Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

The Community Perspective on Reselling

1404143454658

Comments

  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,310
    edited January 2014
    dougts said:

    I would argue the people who were able to buy the set for their kid that they otherwise wouldn't have been able to sure were thankful to have an opportunity to get it. Or is the kid who lives near a Lego store more deserving than one who doesn't ?

    So how does the person who lives near a Lego store, who finds the set is sold out, and has to pay double for one on Ebay feel?
    TXLegoguymadforLEGOYellowcastle
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    I'll answer your counter questions once you answer the original ones
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    People come up with all kind of excuses but they never seem to hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. It's all TLGs fault (yet some don't feel the need to abuse), if not me then someone else (history is littered with that excuse not working), and it's helping people who can't get them any other way (of course that can be done at cost - I redistributed minecrafts within the UK and to north America at cost, didn't profit a penny).

    We all, well presumably most of us, at times have done at some time, will do or are doing something morally, ethically wrong or at odds with social acceptability. If you don't want to be faced with that and I doubt it's often nice either stay quiet or lie. But don't try and pass the buck. Accept responsibility as we are surely all adults otherwise you come across small and pitifull. If you have balls like basketballs then you probably don't care either way, but you also wouldn't bother blaming others or the system. I want to make money and this is how i do it. I dont care what you guys think as we're clearly very different. Fair enough, I won't like what you do or respect it, perhaps won't like you but I'll respect you for being honest, upfront and those darn basketballs.

    Exploiting patents at Christmas looking for a $40 toy and being made to pay $150 is far far worse to me than trawling Lego stores for 41999s in summer. Those minecraft sets should have been a reasonably priced gift for many, 41999s not so much and very little hype outside of Lego channels.
    Legobutterfly
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129


    Exploiting patents at Christmas looking for a $40 toy and being made to pay $150 is far far worse to me than trawling Lego stores for 41999s in summer. Those minecraft sets should have been a reasonably priced gift for many, 41999s not so much and very little hype outside of Lego channels.

    I agree completely, as I commented on recently in another thread. I'm curious as to your opinion on the 2012 Friend's Advent scenario I posited

    TXLegoguy
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited January 2014
    dougts said:


    Exploiting patents at Christmas looking for a $40 toy and being made to pay $150 is far far worse to me than trawling Lego stores for 41999s in summer. Those minecraft sets should have been a reasonably priced gift for many, 41999s not so much and very little hype outside of Lego channels.

    I agree completely, as I commented on recently in another thread. I'm curious as to your opinion on the 2012 Friend's Advent scenario I posited

    Much the same as minecraft. It was a kids Christmas advent calendar yet many seemed to see it as just another opportunity for a quick profit. It wasn't done to help, just to profit. And whilst the buyer may be grateful, so is the hostage released early by the bank robber.

    That said advent calendars were common place here so I didn't see this first hand. I would say the balance of blame on TLGs part appears stronger there as they handled that badly with stock and communication, iirc they said straight away there would be a shortage.

    BrickDancerTXLegoguyGothamConstructionCo
  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,310
    dougts said:

    I'll answer your counter questions once you answer the original ones

    Yes, I think buying up all of the Lego Advent calendars in 2012 to resell was wrong. No, I don't think people are grateful to resellers for making the calendar available to them on Ebay or Amazon at double the price. Are some kids more deserving than others because of where they live, of course not, same as kids who's parents make more money are not more deserving of the sets. No one kid deserves a Lego Advent calendar over another, the whole notion that it was benevolent to spread the calendars while charging double/triple is ludicrous.
    pvancil27
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,727
    @Dad, I'll break any restriction they put in front of me - I'm one of the most rebellious people I know (far from squeaky clean), but I can't think of a scenario where I'd purposely break a rule or limit at the cost of someone else and watch them go without.
    TXLegoguy
  • indigoboxindigobox Member Posts: 470
    'Gets the popcorn and a can of coke ready for part ii of the moral challenges of being a reseller'

    Maybe I am just mentally unhinged or maybe I like the challenging of gambling against if a set is going to lose or win with what I paid for it.

    Yes I bought two 41999 sets, sold one and have another put away. Yes I bought 5 FB, built 1, sold one at cost to a brickset member and have 3 put away so stuck within the boundaries of TLG when purchasing.

