was completed and we can move on.
|
Yeah, but if you truly believed that, then you would refer to all your employees
by a number. You would say things like, "Employee Number 3827, go assist Employees
Number 99234 and 439 with the task they're working on."
But you don't. Because people have names and you treat them like people,
not cogs in your machine.
At least I hope you do.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 14:19 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 59 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Maybe familiarizing yourself with this information will clear up many of your
questions about Blusers and cookie screens having priority over things like being
kind and being useful and usable.
Because. Compliance. Governments know what's best for all of us.
https://gdpr.eu
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 14:24 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 73 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
|
snip
| |
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
This is what happens when regulators (read government flunkies) pull their snouts
from the trough of public money long enough to do something. It becomes an unmitigated
RFU. The privacy and scrubbing laws exist for a reason, what some might view
as a good reason, but a reason none the less. It is easier to place the burden
on a few companies than to make all individuals behave like responsible citizens.
But I will say for this process - at the same time as scrubbing members, existing
members who have contributed should be contacted and requested to agree that,
as part of the process of contributing to the catalogue, such contributions are
acknowledged. Furthermore, members contributing, must sign a waiver allowing
BL Corp to keep using the contribution and BL's acknowledgement thereof,
for as long as the site persists. When a member closes his/her account, they
must be reminded of the waiver again and agree again as part of the process of
closing an account. Members who choose not to outlive the site, must make sure
that their wills make provision for the contributions to be acknowledged as long
as the site persists. BL must just learn to manage properly, is all. Members
must just learn to be responsible, is all.
The heartbreaking thing is that sans BL managing this, all catalogue contributions
will eventually be made by BLUSERs. So why bother at all? Just acknowledge all
contributions as by BLUSERs already or, alternatively, manage the process of
contributing and membership a bit better. You cannot do anything about the lot
who never thought to give BL their permission to outlive their usefulness, but
you can deal with the existing membership in a better manner.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | crazylegoman | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 18:10 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I agree with everything you said. I didn't even know that was happening.
Was it something they started recently?
David
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Legolibrarian2 | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2020 21:56 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 89 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
It is not right to erase people who have contributed to the catalog and turn
them into a meaningless number (and a username that rhymes with "loser.").
The first attached image shows people who have contributed a set inventory to
the catalog. For each person it was only one inventory, but it was time they
took out of their day or week to make a contribution.
The second image shows people who have added items to the catalog. One person
added 113 items. Another added 97 items. Yet another added 87 items. And so
on down the list.
Some of these unregistered users are no doubt dead. Some have moved on to new
pursuits. Some may be in a coma or in prison. Who knows why any one person
hasn't logged on or may never log on again?
BrickLink wants contributions. BrickLink wants an involved community. But when
BrickLink treats former contributors so dismissively, by erasing them into meaninglessness,
it makes me think they have no respect for contributors.
BrickLink contributors deserve better treatment than this. Anonymizing people
who have contributed to the catalog was a poor decision. It was a careless and
heartless decision.
I urge the site to reconsider the decision to anonymize any former catalog and
inventory contributors.
|
This may be in response to a new law that took effect in California this month.
It has to do with personal information in an online environment. BL headquarters
is in California, so I guess they have to abide by the law.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 12:57 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, Legolibrarian2 writes:
| | This may be in response to a new law that took effect in California this month.
It has to do with personal information in an online environment. BL headquarters
is in California, so I guess they have to abide by the law.
|
No, from what I can tell by reading a summary of that law it would not be applicable
in this situation.
The following is not directed to you, but to several readers who really don't
seem to get it. I understand getting it and disagreeing, but some people really
aren't getting it.
So: there is a somewhat recent trend in society of erasing people from history.
A number of different reasons are used to justify this. In this instance, privacy
appears to have been the reason. Obviously I disagree with that trend.
BrickLink assigns each person a unique identifying number upon sign-up. This
is necessary for their database of members. Now it has reduced certain users
to that number, even though the vast majority (probably all) of them did not
request it.
I will present a couple of situations that may be somewhat analogous depending
on perspective.
Imagine a graveyard where the company that owns the graveyard has assigned each
gravesite a number. One day the company goes through and erases the name from
every headstone (or most of them) and replaces those names with the numbers they
have assigned to the plots. The reasons why they did so are irrelevant - it
should be obvious that this is not a wise decision on the part of the company.
Here's another: imagine that someone comes up with a numbering system for
authors and assigns every author throughout history a unique identifying number.
Then, one day, they have the power and ability to replace each author's
name with a number in all records kept by humans. So they do it.
