BrickLink Designer Program issues new guidelines

Good. The modulars were just a crushing volume of noise, it's better when this, like ideas, highlight novel and unusual things instead of stuff you can easily find on rebrickable

Also no more aquariums or zoos! So I guess a modular pet shops with a fish in a tank, heated by an open wood fire breaks all the rules.

I appreciate the intent, but this is beyond silly. “You can still submit buildings, but those buildings cannot be accessible.”

This sounds like a big step in the right direction, hoping we'll see more and more models like the lovely mushroom house and that oriental castle that sadly didn't make it through. Though I admit I'm glad there's no restrictions on western stuff (yet), the general store is one of my favorite models and I'd love to get at least one more set like it :)

I'm sure people will be normal about this

@GirlWoman said:
"I'm sure people will be normal about this"
Haha, indeed

I do like the ban on modulars. Modular is basically an existing theme in and of itself.

The vehicle rule is odd though--considering Lego makes tons of models of gas guzzling racing cars. Are they planning to move away from that?

For animals that seems fine but I wonder about stuff like Horse drawn carriages? Technically that would be in captivity.

Glad about the "no Modular" rule since none of them ever got chosen anyway and so only took up valuable slots.
I'm indifferent about the other new rules.

Perhaps they should also have implemented a "no Popstar and TV sitcom" based submissions rule ;-)

I know entirely not the point, but

"There’s a maximum of one minifigure for every 325 parts. See this table for minifigure count limits based on your part count. Skeletons do not count as minifigures."

Just...a massive number of skeletons in each submission now. Like frog inclusion in other sets

@myth said:
"I didn’t realise until now that the Brick Cross Train Station is modular-compatible even if I ordered it. Generally it’s good that they’re limiting modulars, should lead to greater variety.

Though I don’t get why names of Castle and Space factions were prohibited."
They're direct about this in the update: it's considered Lego IP.

"Models may not be based off the following internal LEGO IP:

"NINJAGO®, Dreamzzz, Friends, Monkie Kid, and the ICONS Modular format."

...

"Design Title

"Design title cannot include LEGO in the title or any other LEGO property.
Buildings should not include “Modular” in the title.
Castle and Classic Space models should not include the faction name in the title (e.g. Lion Knight, Wolfpack, Blacktron, etc)."

@AustinPowers said:
"Glad about the "no Modular" rule since none of them ever got chosen anyway and so only took up valuable slots.
I'm indifferent about the other new rules.

Perhaps they should also have implemented a "no Popstar and TV sitcom" based submissions rule ;-) "

These are guidelines for the Designer Program, not the main Lego Ideas, where modular buildings such as the 910009 and 910034 in the article do indeed get chosen. Although I agree that overall I don't necessarily see the block on them going forward as a bad thing.

This is silly! Modular buildings rule. They were what l looked forward to the most

We like our modulars.

Makes me think they’re selling / spinning off Bricklink and want to establish brand standards and IP limitations in advance….

In honor of these changes, I’ll be submitting an inaccessible 30x30 solar panel factory operated by dogs (who are paid a living wage) with a skeleton guard force. It will be named, “Packwolf Renewables, LLC”

This has zero effect on me since I don't submit anything and most of the submissions aren't my cup of tea. I love modulars, I love castle, but most of the submissions aren't really what I was looking for. Maybe I'm just negative. The builders all have their own talents. But the market is already flooded with modulars and castle as it (among other things...)

Modulars being released under this program limits what LEGO can do with their own modular line, especially in the long run, so it makes sense to me that they want to protect it.

@Sethro3 said:
"This has zero effect on me since I don't submit anything and most of the submissions aren't my cup of tea. I love modulars, I love castle, but most of the submissions aren't really what I was looking for. Maybe I'm just negative. The builders all have their own talents. But the market is already flooded with modulars and castle as it (among other things...)"