    I went into ASDA the other day around me and wiped out the whole LEGO stock except for 4 sets. Admittedly it was around 20 sets, however I did it. Does it bother me that I did it? Not really. Does it affect me that little Timmy isn't able to get his Lego set he wanted? Not really.

    To me, if @Billybrown, @LegoTexasFan, @Dad or anyone wants to buy a number of sets then they have freedom to purchase whatever their spending permits, from numerous sources and in numerous ways. Who are we to judge. People will buy from other outlets to source the sets, negotiate trades or whatever if they want stuff. We see this day in and day out on the marketplace.

    The part I can't get is why people are so bent up over people reselling.

    @SirKevBags had the right idea and suggested a reseller challenge which all profits go to the Fairy Bricks Charity.

    Last night I witnessed an interesting scenario of a reseller. It was a lady who must have been in her late 70s buying DVDs and Blurays with the current 75% discount off Tesco offer.

    I was talking to her asking her what she planned to do with the trolley full. She started to explain that she was retired and wanted something to do (11pm mind you) to help supplement her state pension as that is all she had coming in. She said she would buy items, that she could then sell at car boot sales. I thought well done to her, as she is at least doing something about her income predicament and enjoying what she was doing. I saw her again later as I was checking my items through, and she said to me proud as punch 'this bag only cost me £30'

    I smiled and thought to myself if anyone has the opportunity to make money, you will take it.

    To me it is all about supply and demand as someone will only pay what they want to for an item or they will decline.

    That's just life.

    'Goes back to the front row seat and nibbles on some more popcorn'
    oldtodd33
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    @dad for me it's less the limit breaking and more the reason and consequences. The extent would also come in to it. Buy four toilet tolls because you've had a bad curry fair enough. Buy them because you know they're short on supply and you can sell them on easily then no.
    madforLEGOTXLegoguy
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,314
    @pvancil27 the problem with saying all resellers are greedy is that without resellers, there would be very little available to buy. Most stores are resellers. While I often buy my meat direct from the farmer, I wouldn't want to have to travel to buy my bananas.
    indigoboxDadMasterBeefy
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    No they're not because they don't generally buy them from retail.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    @cheshirecat So it didn't help the person who otherwise had no other practical means of acquiring it? I would hardly equate that person to being a hostage.
    margot said:


    Yes, I think buying up all of the Lego Advent calendars in 2012 to resell was wrong.

    You are making quite a leap here. I never said anything about "buying up all" of them. I said daily purchasing limits were respected. Yes, it is me I am talking about for the record. The set was on the shelf in my store from October until sometime into December - after the user is supposed to start actually using it on December 1st. I'd say local users had more than ample opportunity to get the set directly from LEGO at RRP.
    margot said:


    No, I don't think people are grateful to resellers for making the calendar available to them on Ebay or Amazon at double the price.

    It was less than double. I maybe profited $7 or $8 plus VIP points on these after discount. anything less wasn't worth my time, and I can assure you that I have messages from buyers who were very thankful I provided them an opportunity to get a set they otherwise wouldn't have been able to. I looked at it is a win-win scenario. I also sold some at cost to a couple friends, and even to one stranger who I met in the store after they were sold out in early to mid December.
    margot said:


    Are some kids more deserving than others because of where they live....No one kid deserves a Lego Advent calendar over another

    Well now you are contradicting yourself here. If myself or others didn't provide the middleman service to those in other areas as your say we shouldn't, many people would not have gotten the calendars at all, and only little Kimmies near a LEGO store would have gotten it. We provided access to it that LEGO decided not to provide themselves, thus filling a market need. I'm not claiming it was altruistic, but it was a mutually beneficial exchange.

    rocaoMasterBeefy
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited January 2014
    I don't think the crux of this discussion is to judge those who do something that is questionable. It's more about the disdain felt when those that are doing the questionable things come on here and brag about it like it's some kind of victory.
    madforLEGOTXLegoguy
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,727
    Has this 24hr debate moved from breaking limits to resellers?
  • DadDad UKMember Posts: 815
    CCC said:

    @pvancil27 the problem with saying all resellers are greedy is that without resellers, there would be very little available to buy. Most stores are resellers. While I often buy my meat direct from the farmer, I wouldn't want to have to travel to buy my bananas.