And then we have Hamlet by Author_291763. Moby Dick by Author_9182772. 1984
by Author_3177634. I could continue, of course.
mfav makes the point that these contributors didn't contribute much and it
was a long time ago. He's saying that it therefore doesn't matter how
we treat them. Using the analogy above, then, if an author hasn't contributed
much to the collective human store of literature, then it's okay to erase
them. But Shakespeare, much as he desired anonymity, won't get it because
he contributed too much.
Of course, the logical response is that catalog contributions are not works of
art. That is fair, but they are still effort someone put forth with the understanding
and promise that they would receive perpetual credit for the volunteer work they
did. BrickLink has broken that promise and there is no way to justify that.
A username is not (and correct me if I'm wrong) PII.
It amazes me that I'm putting so much effort into explaining the effects
of erasing history. I think I may know the reason: nearly everyone alive today
grew up in cultures where everything is disposable. It is a logical extension
to see humans in the same way. I'm arguing against that way of looking at
the past. I'm arguing for treating people with the respect they deserve
and keeping promises. I'm arguing against erasure.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 13:04 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | A username is not (and correct me if I'm wrong) PII.
|
Correction: it is PII of an extremely limited sort, but not the kind intended
to be protected by law so far as I'm aware.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 13:27 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | So: there is a somewhat recent trend in society of erasing people from history.
A number of different reasons are used to justify this. In this instance, privacy
appears to have been the reason.
|
Correction: perhaps the trend is not so recent. There was another time and place
in history when people were reduced to numbers by those in power.
Should I bring that up? No.
Is it in any way comparable to what BrickLink has done? No, there is no comparison.
I only mention it to illustrate the thought process that goes into disrespecting
people enough to reduce them to anonymous numbers.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | mfav makes the point that these contributors didn't contribute much and it
was a long time ago. He's saying that it therefore doesn't matter how
we treat them.
|
You know, sometimes you seem to misinterpret the stuff I put in the comics as
a personal point of view. That is not the case. The comics stuff is made to be
funny...well hopefully funny...not to be anything else.
If you want my personal point of view, it is that it is the individual in question
who should decide whether or not their sh*t is public. Not you. Not I.
Bricklink in this instance is presumably attempting to meet compliance with these
new privacy laws. I'm not debating the efficacy of the laws, or the aesthetics,
or morality or anything else, because it's irrelevant. The law is the law
and the affected bodies must be in compliance or in violation.
Given that there are a number of users X whom, presumably Bricklink cannot contact
to affirm their willingness to allow their sh*t to be displayed on the site,
BL likely doesn't have a choice but to anonymize them. Well, they have the
choice to be in violation of the law, but I assume that isn't the choice
that has been made.
Melville and Shakespeare are long dead. You can't cyberpunk them and steal
their identities. The cases with the anonymized users are likely unknown.
I don't necessarily disagree with your general sentiments. But your sentiments
are not the law. BL doesn't have to disagree with your sentiments either,
but not being in compliance with the law is a whole different deal.
Apples and oranges.
Now go ahead and point out where I'm wrong, and I'll make another comic
strip, and tomorrow will be another day.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | You know, sometimes you seem to misinterpret the stuff I put in the comics as
a personal point of view. That is not the case.
|
Perhaps. And I shouldn't. I apologize.
| | If you want my personal point of view, it is that it is the individual in question
who should decide whether or not their feces is public. Not you. Not I.
|
I agree. But I will qualify that by saying that once you make some contribution
to the world, you may have to trade a little privacy for that. And BrickLink
has made no secret of the fact that contributions are credited to users. Everyone
should know the deal going in when they choose to contribute.
There is such a thing as later changing your mind and asking to be removed from
public/private records, but I don't believe that these contributors did so.
| | Bricklink in this instance is presumably attempting to meet compliance with these
new privacy laws.
|
Maybe. This is the general consensus. I think it was more of a case of a poorly-researched
law and an over-reaction.
| | The law is the law and the affected bodies must be in compliance or in violation.
|
Yes, but companies and individuals have the ability to challenge unjust laws.
Some have.
| | Now go ahead and point out where I'm wrong, and I'll make another comic
strip
|
It is good to have a plan and it seems like we have one. 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 14:02 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, mfav writes:
| | Now go ahead and point out where I'm wrong, and I'll make another comic
strip
|
Forgot to mention: I would like to be identified only by a completely random
number in future comic strips and not by a cleverly brick-built LEGO tornado.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | Forgot to mention: I would like to be identified only by a completely random
number in future comic strips and not by a cleverly brick-built LEGO tornado.
|
Ok. After tomorrow.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 16:53 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | So: there is a somewhat recent trend in society of erasing people from history.
