I mean, I don’t like Gali Mistika at all, but I have to accept that it’s her official canon appearance. The sets weren’t made to please everyone, the contest won’t be either.
10 Likes
Built using LEGO pieces doesn’t mean everyone can build it. Without instructions, could you recreate Mototaur? Or Blattarax? Without instructions, and with a little bit of heretical practice, you can recreate Charger. In fact, I’d say anybody could recreate Charger.
In my earlier post, I addressed a similar point, which I’ll quote my response:[quote=“Ghid, post:165, topic:51546”]
The people putting them in their mocs are taking the gamble that it will win over enough people with its design to win the contest, and they always run the risk of turning off too many people with modification or paint to lose the chance of victory.
[/quote]
Greg won’t get the chance to ‘wave through literally anything’ as you put it until the community decides by majority vote what they prefer. And if many people are going to be as much of a stickler about it as you are - one of those people is definitely going to be me as well - custom-painted, custom-cut pieces will kill a lot of the entries early on. So in all likelihood, custom masks are the only customization factor likely to get very far in the voting process.
EDIT - Realized there was a point I didn’t cover. All affected parties’ representatives have presumably been consulted, much to the chagrin of some that TTV has the option to host these, I imagine. These rules have probably been tossed about by multiple different groups of people for a while now; they’ve essentially covered all the bases. This isn’t just TTV, it’s everyone with enough community backing to have merit to what they state. If they all agreed on these rules, it’s fair to say their communities generally sway in the opinion they do.
Because they run the website you’re typing on. Greg didn’t decide to discuss the concept openly with the entire community, he discussed it privately with people who have the experience of running a fan website and have been in the community for a long time. People who also have an established history with The LEGO Group, with other fansites and communities, and who also hosted a special Ask Greg forum for… Goodness, nearly two years? Surely that only got made half a year ago.
These aren’t random people, they’re a group of friends with proven experience running a good portion of the Bionicle community. They’re not perfect in that regard, but significantly better at it than some other sites, other sites Greg has dealt with in the past. If he wanted to get a proper assumption of the community currently, he’d probably get it from TTV with little inaccuracy.
Then I guess, since we therefore can’t trust greg to make the right choice, we’ll have to do it ourselves by voting for the entries we actually want.
The rules simply aren’t up for debate anymore. They’ve been decided; if you don’t like them, vote for what you prefer - or for the option you least hate. Abstaining is also an option, but you’d only end up unhappy.
2 Likes
Yes, it is. But this is a contest. If 3D parts come with an inherently-greater likelihood of winning, any severe disparity in who can access them makes the rules unfair. When you’re placing people against each other in a competition, the playing field has to be as level and open as possible, and 3D parts have the potential to significantly unbalance the current field.
I may have misrepresented myself here, so I apologize for that. I have no objection to the contests still being held during this time-frame. Where I do have a problem is when the current crisis combines with the rules in place to make it even more difficult for someone to acquire a part (or parts) which may give their MOC a more equal footing with other participants. Again, I’m not saying I have a solution for that, but it bears considering that some people are currently very restricted in what they can do, where they would not be otherwise.
Yes, actually. A competition in which certain participants have access to materials that give them an advantage over others is inherently unfair. If you’re running in a race, and your opponent has access to substances that allow them to run faster or endure longer, and you don’t, that’s unfair. Similarly, if I am participating in one of these contests, and I have neither the time, materials, or money to afford the upper limit of 3D printed parts (4, I believe), even though my MOC may be technically superior to someone else’s, voters may give them more clout because of a few pieces that I had no access to.
This is a bit of an unfair counterpoint. The essential basis of competitions is skill. Let me offer another example. There’s a TV show I have watched occasionally where competitors have to forge bladed weapons and test their durability, sharpness, appearance, etc. These competitors are judged on the quality of their work, their skill. But they are all given access to the same quality of materials. If one was arbitrarily lucky enough to be given a better quality of metal than the other, one that could sharpen better and have more resistance to damage, his creation would have an implicit advantage from the start, which is unfair.
Even though I am in favor of allowing 3D parts, I think the threshold should be lower, perhaps restricted simply to a mask and a weapon. 3D printed parts are such a new development in the world of LEGO, and I’m extremely wary of how they could be used to push a creation that would otherwise be overlooked into a winning slot.