You are not alone nor negative - it's your point of view - which I share (love all the themes represented, they can produce as many sets as the market will allow and the submissions are top notch) but this segment has little appeal to me since the instructions are not printed - it is a bummer that we do not have secondary instruction (alternate model) any more but at the very least I want the instruction for the primary model.

That said, Lego should 'maybe' get the hint. Lego modulars have been going on for over 15 years and yet no train station have been made while 2 have been accepted and completely sold out in record time on the Bricklink platform - what more does Lego need to get the memo??? I am still waiting for the official Lego modular train station...

@Brick_Belt said:
"The vehicle rule is odd though--considering Lego makes tons of models of gas guzzling racing cars. Are they planning to move away from that? "

As far back as 2008, there was an online Lego racing game where they claimed the cars were solar powered.

I don’t mind this much. I actually like the Modular ban, bc a lot of people like to collect all of the Modulars, and that gets tricky when some of them are limited edition BDPs. I also like the removal of specific factions.

@HOBBES said:
" @Sethro3 said:
"This has zero effect on me since I don't submit anything and most of the submissions aren't my cup of tea. I love modulars, I love castle, but most of the submissions aren't really what I was looking for. Maybe I'm just negative. The builders all have their own talents. But the market is already flooded with modulars and castle as it (among other things...)"

You are not alone nor negative - it's your point of view - which I share (love all the themes represented, they can produce as many sets as the market will allow and the submissions are top notch) but this segment has little appeal to me since the instructions are not printed - it is a bummer that we do not have secondary instruction (alternate model) any more but at the very least I want the instruction for the primary model.

That said, Lego should 'maybe' get the hint. Lego modulars have been going on for over 15 years and yet no train station have been made while 2 have been accepted and completely sold out in record time on the Bricklink platform - what more does Lego need to get the memo??? I am still waiting for the official Lego modular train station..."

TLG doesn't meet the demand for trains in general, though they seem to be getting the idea with the Orient Express. I wish we had more options like the Trains theme from the early 2000s.

@Rabrickzel said:
" @Brick_Belt said:
"The vehicle rule is odd though--considering Lego makes tons of models of gas guzzling racing cars. Are they planning to move away from that. "

I didn't know you could put gas on lego cars."

Key word is "models of".

This would also rule out any trains that appear to be coal powered wouldn't it?

@Brick_Belt said:
" @Rabrickzel said:
" @Brick_Belt said:
"The vehicle rule is odd though--considering Lego makes tons of models of gas guzzling racing cars. Are they planning to move away from that. "

I didn't know you could put gas on lego cars."

Key word is "models of".

This would also rule out any trains that appear to be coal powered wouldn't it? "

No, if you read the guidelines it says to avoid highlighting fossil fuel usage. It says explicitly historical vehicles powered by fossil fuels are fine and modern vehicles should either be vague about how they’re powered (generic race car is fine) or if fuel source on modern vehicle is specified it should be renewable based.

They essentially are saying - no refineries, gas stations, etc. Electric power stations would be fine.

This is great for several reasons, most importantly because more diverse and more creative designs will be chosen to produce. If you'd like a building to be modular, that's relatively easy to fix -- it's LEGO after all.

Another reason this is great, for me personally, is that it'll save me a bunch on money. Most of my LEGO-related purchases in the past five years have been nostalgia-driven sets, including castles with classic factions, remakes of pirate sets, cartoon show recreations, sitcom interiors, and SPACESHIPS! With those being eliminated from the Bricklink Designer Program, future sets likely won't tickle my nostalgia bone or stir up any completist compulsions. I can hear my wallet sighing of relief.

Not ruling out a potential future BDP purchase, though, but they'd have to be exceptionally good to win me over -- and not just include Black Falcon minifigs.