    My other half is currently trying to work out why I'm laughing so much. Brilliant!

  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    You are 100% right, but here is a simple question. Why does Wal Mart open a store and sell you items. Here's a hint. It's not because they want you to have easy access to bananas. It's because they turn a profit on bananas. They admit as much. Now yes you could get into their ad campaigns about saving people money but that is another beast for another day and is not at all like the things being said here by resellers.

    (Sidebar: I really hate grouping all resellers into one group, it's not fair to the ones who dont actually fall into what I say, but I also hate the idea of pointing out the flaws of specific people as it often turns or get twisted into personal attacks, hence my usages of resellers as a generalized term.)

    It's easier to accept that Wal-Mart or any other retailer because they do not make increased profit off rarity. TRU gets a TON of flack for jacking up prices, even more so during the Holidays.
    rocaoMasterBeefy
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    edited January 2014
    apparently it has.

    I have no problem with limits, as long as they are evenly applied. My biggest problem with LEGO is that they are absolutely awful at doing that, both in store and online. I always try to respect the limits, but when I see others willfully circumventing them in the stores, and the store employees letting it happen, it certainly makes me feel like a fool for following them. The same thing online. Limit X, sometimes they enforce it on multiple orders, sometimes they don't. Just invest in some decent programming and do it right - online and at the store register.
    LegoboyTXLegoguy
  • mrseatlemrseatle Member Posts: 410
    Wish my car was reliable enough for a road trip...
    indigoboxDad
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    Legoboy said:

    Has this 24hr debate moved from breaking limits to resellers?

    In a forum where said breakage was because of a reseller doing it for reselling reasons, don't you think the reselling aspect that caused this person to break said limits is well within the scope of reasonable discussion?

    If this had started off as a toilet paper limit or speed limit discussion then I agree that jumping to reselling would be stupid and factually wrong, here for this discussion they are linked hand in hand as one is the cause (Reselling for profit) and the other is the effect (Breaking limits)
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    It's much much easier for online only retailers to enforce limits. In store it could only be done by requiring a VIP card and even them you're piling the bad stuff on minimum wage or near it young shop assistants who have to refuse someone to their face.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited January 2014
    pvancil27 said:

    Legoboy said:

    Has this 24hr debate moved from breaking limits to resellers?

    In a forum where said breakage was because of a reseller doing it for reselling reasons, don't you think the reselling aspect that caused this person to break said limits is well within the scope of reasonable discussion?

    If this had started off as a toilet paper limit or speed limit discussion then I agree that jumping to reselling would be stupid and factually wrong, here for this discussion they are linked hand in hand as one is the cause (Reselling for profit) and the other is the effect (Breaking limits)
    What's your point? It started in a reselling thread, then moved to another reselling thread, where it is right now.

    Unless it's moved again when you are reading this, which would be neat.
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,727
    pvancil27 said:

    Legoboy said:

    Has this 24hr debate moved from breaking limits to resellers?

    In a forum where said breakage was because of a reseller doing it for reselling reasons, don't you think the reselling aspect that caused this person to break said limits is well within the scope of reasonable discussion?
    Now I know how to spell it, was that a rhetorical question?

    In case it wasn't, I'm not interested in having a debate about resellers clearing shelves so wondered if I should have an early night.

    Dad
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    You just never know here, it might get split again. ;)

  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 9,548
    IMO Only trolls are so boisterous when they know what they post will cause a negative reaction and then find it entertaining. This boasting of circumventing rules and limits and then being called out on it only to then deflect or say it is every else's fault are the issues I have here, especially when posters here should know by now what kind of reaction is going to occur. Those actually enjoying it just tells me volumes about their character.

    Want to be an @#$ and brag about buying (insert large number here) of a limited set and doing so by blatantly circumventing the rules LEGO imposed? Fine, do it in the 'brag' thread where there are others that may be just as unscrupulous and even find it entertaining. When it is done in EVERY thread, and they KNOW it will cause a grand argument/debate/ bloodlust, then they are being a troll IMO. They may not realize it, they can rationalize it all they want, deflect and say it is everyone else's fault, but at the end of the day many of these comments sound like they are coming from trolls.
    As for 'reseller' threads, saying you have one to sell is one thing.. coming out and saying 'I drove to here here here and there to clean them out to avoid the limits imposed by the company' is another thing altogether.
    dougts said:

    apparently it has.