3 Likes
I couldn’t have said it better myself. The rules already keep reproducibility in mind, but they don’t bend over backwards for them. Any winning moc WILL be reproducible, without destroying parts (paint can be removed) and made only using easily bought parts. Will it be expensive? Maybe, but canon models are already like that.
This is a contest that is going to be decided by majority votes from the entire community. If you’re afraid that most of the entire freakin community will vote for a moc that doesn’t conform to your idea of what a bionicle looks like, stay afraid. Rules are in place to prevent unfair advantages that voters may not be aware of. Aesthetic is as obvious as the screen in front of your face. Majority rules!
5 Likes
Lol. No argument there. I’m still reeling from some of those askgreg plot canonizations.
No, but only because that’s worded in such a misleading way. Under the current rules you already can recreate literally anything that’s potentially submitted. There’s nothing physically preventing you from spray painting pieces or getting custom masks. What you really mean is, “I want the moc to only use techniques and pieces that I would.”
Because, and I gotta say again, being able to make the winners yourself is not the point of the contest at all, and doesn’t even have precedent. And even if it were, trying to put that into some sort of rule form is begging to go off the deep end.
Before anything else, let me be totally transparent: I’m one of those that do spraypaint all my mocs and use custom masks. But I’m going to approach this outside of my personal bias.
I’m guessing the contest makers have informal tiers of rules. At the base are concrete rules, things that can be understood by everyone without debate (“How tall is 9 inches?” “What character can I submit?”); we want to maximize those. On the other end are increasingly murkier waters that have to be decided case by case; we want to minimize those because it’s inherently a judgement of a privileged select few as opposed to the community. That’s where things like spray paint fall under. It hasn’t been officially used by lego, but they’ve allowed it into their own official contests. Tube cutting is almost the inverse but on the same footing - done by Lego officially, just not well liked by certain people. These and other murky areas aren’t strictly speaking “illegal” to competitions, so a hard rule can’t be made on that basis; they are simply a matter of community judgement about what fits the “spirit” of lego or bionicle. And formalizing rules on something that dangerously subjective is inviting chaos. If it’s neither completely illegal nor completely approved by a unanimous community, then the only fair action is to leave it to the voters themselves. It looks like one of the mods already responded to the tube cutting question with, paraphrasing, we don’t recommend it but it is allowed. That’s the fairest take on this. In other words, it’s put on the contestants themselves to acknowledge the risk in taking these actions. You can spray paint pieces, just know that enough voters may be turned off by it to seriously affect your results.
Custom pieces I put in a separate category altogether. Spray painting does not change the type of available connections to parts, which is the foundation of a lego building competition. And tube cutting is by lego’s own standard legal. But custom parts can introduce this new possibility. That’s why I think the current limit works: only masks and a weapon piece or two. I’m actually stricter on this than TTV, I’d prefer if only custom masks were allowed in, but I don’t feel the need to push that point. The two or three weapon pieces is probably an intentional compromise. The reason custom masks are fine is because they are almost purely accessory; they are the most personal part of a moc, the “face”, and are contained entirely to the head. Like spray painting, custom masks also don’t, or at least shouldn’t, introduce new connection potential outside of official parts for any other part of the moc (in this sense I’m also opposed to allowing custom masks for anything other than the head, but ehh).
1 Like
Yes, but the major difference here is that all of the 3d Modelers willing to allow their content in are allowing you to download and print their designs free of charge. They’re not demanding you track down the gold Ignika for a certain MOC to be canon - a mask that averages around $100.00 USD. Which leads me to my next counterargument…[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:171, topic:51546”]
I have no objection to the contests still being held during this time-frame. Where I do have a problem is when the current crisis combines with the rules in place to make it even more difficult for someone to acquire a part (or parts) which may give their MOC a more equal footing with other participants.
[/quote]
Welcome to LEGO contests. Some people are going to have more parts, time, money, or 3d printed masks than other people. Life ain’t fair. If I have the Chrome Hau and I canonize that Artakha carries it on his person - signifying a correlation to the massive metallic Hau on his island - that’s because I had the Chrome Hau to do that with, and that you subsequently didn’t. I won because of a piece advantage, a piece which is extremely rare and highly sought after, and that’s life.
