You aren’t answering my question. Who gets to decide what “grossly illegal” means?
There aren’t that many illegal connections that cause the piece to break - it isn’t illegal that way, it’s just plain breaking your pieces. The one in the winning MOC doesn’t tear the rubber, but you say it shouldn’t be allowed - you aren’t following your own rule.
You see the HUGE problem that would cause, right?
Anyway, I say spray paint is fine. If people don’t want it, they can vote something else as shown by the artakha contest.
As far as paint goes, I’d say as long as it’s the same as (or close to) official lego colors, it’d be fine.
No, I don’t. We are already judging. A lot of the issues arise from lack of agreed terms. We need to have more already agreed upon from the get go
I did answer your question a while back. LEGO does. They have officially defined what makes builds legal/illegal, the only thing being they’ve sometimes used illegal techniques.
Technically the piece used in Artakha is rubber, so it wouldn’t necessarily “break”, but could became misshapen if it stayed in that build for a while. Same with other illegal techniques. Given enough time, the stress could break/weaken them, even if it doesn’t break instantly.
The issue would be when it comes to the individual connections, and whether or not they qualify as being illegal or not - some people would say they would, and others wouldn’t. Case in point - the conversation we are having right now.
If lego can use illegal techniques, why can’t canon contests?
something doesn’t add up here.
Sure, so then would you be in favor of allowing cut pieces since Charger used cut Tahu Nuva blades?
My point was that pieces under constant stress will probably break quicker than pieces not under stress.
It seems you’re intentionally trying to not understand Dag, he is articulating his points clearly. If you’re doing it for the sake of being “complicated” like the point I believe you’re trying to make then you are just being like those poor Helyrx voters.
I would prefer if every connection was legal and used the way it’s clearly supposed to, but I know realistically it’s impossible to check. Also as long as it’s not going to break or visibly alter the piece, then it’s fine (Rubber pieces are iffy but I’ll take it).
Here’s an example of what’s disgustingly illegal from that one alligator artakha that shouldn’t be allowed as a connection
The biggest issue with that suggestion is that it can be very hard to make a painted piece match a non-painted piece’s colour exactly. That’s why most MoC’s which use painted pieces paint all the pieces of that colour, even ones that are available in relatively similar colours.
Maybe a restriction on how many different paint colours can be used we do the trick? Idk, I am kind of with Sabretooth on this one - as we saw with the Artakha contest, people can speak with their votes.
Perhaps a rule to avoid this issue in future, MoC makers could make sure that any “illegal” techniques are clearly visible in their breakdown shots? I think banning such techniques is going a bit far, given how many canon Bionicle builds use these sorts of techniques already. Where the line gets drawn officially between illegal and legal is very grey when it comes to constraction, too.
Just putting something out here:
Maybe there won’t be any changes to the rules on allowing painted pieces, but how about requiring entries using them to clearly say so, especially if it creates a non-official colour of a piece?
Painting all your pieces can give a more cohesive look, but it isn’t always obvious if you only glance over an entry at the voting stage. (And very few people will be able to spot which piece colours don’t exist officially.) Modifying pieces by painting can thus give an advantage over those who choose not to, so it seems only fair that we ensure all voters are aware when that has been done.
Edit: For the same reasons, the use of illegal connections should also have to be declared.
Yeah, I phrased my response weakly. LEGO has defined what is and isn’t illegal, but they have used illegal techniques that you want to disqualify. You say we should disallow all illegal connections within reason as defined by LEGO, but what is within reason if LEGO themselves have changed the rules - have they really defined what is illegal?
As am I (or at least I’m trying to), but I feel like you are avoiding answering my questions. I am in no way trying to twist his words.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re trying to say. That I’m just trying to make things hard for everyone else by disagreeing? and to clarify I am absolutely not.
By that logic, I could say the same thing of you.
You can’t simply say that because I’m disagreeing means I’m trying to disrupt the contests. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
That is a far better example of what I mean by “grossly illegal”. Those parts look like they could break at any moment.
I think that would be best. I also never said any illegal technique should be banned, just outrageous ones like the one @Pylonmadness posted. The best way to do it would probably be on a case by case basis.
Not once did I ever say all illegal techniques. I have said from the beginning I am okay with some, like studs in pinholes because LEGO has used it before and it doesn’t put too much stress on the pieces. Axels through sockets on the other hand could be too much stress.
Still, you ignore my point about Charger using cut Tahu Nuva blades. Charger was a Dark Hunter model built by a fan and canonized during one of the early contests. If you think illegal techniques are fine because LEGO used them, are you also fine with cut pieces (thus getting rid of rule 8a) because they canonized Charger’s build?
Is a 3L bar going through an axle hole considered illegal?
If we’re judging it by connections that could damage pieces, then by that metric you could say that all lime green parts should be banned, too. 
But in all seriousness, part damage is and has always been something for Lego fans and especially Bionicle fans to consider and be aware of. It’s a risk that comes hand-in-hand with the hobby, unfortunately.
No I understand you perfectly clear, and I’ve never said you’re wrong. All I’ve done is state my stance on it
Part damage meaning just normal wear and tear, or from illegal connections? I’ll agree to general wear and tear, like a ball joint not having as much friction in a socket or a technic lift arm happened to break as I tried to push in an axle, but if it’s from an illegal connection, then that’s no excuse
Except that LEGO has used axels and bushings through sockets.
Simply put: yes. You don’t know me from the galleries, but to be 100% transparent I am an avid customeer of my lego, and don’t care either way whether cut pieces are allowed or not. That aside, I can’t speak for the decisions made in the early contests. Do you think Charger shouldn’t be canon? Clearly lego was fine with him being non-purist.
I need some clarification: do you mean a 3L axle or a 3L lightsaber rod, as BIONICLE fans call them?
Yes, but I don’t understand what you meant by:
If you’re doing it for the sake of being “complicated” like the point I believe you’re trying to make then you are just being like those poor Helyrx voters.
You’ve very strongly implied it, to me.
3L lightsaber rods I guess. I always thought they were just cool bars lol never occurred to me they were lightsabers
Edit: Just checked, BrickLink does in fact call them bars too
I see the point, but again, I think simply having the MoC makers required to clearly depict these connections in their breakdown shots is a better approach, rather than outright banning them.
And if Lego has used the technique at any point, that’s fair game for sure.
I will admit that the image you posted above did have me cringing in pain a bit, though.
