Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Budget

Forums - Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Budget

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Comment: Closing. Result- keep to budget proposals page on admin wiki. Section 6: The Budget (with TLG) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Votes/comments made after 06:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC) will not be counted. Nothing's actually in place for this, so discuss what policies to add (if any) The budget doesn't really effect the community directly at all so I don't think we need to have anything about it on the site. The only thing we're responsible for publicly posting in regard to the budget is thanking the LEGO Group for donating the sets we receive as a part of that budget, as you see Eurobricks and BZPower (and other sites) do in their reviews, contests, and giveaways. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I assume this section refers to the above mentioned budget and not the Brickimedia budget? CJC95 (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Yeah, sorry for not making that clearer NovaHawk 00:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Usually I prefer that everyone in the community gets a chance to vote and to know what is going on, but I don't think that needs to be the case here. I'm fine with it staying in the admin cabal. Berrybrick (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The community can decide on things, but in the end I'll end up saying yes or no to it (actually, the LEGO Group will, and I'll pass that on to the community if it was the community's decision). --ToaMeiko (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Personally, I'm happy with keeping it to the admin group with a proposals page on admin (where every admin gets an equal say, and stuff passes with a consensus). But, being an admin, I guess that makes me biased? :S NovaHawk 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Well, I'm not seeing m/any nonadmins giving input on any of these forums, so they are all biased by definition. :P Berrybrick (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry but I have a huge problem with the free set thing,Meiko bought a 250 set and the review took me less than 5 minutes to read. The review wasn't practically exciting and didn't want me to read more reviews. Also he didn't review the thumblr a set he bought with the money. :/ I think Meiko and heck all of us have enough sets to review as it is, so I don't feel coftorable Meiko or any user getting an expense set and writing a short review, and that's it. He didn't use the sets to make mocs or otherwise benefit the site, and I don't think anyone else would, so its not his fault. So here's how I think the money should be used: Monthly Moc Competition 1st prize-Buy rare/older sets with the money and use them as 1st place, it get a ton of people to join. I don't think editing needs prizes, as we have enough good editors as it is and a fabulous prize will give us spam. Soupperson1 Jeepers! The Tumbler was in no way Meiko's fault- an appropriate vote was set up and passed on the admin wiki, and it was for Czech to review, not Meiko. Czech didn't review it, and apparently when Meiko asking him to review it several weeks after he received the set, he rage-quit. @older sets- I very much doubt it's possible, I'm fairly sure we can only get sets available on S@H NovaHawk (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Im deeply sorry for accusing Meiko of not reviewing I only said what I was told. Anyway if we can only get sets from shop @ home we can request polly bags on the 31st, when they have extras. But the Czech thing, that's more of a reason not to send out sets. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Slow the hell down before you go throwing accusations out at people. First of all, our budget is given to us by LEGO. I don't own it. I'm Brickipedia's Ambassador which gives me the ability to represent Brickipedia to the LEGO Group. I didn't buy any set with the money. The "money", which is really just a credit, is something allotted by LEGO for the sake of our community receiving sets ordered by me (through extensive voting among the admins) for reviews and contests. LEGO allotted us 600 euros for this year. If you have a problem with that, we can buy sets out of our own pocket rather than taking advantage of something the LEGO Group graciously provides us, and thus we won't have money to pay to operate this site and therefore this site will no longer be in existence come 31 January 2015. So stop complaining about something that you should be thankful this site has. Also the point of reviewing those expensive sets? We, unlike millions of others, have the ability to get sets ahead of their release to review. This is something that gives our site publicity. The review took you 5 minutes to read? That's cool, I put a lot of time into it. That review alone got us a couple thousand visitors the week it was published. Stop being so arrogant. Think about the community and our site's readers before your own opinions. And no, just because Czech was irresponsible about saying he'd review the set and then not doing so, that's not a reason to not use our budget from LEGO. Even though he didn't review that, what loss have we? We haven't lost any capital, unlike if we were buying these sets out of our own pockets like you seem to think would be better. And if you plan on responding that you didn't know this is how our budget from LEGO worked, next time don't think about commenting on a forum that you haven't informed yourself on ahead of time. @NovaHawk: We can receive any set LEGO would have in stock in their warehouses, which would be anything on shop.lego.com or anything set to be released in the next month. --ToaMeiko (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry for coming off rude but I only was stating what I new. I'm also deeply sorry for throwing accusations at you. Bug anyway how on earth was I supposed to know that review granted us lots of site visitor, there's no "view" section on the site. I can't know things I'm not informed on. It annoys me though the review is short, or didn't make me want to read more reviews. I understand you put effort in to the review, but it didn't really show. As in it didn't look like you spend a whole load of time writing it but nearly an hour and were like "few got that done". But buying sets like that is 220 of our budget gone, which I believe didn't grant us any new editors. Which what using it another way will. I understand using it to purchase the set ahead of time, but sets are usually released ahed of time. If were going to use the budget for reviews, reviews should be active, and I'm the only one who writes them oftenly. :/ Also if we get reviews popular we won't need to spend the budget on sets for reviews as users will be buying the popular ones anyway. But I don't know if 3 reviews a year with the budget will grant us many new readers. Especially since the whole Czech dilemma proves that none of us besides you should be trusted. But you have thousands of sets, I'm sure some of those reviews would be popular, and wouldn't take a huge chunk from the budget. As I stated before the budget could be used in a way that could help our community more then a review. I think other plans should be at least proposed before we spend all the budget. I don't think I came off as ungrateful as I just didn't want the budget to be thrown away for a few reviews. Soupperson1 Friends are Forever! <3 Czech was to be trusted though, and he betrayed that trust. That is a risk we would run with anyone, even Meiko, because I would hope that admins who have been here for years would have more loyalty than to take a 200 Euro set and leave, but you know. :P We can only spend the money on things in LEGO's warehouse as far as I know, so I'm not sure how we could really use it other than for reviews and contest prizes. Berrybrick (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I'm playing the long con myself - After however many years it is now, I'm hoping to get a polybag and then I'm outta here. CJC95 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I have plenty of sets, yes, but that doesn't really do anything. More visitors are interested in reading a review of a set that isn't yet available to the public rather than a set that was released 10 years ago and is not available for purchase at any reasonable price anymore. As far as "Which what using it another way will" goes, I presume you're saying the budget would be better used for contest prizes. Yeah, those get attention of new people too, but part of the relations with LEGO is that we should be reviewing sets, especially those that we have the ability to get prior to their release, so that readers would (in most cases) be more interested in buying them. If we used all of our budget we get from LEGO on stuff we just give away, LEGO would likely be less inclined to work with us since they wouldn't benefit from it in the slightest. As it stands right now, things like the MINI Cooper review benefit both us and LEGO, and I'd like to see it stay that way. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC) We could ask the winner of the prize to review the prize and send them an upcoming set :P. Then me/ whoever could make the review page look pretty. If they're not good and writing reviews. And we could make them agree a terms and conditions so they'd have to review it. Wiewers watch reviews on the brickshow/JANGbricks/brickqueen of old sets all the time. I know now that reviewing a set that hasn't came out yet will get us more viewers. But we should try reviewing old/current ones as well. Especially large current sets, if anyone collects the Modular sets, they're never discontinued :P I still think it's weird how we already spent half the budget on two reviews, though. Soupperson1 Jeepers!