    I have no problem with limits, as long as they are evenly applied. My biggest problem with LEGO is that they are absolutely awful at doing that, both in store and online. I always try to respect the limits, but when I see others willfully circumventing them in the stores, and the store employees letting it happen, it certainly makes me feel like a fool for following them. The same thing online. Limit X, sometimes they enforce it on multiple orders, sometimes they don't. Just invest in some decent programming and do it right - online and at the store register.

    So jump off the bridge because others are doing it?
  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,310
    @dougts, I have no problem with what you did. I didn't say I had a problem with reselling, but with slimey reselling.
    TXLegoguy
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    Legoboy said:

    pvancil27 said:

    Legoboy said:

    Has this 24hr debate moved from breaking limits to resellers?

    In a forum where said breakage was because of a reseller doing it for reselling reasons, don't you think the reselling aspect that caused this person to break said limits is well within the scope of reasonable discussion?
    Now I know how to spell it, was that a rhetorical question?

    In case it wasn't, I'm not interested in having a debate about resellers clearing shelves so wondered if I should have an early night.

    Understandable. I as well dont really want to delve into a rehash of the old arguments but I also find myself a sucker for a good and reasonable debate. Sadly on the internet it goes from that to trolling pretty quickly it seems.
    margotLegoboy
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Member Posts: 4,401
    edited January 2014
    margot said:

    @dougts, I have no problem with what you did. I didn't say I had a problem with reselling, but with slimey reselling.

    Resliming.
    BrickDancermargotLostInTranslation
  • DadDad UKMember Posts: 815
    Well, I'm out, bed time for me. Best post of the day goes to @SuperTramp

    And now @Legoboy can spell rhetorical he can perhaps let me know what it means?
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    Well said @wagnerml2 .

    I respect people and their opinions. I even respect their end game, I usually just find it hard to respect some of the tactics. I've never had anything personal against anyone here and thats why I tend to be very general in my arguments so as to not make it into a personal thing.

    As a side bar, since I am involved now.... When does DoodadCo™ release that new limited edition Silver Doodad™. I would hate to miss it. ;)
  • Chang405Chang405 Member Posts: 81
    My dad was a diplomat so I grew up in third world countries. Consequently, I find debating morals and ethics over expensive, luxury plastic toys to be mind boggling and quite ridiculous. (Of course, it is fun to read how people can get worked up over this insignificant issue).
    chuckpnkx1LegoManiacccardgenius
  • BrickDancerBrickDancer Dunes of TatooineMember Posts: 3,639
    ^First World problems indeed.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    edited January 2014

    dougts said:

    apparently it has.

    I have no problem with limits, as long as they are evenly applied. My biggest problem with LEGO is that they are absolutely awful at doing that, both in store and online. I always try to respect the limits, but when I see others willfully circumventing them in the stores, and the store employees letting it happen, it certainly makes me feel like a fool for following them. The same thing online. Limit X, sometimes they enforce it on multiple orders, sometimes they don't. Just invest in some decent programming and do it right - online and at the store register.

    So jump off the bridge because others are doing it?
    never said I jumped off too, just that I find the situation entirely aggravating, and when I see it happening in front of me, it certainly makes me feel pressure to join in. Thus far, I have mostly resisted, but it doesn't mean the temptation isn't there. If the limits were fairly and evenly enforced, I wouldn't feel the temptation. But if LEGO puts off the attitude that they really don't care about or respect their own limits, it certainly makes one consider why they should, doesn't it?
    cheshirecat
  • BrickarmorBrickarmor USAMember Posts: 1,257
    edited January 2014
    This is all very, very familiar to me, so I only skimmed the posts, no disrespect to the effort you fine people put into them. I only want to raise one objection. Ahem, to uh, something @Legofantexas says often. About TLG leaving money on the table by underpricing (!) some sets.