Can they ban castles and trains next? :)

@JayCal:
Modulars are banned from Ideas for the simple reason that they’re already a thing. Ideas is supposed to be about creating new things, not continuation of an old thing. For the same reason, Old Fishing Store got turned into a set, but every other wharf building submitted by the same designer got rejected as being consistent with the definition of a theme. Space Shuttles have long been featured in other LEGO sets, and they were fine in Ideas…until the first time one appeared in an Ideas set. Now they’re on the banned list. TLG doesn’t need outside help designing Modulars. They have that well in hand (of course, depending on exactly who you ask when precisely which Modular is the newest set in the line).

@yellowcastle said:
"In honor of these changes, I’ll be submitting an inaccessible 30x30 solar panel factory operated by dogs (who are paid a living wage) with a skeleton guard force. It will be named, “Packwolf Renewables, LLC”"

I know this is sarcasm but my children just told me they really want this...

In view of how popular the Brick Cross Station was, I'm frankly baffled by the 'no modulars' rule, unless, as some have suggested, it's because TLG want exclusive control over the types of modulars being released, and don't want to share modulars with the BrickLink program. Still, there are a number of really appealing modular-style buildings in Round 5 (especially The Art Factory), the results of which are yet to be released, so I hope we get a last hurrah for modulars from that round.

The 'ethical' rules and regulations are equally baffling. Does depiction mean endorsement?

I love the Speed Champions sets, yet I don't even own a car, let alone a gas-guzzling luxury car. And as someone who doesn't eat meat or dairy for ethical reasons, I don't see how owning a Lego zoo or farm conflicts with my own 'ethics' or lifestyle. Without conflict, there is no drama, so often the best diaramas involve my Lego minifigs engaged in some sort of anti-social behaviour. It would be boring if they were all behaving themselves (which is not to say that I'm against the idea of an animal-cruelty-free/carbon neutral world in *reality*, but play and fantasy isn't reality).

@Darth_Dee said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"In honor of these changes, I’ll be submitting an inaccessible 30x30 solar panel factory operated by dogs (who are paid a living wage) with a skeleton guard force. It will be named, “Packwolf Renewables, LLC”"

I know this is sarcasm but my children just told me they really want this..."

Your children? I, as a human of just 3 decades, want this!

@yellowcastle said:
"I appreciate the intent, but this is beyond silly. “You can still submit buildings, but those buildings cannot be accessible.”"

You can only make buildings with stairs and no wheelchair ramp :/

Lego now owns the concept of row houses with sidewalks in front. It's their IP.

Huh.

In related news, I once built a MOC involving pavement. I claim the design as my IP and intend to assert my rights as a content creator. But I will be generous. I will license it to highway departments for the low, low cost of 10¢ per mile.

However, it is important that my IP only be used to project a vision of a sustainable future. As I believe that both fossil fuels and EVs are unsustainable, I insist that only certain vehicles are permitted on my IP. These include:
• fusion-powered vehicles
• bicycles, but only if operated by vegetarians (there will be no exception for pescatarians, because logic is real)
• trolley busses
• Ships sprinkled with pixie dust

These modest restrictions are not intended to stifle creativity or limit your ability to do excellent work, merely to ensure a smooth experience. Thank you.

@AliveAndBricking said:
"The 'ethical' rules and regulations are equally baffling. Does depiction mean endorsement?

I love the Speed Champions sets, yet I don't even own a car, let alone a gas-guzzling luxury car. And as someone who doesn't eat meat or dairy for ethical reasons, I don't see how owning a Lego zoo or farm conflicts with my own 'ethics' or lifestyle. Without conflict, there is no drama, so often the best diaramas involve my Lego minifigs engaged in some sort of anti-social behaviour. It would be boring if they were all behaving themselves (which is not to say that I'm against the idea of an animal-cruelty-free/carbon neutral world in *reality*, but play and fantasy isn't reality)."

That's an interesting point that depiction doesn't mean endorsement. I generally avoid sets centered around cars because I'm personally anti-car, and I skip the police-themed sets because I am uncomfortable with their lionization; yet I happily build out medieval villages and I am certainly not pro-serfdom.