The example doesn’t change whether it’s a 3d piece or an official one. The ethics of using them may change, but the original argument doesn’t.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:171, topic:51546”]
A competition in which certain participants have access to materials that give them an advantage over others is inherently unfair.
[/quote]
Do the rules in those contests say that anyone that has access to those materials are welcome to use them? [quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:171, topic:51546”]
If you’re running in a race, and your opponent has access to substances that allow them to run faster or endure longer, and you don’t, that’s unfair.
[/quote]
Yes, but if your opponent has trained their muscles more, has greater endurance, is lighter and faster than you, they’ve got an unfair disadvantage. Instead of relying solely on skill they may use physical advantage thanks to heritage or genetic makeup to gain an advantage over other competitors. Michael Phelps was examined physically as having somewhat peculiar body proportions which gave him a greater advantage than normal people when swimming. By your definition above, he should not be allowed to compete due to being unfairly different.
Is that a bit of a contrived answer? Yes, but that was a bit of a contrived question. Physical competitions for sport aren’t very comparable to Bionicle contests.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:171, topic:51546”]
if I am participating in one of these contests, and I have neither the time, materials, or money to afford the upper limit of 3D printed parts (4, I believe), even though my MOC may be technically superior to someone else’s, voters may give them more clout because of a few pieces that I had no access to.
[/quote]
It’s the same argument challenged by the Chrome Hau; some people will always have advantages in this sort of thing. If you really wanted to equalize it, everyone should have a set amount of each type of part and all have the exact same amount of time to work on it. And that can’t actually occur without it being a television show, cough LEGO Masters cough.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:171, topic:51546”]
This is a bit of an unfair counterpoint.
[/quote]
It was meant to be. It’s a ridiculous example set to reflect the ridiculousness of the argument, namely that because some people have access to them and some don’t, that the rules are flawed.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:171, topic:51546”]
These competitors are judged on the quality of their work, their skill. But they are all given access to the same quality of materials. If one was arbitrarily lucky enough to be given a better quality of metal than the other, one that could sharpen better and have more resistance to damage, his creation would have an implicit advantage from the start, which is unfair.
[/quote]
Again, this is a poor comparison. That takes place in a controlled environment with each contestant receiving the same exact amount of time and resources to work on their project. That cannot occur in an online LEGO contest, no matter how interesting or equalizing it would be.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:171, topic:51546”]
I think the threshold should be lower, perhaps restricted simply to a mask and a weapon. 3D printed parts are such a new development in the world of LEGO, and I’m extremely wary of how they could be used to push a creation that would otherwise be overlooked into a winning slot.
[/quote]
I highly doubt the contestants would utilize more than one or two at all. You’re right in saying having the 3d printed mask would create a definite advantage, but any 3d mask used must be free to obtain and print. As long as you can print it, you can use it too, and the playing field in that regard is equal.
If you can’t get a hold of a printer in time, well… My condolences. Not everyone gets the same amount of parts, or time, but there are 15 characters for this first round of contests. You’ll probably get another chance.
Gadunka restated the point I’ve been making which everyone who had a say in the rules already knows:[quote=“WholesomeGadunka, post:173, topic:51546”]
You can spray paint pieces, just know that enough voters may be turned off by it to seriously affect your results.
[/quote]
Your use of custom pieces to any degree will interest some and disinterest others. It could save your moc or ruin it. The custom mask’s design, print quality, paint job, or mask creator may save or sink your chance of winning. It’s your gamble to take, it’s your choice to make. Choose wisely.
5 Likes
I’ve read a fair amount of people expressing concern with potential voting problems, namely that if voting doesn’t go to a bracket, a slim plurality may be all that’s needed to canonize a design, even if most people would prefer another MOC.
I suggest, for non bracketed votes, have a preferential or ranked voting system (plenty of programs and sites online where you can set that up) where everyone ranks the MOCs they prefer. It would first tally up everyone’s #1 vote, then eliminate the lowest voted MOC and redistribute those votes based on users’ second pick. Rinse and repeat until a MOC gainers a simple majority of votes, thereby making a MOC that more people can agree upon the winner.
6 Likes
@Ghid you’ve managed to sum up my feelings on this whole deal pretty well, so thanks for saving me an hour of drafting a post.