    It is more about satisfying their fans and providing them something they want at a price they can stomach--or even be thrilled with!--than it is about preemptively squeezing everything they can out of them. The logic of the "leaving money on the table" notion takes the effect (aftermarket frenzy) and puts it before the probable cause (set's production and distribution). Whether they could or could not price higher or increase the quantity to curtail the aftermarket does not, in my estimation, influence their MSRP. BttF seems to be doing just fine. So does Orthanc, the PR, and the Simpsons' house seems poised to follow. And production of the new Minecraft sets has been largely sufficient.

    There are plenty of overpriced sets gathering dust until they're deeply and consistently discounted. TLG would be pretty careless to err too often on the side of overcharging, especially considering their reputation for being "too expensive" anyway. Just my 2 pence. Which is all I have left after all them Crawlers.
    y2joshTechnicNick
  • rancorbaitrancorbait Manitoba CanadaMember Posts: 1,850
    CCC said:

    In the case of the candy, surely it is the fault of the giver not the taker. They should not have done such a limited amount.

    Its never the givers fault :-)

    They're the giver, its their property, they set the rules, and if the takers don't respect that then they don't deserve anything!
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited January 2014
    ^^^^^ I actually disagree, this may be about Lego but actually what irks me isn't the Lego rather it's the way people are happy to exploit others or just situations to the detriment of others. (ie making people pay waaayy over the odds for a toy at christmas). It's not the toy, to an extent not even that it's a toy rather that there's a hole and people in society, many of whom are clearly we'll educated and have decent jobs and hence don't rely on this money to live, are happy to turn that in to an advantage to make a quick buck. As such it isn't just a first world problem it runs deeper to what is community, society and the individuals' role within it.

    You could also look at it as a fairly benign yet easily observable impact of capitalism, as such it may be more interesting than when taken at face value.

    Similar to what I think when I see an Audi double parked. It's not the Audi that annoys me, it's not that there's a space that can't be used. Rather it's that a member of society thinks himself better than others who conform to an obvious norm. What else would that individual think it's ok to do? Push in a queue? Drive at 80 through a 30 limit? Drink drive? Date rape? Commit genocide? Some of those are unlikely but it speaks to someone's character.
    TXLegoguypvancil27TechnicNick
  • Chang405Chang405 Member Posts: 81
    ^The thing is, I don't think making money off of non-essential items from people who can clearly afford it should warrant such moral indignation.

    When I think of exploitation, depriving people from buying LEGO is not something that immediately springs to mind.
    LegoManiaccMasterBeefy
  • rancorbaitrancorbait Manitoba CanadaMember Posts: 1,850
    edited January 2014
    @Wagnerml2 you make an excellent point, and you're probably right, but still, I mean you just can't help but feel a little pissed when the shelves are empty for the sake of making extra money from someone who couldn't find what they were looking for because of resellers :-)

    No offense to anyone, that's just my opinion.
    TXLegoguy
  • legoprodslegoprods SpainMember Posts: 440
    Since everyone seems to be posting their opinions, I might as well.

    Think about something. What do you work at?

    Retail? AKA reselling things that you get at a lower price from productors?

    Services? "I could do this for free but I'll charge you anyways."

    And my simple opinion is, as much a I dislike it, in this world we need money to live. So, being a necessary agent in your life, if you have an opportunity to make money, where's the problem?

    I mean, I'm sure that most of the people that dislike resellers have a full-time job that pays well - you get the point.

    I'm making a living now selling bricks. Could I sell them at cost? Of course, why won't it happen? You guess.
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,899
    wagnerml2 said:

    Damn. I had hoped this thread had died a glorious and firey death, but alas, it has returned.

    I was just thinking that myself. Thanks @Rocao for necromancing this one ;)
  • LegoManiaccLegoManiacc Member Posts: 116
    edited January 2014
    This thread reminds me of the great Salem witch hunts of 1692.

    Little known fact, those same trials actually started due to all the blue brooms being bought out by a select few in Salem. That's actually how the whole idea came about of a witch and her broom. After that debacle, Swifter Smith said "Never again will we make Blue Limited Edition Brooms."
    pharmjoddougts
  • charlatan13charlatan13 Member Posts: 118
    The way I see it is that the best chances of controlling the chances of enthusiasts being able to obtain a newly released set lies with TLG corporate. I would imagine that store sales are a huge factor in whether or not a store obeys or ignores a stated limit (top selling = take the high ground and gleefully enforce; struggling store = take whatever you want). With that being said, TLG could make its VIP card more important and useful than it currently is. Would it really be that difficult to have that brand new model on display in the store with the only option being [email protected] or step up to the counter and we will swipe your card and ship it free to your home. The question would be the length of the window. One month? I have no idea.