Darn! I was hoping for a modular abattoir to make it to the market at some point! ;)

@Darth_Dee said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"In honor of these changes, I’ll be submitting an inaccessible 30x30 solar panel factory operated by dogs (who are paid a living wage) with a skeleton guard force. It will be named, “Packwolf Renewables, LLC”"

I know this is sarcasm but my children just told me they really want this..."

If they liked that, they're going to love my static compost tower run by adolescent monkeys. :o)

@SmilingCyclops said:
" @AliveAndBricking said:
"The 'ethical' rules and regulations are equally baffling. Does depiction mean endorsement?

I love the Speed Champions sets, yet I don't even own a car, let alone a gas-guzzling luxury car. And as someone who doesn't eat meat or dairy for ethical reasons, I don't see how owning a Lego zoo or farm conflicts with my own 'ethics' or lifestyle. Without conflict, there is no drama, so often the best diaramas involve my Lego minifigs engaged in some sort of anti-social behaviour. It would be boring if they were all behaving themselves (which is not to say that I'm against the idea of an animal-cruelty-free/carbon neutral world in *reality*, but play and fantasy isn't reality)."

That's an interesting point that depiction doesn't mean endorsement. I generally avoid sets centered around cars because I'm personally anti-car, and I skip the police-themed sets because I am uncomfortable with their lionization; yet I happily build out medieval villages and I am certainly not pro-serfdom."

I think TLG makes a lot of exceptions, when it comes to violence, drinking and other questionable behaviour, including serfdom, when it comes to Medieval and historial Pirate sets, because they're depicting distant eras. Still, whilst I appreciate that certain themes and topics should be prohibited for very sensible reasons (mostly regarding sensitivity), for instance, slavery, false imprisonment, egregious animal abuse (I know our various mileages may vary, but even as a vegan, I'm not talking about eating meat/dairy, or farming here, but stuff like foc-hunting and bear-baiting etc), and anything that clearly implies racial, gender and sexual bigotry/oppression, I think TLG can potentially go too far in trying to appeal to all sensibilities.

I'm not particularly pro-police (although neither am I staunchly ACAB), but law enforcement agencies are a fact of modern life, and police sets offer plenty of scope for great storytelling, even if your personal angle is anti-police, and toy cars are fun, whether or not one feels, like I do, that we rely too much on personal motor vehicles in real-life. Like I say, I feel very strongly when it comes to fiction, including TV, film, literature and theatre, as well as recreational play, that depiction isn't endorsement, and more often than not, it can be a form of catharsis that allows us to watch, depict and play-out scenes and actions that we wouldn't approve of in real-life, which can be especially constructive if we're depicting/playing-out those scenes and actions in order to commentate on and criticise them.

FFS with the greenwashing propaganda! So fishing is ok because the animals don't suffer at all by suffocation and being crushed to death in the nets, right? Farm animals are also still acceptable because, you guessed it, they like to eat them too. And how come their Speed Champions, Technic and Icons cars are allowed to run on fossil fuel engines, but fan submissions can't?
Fans also wouldn't need to submit so many awesome modulars if LEGO would not release one building facade/dollhouse after the next. I bet that after this rule we'll see more than one official modular set per year, starting with the botanical garden.
What's next? Probably forbidding Castle/Vikings, Pirates and Space too because LEGO recognizes that AFOL's want those nostalgic themes, instead of meaningless licenses and would rather want to cash out themselves on those?
There was one great thing about BDP, that it allowed more freedom compared to Ideas. And now it's starting to just be the same but with more and more restrictions every round. Enforcing design standards/stability is one thing, but limiting creativity like this is just anti-consumer BS.

When I read through the rules, the one that took me aback wasn't a new one -- it was the one about not having modern Space minifigs and Classic Space minifigs in the same set. Not something I'd given thought to before, but now I want them together in as many sets as possible.