I DO however, want to add onto your point about the Chrome Hau by taking the point to its’ logical conclusion:
There exists a Platinum Avohkii. The last time it was up for sale, it sold for $15,000USD. There is only one in existence. It is not the only incredibly rare part out there, but it is THE MOST rare part out there, to the extent of being effectively impossible to obtain.
Should we ban its’ (And other rare parts) usage because of how limited they are for the sake of reproductability? Because if we’re going to arbitrarily ban custom pieces (that must be creative commons’d as per the rules) due to the difficulty of obtaining them, we should also ban those rare pieces that likely no one but the person entering has. And if the rebuttal is that “Silver Avohkii’s exist that could be used to sub out the Platinum Mask” well then you are correct, but then it’s not an exact reproduction is it?
More to the point, reproductability of a MOC is not the same as reproductability of a character. I -could- reproduce any of the Mistika, for example, except for the fact that I didn’t purchase half the wave and therefore would have to make due with only being able to make Krika, Gorast, and Gali in their “accurate” forms. I fail to see how the requirement for me to go purchase pieces then is any different than this theoretical - EXCEPT that I would have to purchase the parts that lego made. Which is basically the exact same as needing to buy a mask from someone/have it 3D printed in order to complete the MoC.
In Short, with the addition of the creative commons release rule, there is virtually no difference in accessibility between regular lego parts and 3D printed Custom parts, as the average person likely has to purchase at least one piece from any moc being entered in order to complete it anyways.
Reproductability comes down to availability of parts, which the rules of these contests have addressed, as have many of the replies here. Additionally, to take this to the same extreme many have in the opposite direction, 3D printed pieces are technically more accessible than regular Bionicle Pieces, as there is a limited supply of the latter.
Let’s face it - arguably 99% of people are not going to be compelled to build a contest winner just because it is now canon, and of those who are, the small cost to download the mask/weapon file and find a friend/company to print it are likely not deal breakers. There are plenty of canon depictions of Rahi and Dark Hunters that are effectively impossible to recreate - I haven’t seen community outrage over those.
11 Likes
Download, yes. Print, no…unless you think that 3D printing is free. Aside from libraries (which, as we have previously noted, are not a resource everyone currently has access to), 3D printing can be very expensive. Even though many of our wonderful creators have offered their prints on websites at fairly cheap prices, you have to consider the feasibility of not only paying for those pieces, but also the shipping costs (another thing impacted by the current crisis) and the cost to acquire materials to paint said objects (which is impacted by the fact that many art supply stores are also currently closed). I’m curious that–for something that is evidently important to the community–the answer a lot of concerned people are getting to these questions of accessibility is essentially, “Too bad, so sad…”
And this is not at all impacted by the fact that, in normal circumstances, the people I am referring to would likely be able to acquire the pieces they need? I think you are minimizing the fact that there would be absolutely no detriment to waiting even a few extra months to start these contests, just to see if things improve a bit…
They shouldn’t, if they want things to be fair…and they often don’t.
I agree that physical sports aren’t a perfect analogy, but my point is this: we are discussing the ability of some people to use technologies that are outside the general realm of most people’s MOCing abilities. Technology has nothing to do with uncontrollable genetic factors. It can be regulated and controlled; therefore, it should be regulated and controlled in order to give everyone as equal a chance as possible, and I have trouble seeing how it’s fair to tell some people that their MOCs will be at an automatic disadvantage because they don’t have the money to pay for an expensive, 3D-printed part that isn’t even an official BIONICLE piece (keeping in mind that I am deliberately exempting previously-undesigned masks and weapons from this).
It can, actually. The entry period for these contests is an implicit time limit. Everyone has the same amount of time to make a MOC. Where the disparity comes in is, as you say, whether everyone has the same parts. I’m not talking about amount of parts–I’m talking about parts that do not officially exist.
So are you saying that these contests are not part of a controlled environment? Then why are there entry periods and rules? What’s the point of a contest without control?
Why not? If the limit is 4, I fully expect that some people will use 4…
This is my issue. We are all already assuming that 3D-printed pieces will have a clear advantage, so it’s reasonable to assume that that will translate into the voting process. Now, I fully admit that I could be wrong, and if so, then my concerns will be invalidated.