    I would think clearance sets are a non-issue.

    The only other option would be a campaign (email/phone/letter) combined with a boycott. Good luck with that one, but I'm sure the resellers would be grateful.
  • wagnerml2wagnerml2 Belleville, IllinoisMember Posts: 1,376
    @rancorbait - It honestly doesn't bother me, but I can understand why it might bother someone else. The thrill of the hunt is part of the fun for me.

    Now, buying CMF's and having all the Spartans or Elves or fill-in-the-most-desired-minifig-here already picked out so I get 174 snowboarders does get me fired up, but mainly because I suck at feeling the packages!
    YellowcastlePitfall69MasterBeefy
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,288
    wagnerml2 said:

    Damn. I had hoped this thread had died a glorious and firey death, but alas, it has returned. This discussion always brings out the worst in everyone, I feel. I know that this has been stated over and over, but the outrage that some feel over resellers buying out shelves or circumventing whatever "limits" TLG half-hearted tries to employ I feel is misplaced.

    I think the original debate caused some friction but it was tension that was already building. The later iterations of this thread have had spirited debate, but I think there was a lot of understanding and common ground reached. I'm not really picking up a vibe of outrage or animosity. Am I wrong?
    wagnerml2 said:

    For things like 41999, I didn't buy any. Frankly, I didn't try. But I don't begrudge those who did. I don't begrudge those who bought more than 2. They hustled and they got what they wanted. Bully for them. Why should I assume that I have a right to have those sets sit around until I feel like buying one? I shouldn't. And even if I tried to buy one and missed out because someone beat me to it or bought more than two, that's life. That's what happens with a limited edition release of any type of collectable. That's what 41999 was. It was a collectable aimed at us AFOLs, not little Timmy. The feeding frenzy that resulted was exactly what Lego wanted.

    I agree with everything you've written prior to this about being fine with the early bird getting the worm when it comes to generally available or clearance merchandise with no purchase restrictions.

    However, I don't have the same attitude when it comes to circumventing purchase restrictions. In those situations, whether we agree with the restrictions or not, the retailer is mandating that we don't have a right to purchase more than the limit.
  • rancorbaitrancorbait Manitoba CanadaMember Posts: 1,850
    @wagnerml2 fair enough. It just isn't a hunt anymore then, availability is no problem, its the outrageous prices if you get what I mean.
  • LootefiskLootefisk Member Posts: 67
    edited January 2014

    CCC said:

    In the case of the candy, surely it is the fault of the giver not the taker. They should not have done such a limited amount.

    Its never the givers fault :-)

    They're the giver, its their property, they set the rules, and if the takers don't respect that then they don't deserve anything!
    Every Halloween I see the empty bowl and I think ..damn...next year I'm going to turn off my lights, set an empty bowl on my front step, and watch disappointed kids walk away all night long.

    Probably not but it sure would beat handing out candy.

    Pitfall69
  • wagnerml2wagnerml2 Belleville, IllinoisMember Posts: 1,376
    @Rocao - I understand where you are coming from, but I question the "limits" as Lego created/enforced them. These clearly were haphazardly enforced at best. Lego has the ability to control the limits if they really wanted to. Until the limits are uniformly and strictly enforced they are pretty worthless. Ergo, to the swiftest goes the spoils.

    As to the thread itself, I agree that it is much more civil than previous discussions, but this tired debate usually devolves. At the heart of the discussion is basic ideologies that are unique to an individual. It's hard to have an objective debate about this subject without people feeling slighted or attacked. And no one is "right" or will "win" so we are better off agreeing to disagree and move on IMHO.
  • legomattlegomatt Member Posts: 2,548


    What I would really like to see is that we fixate less on the behaviors that irk us and instead spend more time lauding those that impress us. Not only is it a more pleasant endeavor that strengthens our community, irksome behaviors have a tendency to disappear the less attention they get.

    Here-here! Now everybody... group hug!
    LegoFanTexasTXLegoguyCanuck26
This discussion has been closed.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.