A number of different reasons are used to justify this. In this instance, privacy
appears to have been the reason. Obviously I disagree with that trend.
|
Agree 100%.
| | It amazes me that I'm putting so much effort into explaining the effects
of erasing history. I think I may know the reason: nearly everyone alive today
grew up in cultures where everything is disposable. It is a logical extension
to see humans in the same way. I'm arguing against that way of looking at
the past. I'm arguing for treating people with the respect they deserve
and keeping promises. I'm arguing against erasure.
|
I am hesitant to agree with this train of thought, but only because it makes
me sad, and I try to keep seeing the positive in the current generation. Then
again "things" happen where I see people who just don't seem to care, and
I tend to gravitate towards this darker view.
I guess what I am saying is I try to hope for the best, but fear the worst.
Oh well, enough of all this, please forget this old man's ramblings. It is
almost beer o'clock, and time for a couple of board games. Who is up for
a round of Azul, Splendor, or Wingspan?
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 20:37 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, qwertyboy writes:
| | Who is up for a round of Azul, Splendor, or Wingspan?
|
Man, I love me a good game of Splendor! Such an awesome game. My wife and I play
it all the time, along with our other favorites: Catan, Carcassonne, and Pandemic.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 21:13 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, randyf writes:
| | In General, qwertyboy writes:
| | Who is up for a round of Azul, Splendor, or Wingspan?
|
Man, I love me a good game of Splendor! Such an awesome game. My wife and I play
it all the time, along with our other favorites: Catan, Carcassonne, and Pandemic.
|
Yah, Splendor is awesome. I love the "compactness" of the game, both in the amount
of "game parts" and in playing time. Azul is similarly compact, and also very
addictive.
We play Carcassonne with a friend. We are working through all the (official)
expansions (minus "The Catapult" - that one just doesn't fit). Haven't
played Catan for quite a while, never played Pandemic. If you haven't tried
Wingspan, give it a go. It is one of the most beautiful games out there.
Game on!
Niek.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2020 21:26 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, qwertyboy writes:
| | In General, randyf writes:
| | In General, qwertyboy writes:
| | Who is up for a round of Azul, Splendor, or Wingspan?
|
Man, I love me a good game of Splendor! Such an awesome game. My wife and I play
it all the time, along with our other favorites: Catan, Carcassonne, and Pandemic.
|
Yah, Splendor is awesome. I love the "compactness" of the game, both in the amount
of "game parts" and in playing time. Azul is similarly compact, and also very
addictive.
We play Carcassonne with a friend. We are working through all the (official)
expansions (minus "The Catapult" - that one just doesn't fit). Haven't
played Catan for quite a while, never played Pandemic. If you haven't tried
Wingspan, give it a go. It is one of the most beautiful games out there.
Game on!
Niek.
|
I will definitely be looking into Azul and Wingspan. We are always looking for
other great games to add to our pool to choose from. Thanks for the suggestions!
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2020 00:25 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, randyf writes:
| |
I will definitely be looking into Azul and Wingspan. We are always looking for
other great games to add to our pool to choose from. Thanks for the suggestions!
Cheers,
Randy
|
Another vote here for Azul and Wingspan. We also play a lot of Scythe, Terraforming
Mars, and Tapestry recently.
Carcassone, Agricola, and Belfort are my all time favorites. I can't play
Catan... dice don't like me.
Jen
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2020 00:37 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, randyf writes:
| | In General, qwertyboy writes:
| | Who is up for a round of Azul, Splendor, or Wingspan?
|
Man, I love me a good game of Splendor! Such an awesome game. My wife and I play
it all the time, along with our other favorites: Catan, Carcassonne, and Pandemic.
|
Catan is very frustrating for me. The game usually ends very abruptly. Now
and then it is obvious a turn away, but in those case there is usually nothing
to be done. It is often difficult to even tell who is winning until it happens
and suddenly all of my plans are for nothing.
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jan 26, 2020 12:33 | | Subject: | Re: Have A Heart | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, BLUSER13161 writes:
| | I can't help myself from returning to this topic.
|
But I'll try to make this post the last thing I say about it. In a recent
response to a different post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1176109
Russell said:
"Many historic accounts, such as major contributors or Dan's own personal
account were intentionally untouched by the process."
So this means that someone at BrickLink made a determination based on subjective
criteria about who would be erased and who wouldn't.
All I'm saying is that an objective standard should have been (and still
could be) used: if a member ever contributed to the catalog/inventories, then
they should not be turned into a number.
Erasing contributor usernames is a breach of the promises made here (and in other
places):
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2472
And beyond that, it is simply disrespectful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oklahoma
)
)
Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen
Norway, Rogaland
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
South Africa, Western Cape
Canada, Alberta