And saying, “Sorry, not everyone gets the same amount of time, resources, technologies, etc.” is basically admitting that your rules are unfair. How people use their time and resources matters, but what those resources and limitations entail is different. That’s why, for all the flak they got in the past, BZPower’s restrictive rules were more fair. They brought the playing field down to as even a level as they could, with only the amount of parts and the skill of the MOCist contributing to victory. I just can’t see how allowing up to four 3D-printed parts levels that field. A mask and a sword are one thing. With 4 pieces, you can add unique things like a chest-piece, shoulder pieces, leg pieces, etc., and if only 50% of the contestants actually have the means to acquire all those pieces (and I suspect the true number will be lower than 50%), you just aren’t giving everyone a fair shake…
Please note that I’m not trying to quibble about reproductability–I actually couldn’t care less about that. My issue lies with the assumption that has suddenly gripped the community that–aside from masks/weapons whose shapes we do not know–it is somehow restrictive to disallow pieces that are not officially LEGO-made parts. I know that I have advocated for 3D parts previously, but I (and I will admit my personal bias here) never saw them as being necessary aside from a mask or a weapon, and I personally believe that those are the only two types of 3D-printed parts that should be allowed.
I agree with some of what you’re saying, but I think a lot of it might be redundant. Let’s remind ourselves we already have pretty strict rules about custom parts that seems to cover most of your concerns:
So definitely no shin and shoulder armors if you’re only allowed 1 mask, and the other three must explicitly be weapon pieces. You’re saying you’re ok if the parts are only used as a mask and weapon right? Then we should be good. Maybe it would help to clarify that the 1 mask must be used as a mask on the head. The weapons line seems pretty clear. Otherwise, would it be enough to simply limit the weapon pieces from 3 to 2 or 1?
2 Likes
My sincere apologies. I must have glossed over the fact that only masks and weapons are allowed…
That does alleviate a lot of my concern, although I do still feel that–if we really are talking about masks and weapons only–that the 4-piece maximum seems strange. I can see the objection that a weapon might be made up of multiple pieces, but I would still consider that one “piece,” so I don’t see why the number of 3D-printed parts allowed per MOC should as high as 4, when it seems clear that 2 is satisfactory. Objecting to a number like 4, as opposed to 2, may seem scrupulous on my part, but I only want everyone who participates (myself potentially included) to feel like voters will be judging their MOCs on overall quality, rather than the number or look of unique, non-LEGO pieces they contain. I understand that many believe this won’t be an issue, but I can’t say I’m fully convinced that everyone will temper their expectations enough to not immediately vote for a MOC just because it has unique parts.
Still, I will admit that I have less to argue about than I did previously, as you have made me aware of. Thank you for that!
No I actually agree with you there on the number, I just sort of made my peace with it. I think 3 weapon pieces is definitely asking moccists to print, for example, an already custom sword blade + 2 outrageously elaborate sides of the cross guard. The ideal for me would be simply 1 weapon piece (well actually, more like no weapon piece but I’m trying to compromise). Just for a specialized blade, hook, etc. Everything else about the weapon should really be built from normal parts around it. Maybe at the very maximum 2, just because someone will no doubt want to make a double ended spear at some point. But if for whatever reason we’re sticking with 3 as the magical number, I’ll live.
1 Like
Yes, but not always. A good amount of Bionicle fans know someone with a 3d printer who would gladly do a couple prints for them, for little or nothing in return.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:177, topic:51546”]
I’m curious that–for something that is evidently important to the community–the answer a lot of concerned people are getting to these questions of accessibility is essentially, “Too bad, so sad…”
[/quote]
Well, yeah. That’s the reality of the situation. For this question - which asks that there be some level of universal access to 3d printers - the short answer is those who can, well, can, and those who can’t, can’t - virus or otherwise.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:177, topic:51546”]
And this is not at all impacted by the fact that, in normal circumstances, the people I am referring to would likely be able to acquire the pieces they need?
[/quote]
And who are you referring to, exactly? Who exactly are you alluding to, who could get their hands on the Chrome Hau if there’s an extra three months wait?[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:177, topic:51546”]
I think you are minimizing the fact that there would be absolutely no detriment to waiting even a few extra months to start these contests, just to see if things improve a bit…
[/quote]
There is one. It’s possible TTV is setting a time limit close to two months for building to occur, and maybe an extra two in between contests. If this is kept to, the amount of time for these contests, at a minimum, three years and nine months.
