- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
What is the next event for which the LUG wants to apply for support? I think we need to get commitments by people in ADVANCE of of applying for support so that we can meet LEGO’s expectations for participation. If there aren’t ten people who are committed to doing a particular event, then the LUG should not apply for support.
I am glad a topic like this was started because there are several things we need to discuss when not only applying for event support but also for committing to events in general.
Lets start with Display size. It seems like with events we have a tendency to go big and to scramble last minute for things to fill the display space we promised to provide (Summer Greenberg for example. Friday after set up we had 3 whole tables that had nothing on them). While I understand some of this is related to people not being able to make the set up on Friday, but it seems to be something we encounter all the time where we get there, set up, and then have a *pardon the french here* “Oh Shit” moment when we realize we have bit off way more than we can chew and result in us scrambling to either build or find stuff to display. This is concerning because more often than not (and this is in no way shape or form an attack at anyone’s builds or participation) it makes our display look pieced together (no pun intended) and not as good as it might if we went with a smaller display size. That is why I love the mentality of the SWR Displays. The mentality that it is always better to have too much stuff. With several events we have had the “lets go big and see what happens” state of mind which is good don’t get me wrong. It is always good to test the capabilities of the LUG but not with every single display we do.
The second thing I want to discuss is that with just about every event support event we do we seem to have the discussion that we are cutting it close when it comes to meeting the 10 minimum participants. This is of course due to peoples busy schedules and the fact that we are a semi small LUG. Why don’t we have some build days. Plunge into the LUG stock and sets (assuming we have modular buildings or any buildings for that matter) and build stuff for the LUG displays? Make a List of who built what and whatever gets displayed, that person who built it gets listed as a participant? It isn’t being dishonest. If someone spends 3 hours building and MILSing train track and brick built roads for displays they deserve to be listed as a participant, and it is only going to make the LUG and the displays look better.We can do this with the train tracks, brick roads, buildings, even fig-barf. Plus it is a great opportunity for newer members of the LUG to learn MILS and our standards if they take it upon themselves to build a custom building. Worth noting here that not everything that comes as a result of these build days needs to be in every display. Obviously the Train tracks and brick roads will come in more often, but this does not mean that we need to use every single building in every single display.
Third I want to talk about the LUG tables. We have had these tables for a very long time and we continue to have problems with them. Should we consider brain storming for new and perhaps more sensible replacements? This is something that has been brought up at several LUG meetings but the conversation gets shut down rather fast. I know this is a rather expensive expense but it could potentially be worth it and create less of a headache when it comes to transport. If this gets shot down then at the very least we need to ensure that all the Legs we have are the same size with the exception of the legs for the ravine table. It makes absolutely no sense to have all regular height legs and then 3 random tables with short legs.
The last thing I am going to discuss here is MILS. We have said in meetings before that MILS is going to be the LUG standard going forward for displays. If we are going to be serious about this we need to ensure we are doing it right. Here is the best link I can find on how to MILS and MILS right: http://l-gauge.org/wiki/index.php/Reference_Instructions . We seem to get the MILS of the Building right but not the MILS of the train tracks or Roads.
End Rant. Thank you for sticking with me this far.
Its one thing for Bob and I to fill a room that is less than five minutes from where we live over several days. But it would be herculean to haul the same amount to Monroeville and set it up in a few hours. So yes, the amount of space that we need to fill is a big concern if not enough people are participating.
While we cannot forecast every schedule several months in advance, before the application deadline, your point about people at least BUILDING something for the event is a good one. Its not that the LUG collectively don’t have enough things built, the problem is not having have enough people providing SOMETHING.
Tweaking the LUG tables to be a uniform height seems like a good goal.
P.S. When using several tables provided by a conference center, a hack that I used at BFVA for transitioning between tables was a white board type material called “shower tile” that comes in 4′ x 8′ sheets.
>> Third I want to talk about the LUG tables. We have had these tables for a very long time and we continue to have problems with them.
We do? Can you elaborate? This is news to me, I must’ve not been around for those conversations. If we replace the existing tables, what are you proposing we replace them with?
>> then at the very least we need to ensure that all the Legs we have are the same size with the exception of the legs for the ravine table. It makes absolutely no sense to have all regular height legs and then 3 random tables with short legs.
How’d we end up with those shorter legs, I can’t remember, were they cut for something specific? The real question would be, when we made the shorter legs, did we just trim off the existing legs, or did we get more PVC pipe and make new legs in addition to the old ones? It’s easy to come up with situations where having shorter legs could be useful, but I would agree with Will (if this is indeed his point) that we should have enough legs on hand to make every table the same height if necessary. If we have shorter legs also, then we would have more legs than we can ever use at one time, but this doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. From a cost standpoint, it can’t be that much, so the main issue would be storing the extra legs. I also assume (possibly a bad idea) that we’re not making new legs or modifying tables unless we have a very specific reason for doing so that’s either already built or under construction (the ravine, for example) and not just cause ‘it might be good to have some day’. We can name the rule after Zach 😀
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.