Now if the deadline is given a couple extra months and stuck to, the contests will take six years and three months. Honestly, I don’t think anyone will stick around for six years just to participate.
Will they definitely do this? I don’t know. It seems like a good idea to give a two-month timegap at minimum in between contests, but depending on how long the building period is, it could take a while.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:177, topic:51546”]
It can be regulated and controlled; therefore, it should be regulated and controlled in order to give everyone as equal a chance as possible, and I have trouble seeing how it’s fair to tell some people that their MOCs will be at an automatic disadvantage because they don’t have the money to pay for an expensive, 3D-printed part that isn’t even an official BIONICLE piece
[/quote]
Expensive? Not always. Some people could get theirs for free, other might not. Only a few would pay expensive amounts for a mask - and the model has to be free. It’s right there in the rules:[quote=“Eljay, post:1, topic:51546”]
6d. If an entry utilizes pieces from the aforementioned 3D modelers, they’ll need to provide a link to the free source for the piece. If one does not exist, the piece may not be used.
[/quote]
And for those that do not yet exist:[quote=“Eljay, post:1, topic:51546”]
6e. If an entrant enters with a 3D piece they made themselves, they must provide a link to the 3D model file for free at the time of entry. If no link is included at the time of entry, and not included for three (3) days afterwards, the entry will be disqualified.
6f. By entering a 3D printed piece of their own creation, the entrant agrees that it will be freely available under a creative commons license for all time.
[/quote]
It’s possible - not explicitly stated, but possible - that TTV might allow you to use others’ original models for their entry if they give permission. @Eljay will need to clarify on that, and it’s also the only question I have thus far.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:177, topic:51546”]
So are you saying that these contests are not part of a controlled environment? Then why are there entry periods and rules? What’s the point of a contest without control?
[/quote]
This is a bit of a strawman. I’m not arguing or implying any of that, what I’m saying is that a perfect world will never exist. People will never have exactly equal free time, the same amount of pieces as everyone else, or the same type of pieces. I’ve got a prototype piece and it’s a one of a kind; I hold an unfair advantage to everyone else and yet it’s an official LEGO product.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:177, topic:51546”]
Why not? If the limit is 4, I fully expect that some people will use 4…
[/quote]
Will some people win with four, simply because they’re 3d printed? No. If any of them are a factor, it will be the only one of its kind - the mask. The weapon will do extremely little.[quote=“Toa_Heatwave, post:177, topic:51546”]
This is my issue.
[/quote]
Then you’ve set yourself a double standard. BZPower’s mocing competitions, as you praise, also used the exact same logic I’m using. Some people have more time, parts, money (and for the longest time Birds as well) and those all impact your ability to win. It isn’t 100% about skill, it’s based on your inventory, knowledge of design, availability to sit down and build, and that leaves some people disadvantaged, no matter how long you give people.
So if you’re going to argue against 3d pieces using that argument, you might as well argue against the whole concept. Including 3d printed pieces only follows the logic of the contest in the first place - barring canon implications - and no matter how you try, it will never be fair.
Nope, I’m gonna step in here. We will not be acknowledging your decision to allow your pieces.
This may seem a tad draconian, however we’re standing firm in our decision to honor the original request that was made during the voting process for the contests. Our reasons for this are a few, so allow me to break it down.
1: If at any point you can just allow use of your models, why can’t you just un-allow them at any point as well? This gives you unilateral control over which pieces get used in which contests, a cherry-picking we’re not interested in accommodating.
2: As we have told other 3D modelers who have disallowed their parts during the voting period, we will respect their wishes since that was their choice. Again, if they had opted to change their mind during the month the poll was run, we would of course honor that because nothing had really been set in stone. It makes disseminating information easier.
3: At this stage of the game, if any 3D modelers that have allowed their parts to be used revoked that allowance, we would respect that choice and remove their name from the list. If, however, they wished to re-allow them, we would continue the contests without their pieces for the reasons mentioned above.
You made a choice. And we are perfectly willing to respect that choice. But we are not going to entertain this reversal. You may regret your decision, but that isn’t our concern. We appreciate your consideration, but we will continue these contests without your inventory. Thank you for continuing to create and provide 3D models for the community to use. We look forward to seeing what the community will create for this.
3 Likes
I will preface this by reiterating that I was previously unaware of the fact that only masks and weapons are permitted for 3D-printing, as @WholesomeGadunka graciously pointed out to me. Still, I have a couple of things to add.
Are you sure about this? I don’t know anyone with a 3D-printer, and I sincerely doubt that “a good amount” of BIONICLE fans do. 3D printers are more popular nowadays, I’ll grant you, but it’s not like every Joe Schmoe down the block from you has one.
I don’t think it’s exactly fair to use the Chrome Hau as a counterpoint, but my answer would be that, like 3D-printed pieces, that mask would be easier to acquire after the current situation has calmed down, just as 3D piece would be. The simple fact of the matter is that holding off on the contests until the majority of people can have as much access to all parts (since this crisis affects everyone) is not really a big deal.
I’m only advocating for a bit of a wait on the start date. The amount of time the contests take is meaningless. A few months ago, this contest idea wasn’t even a thing the community was aware of–is it really that much of a big deal to wait a few months, until things likely start getting slightly better, in order to give everybody a chance to participate as fully as possible, in all ways, not just 3D parts?
I came very close to actually doing so, particularly when I suggested that we hold design contests for undesigned masks first, prior to MOC contests, so that everyone could then be given an identical 3D model to print from. Personally, I would prefer it if 3D masks weren’t considered as part of MOCs. I think it would be far better if we allowed the masks to be designed and voted on first, established a finalized 3D model for the winning design, and then held the MOC contest, whereupon the two winners would be combined by the mods into an official image of the character. I realize that this is, in one way, similar to what’s happening, but I think the current procedure could lend itself to a bit of division that would be unnecessary with a bit of retooling…
Quick question: is the limit 4 3d printed molds, or 4 3D printed pieces
For example, if someone uses two of the same 3d printed piece (say for example two of the same blade piece) does that count as two pieces or one?
2 Likes
With the greatest of respect, I think you should allow his reversal because I believe that it would benefit the wider community. Lots of people already use and enjoy his masks, the fact they’re available for free on Thingiverse is a bonus for recreatability and ease of access, and it’s a positive move that stops this contest from driving wedges between people.
The fact is, when KhingK and other 3D modellers originally requested that their masks not be used for these contests, the contests themselves hadn’t taken shape. TTV had shared the vague idea of what could happen, and asked the community for suggestions, but nothing was set in stone and with that uncertainty, I can understand why someone might not want to be in the ring.
However, as of the posting of the thread, the rules of the contest are now known. The affair is no longer full of unknown variables, and the 3D modellers are able to make a clearer and informed decision. I believe that overlooking this would be deeply unfair; you didn’t have a playbook for these contests until the 17th, so saying it was set in stone is untrue.
Your suggestion that he might be able to un-allow them again later is a good point, however for this I would suggest finding an amicable workaround between yourselves. I don’t believe that would be hard to do if you are willing to take his comments in good faith and vice versa. Whether it involves a written document or sign declaration or whatever, you can come to a solution on this point.
As soon as the submission period for Helryx starts, that’s your cut-off point. Past that, I would say fair enough, what’s said is said, choices made, set in stone. But honestly, given everything I’ve just mentioned, I believe you can still come to an understanding.
And based on the number of people in the community who already use or have access to KhingK’s masks, I believe that you should consider coming to an understanding.
19 Likes
This is a remarkably valid point, and one I agree with. I’ll accept whatever the ultimate decisions of these contests and debates are, but I think it’s unfair that @MaskMaker is essentially being penalized for acting on preliminary information.
16 Likes
To add to this, nowhere as the sudden inability to change one’s opinion on this matter been made clear to the content creators. @MaskMaker had no way of knowing that, after the announcement of the rules, their decision would be finalized.
Plus, if the goal is to avoid confusion among the community (which is fair) - saying something in direct opposition to the content creator themselves is likely to cause a degree of uncertainty, especially when, as stated above, nowhere else has TTV indicated that they would do anything other than bend to the whims of the content creators.
I think the point TTV has raised is fair, but it should have been clearly communicated to these content creators before they might change their minds, rather than only telling them after an incident has occured.
14 Likes
Abruptly implementing a policy without informing any of the creators that they would be affected by this policy, and only implementing it in response to one of the creators reversing their decision?
That is not an example of leading with transparency or responsibility. To me, it looks like petty politics, plain as day.
8 Likes