As a biologist by education and former zookeeper, I resent the implication that Zoos and Aquariums should be lumped together with circuses under an animal abuse grouping. Accredited zoos and aquariums around the world are teaching institutions, helping new generations appreciate and invest in the concepts of conservation and protection of our natural world. Additionally, they provide critical stewardship for the studying, breeding, and repopulation of a depressingly large number of endangered species.

Are they all wonderful and well run? Surely, not. But throwing them all out with the bath water is ridiculous and irresponsible.

@yellowcastle said:
"As a biologist by education and former zookeeper, I resent the implication that Zoos and Aquariums should be lumped together with circuses under an animal abuse grouping. Accredited zoos and aquariums around the world are teaching institutions, helping new generations appreciate and invest in the concepts of conservation and protection of our natural world. Additionally, they provide critical stewardship for the studying, breeding, and repopulation of a depressingly large number of endangered species.

Are they all wonderful and well run? Surely, not. But throwing them all out with the bath water is ridiculous and irresponsible."

TLG teaches kids falsely that all farm animals live in petting zoos or free range farms and all vehicles and homes run only on the power of imagination. Ironically oil giant Shell is still their top sponsor and their logo depicted prominently on current sets made out of plastics extracted from fossil fuels. https://brickset.com/sets?query=shell

@yellowcastle said:
"As a biologist by education and former zookeeper, I resent the implication that Zoos and Aquariums should be lumped together with circuses under an animal abuse grouping. Accredited zoos and aquariums around the world are teaching institutions, helping new generations appreciate and invest in the concepts of conservation and protection of our natural world. Additionally, they provide critical stewardship for the studying, breeding, and repopulation of a depressingly large number of endangered species.

Are they all wonderful and well run? Surely, not. But throwing them all out with the bath water is ridiculous and irresponsible."

If I am reading the rules correctly, we can only refer to you from now on as "yellow"

I totally respect people not wanting modulars to flood the BDP. But I think that the Lego groups is making the wrong decision in banning them from the BDP. Here's why:

I think it is inaccurate to say that modulars have "flooded" the BDP, because in recent years that has not been true. There were 3 in the second wave of the BDP Ideas Invitational, and 2 in wave 3. But that was 3 years ago. Since the more "evergreen" BDP has begun, they have only selected 1 modular, that being Brickcross Station (unless they select 1 or two for series 5). That's 6 out of 35 so far, but 5 of those were in the first program.

Where the feeling of modulars overwhelming the BDP really comes from I think is in the submissions. But a bunch of modulars being submitted to the BDP doesn't change much, if only one is going to be selected every 2 or 3 rounds. It does show that people want them, though.

Here's how I feel:
Like many, the 2 things I look for in a BDP submission are 1 "Is this something I would actually buy?" and 2 "is this something Lego would not otherwise make?" Let's see how modulars fit into these questions.

First of all, would I buy it? Like many, I have to be very picky with my Lego purchases. So as cool as many themes are, I have chosen city building as my lane, and I can't branch out much. With that in mind, my first questions when looking at BDP submissions are "would I actually buy this for my Lego City?" "does this fit in my city?" (Mainly in terms of scale, I don't have room for Brickcross, Studgate, Old Engine Shed, etc.) I am always happy to see fans of themes I don't collect get great models from the BDP! But the occasional Modular every 2 or 3 themes would be nice for collectors like myself. Spreading them out actually helps me not miss them!

For the second question, there are many modulars in the BDP that Lego would not make normally. Looking at the submissions from Wave 5 I voted for, I see a few examples. I can't see Lego making a Cargo Delivery Depot within the next 5 years and they won't make it as complete as the one in the submission. I can't see them ever making a Canal Lock. And then there's the Old Quay. Normally, I skip the super large sets, them being way out of my price range. But I'd make an exception for that one, since it offers so much that I'd never get from any official Lego set.

They cite confusion with the official "Icons Modular" theme, but that doesn't make sense to me. Those who know enough about the BDP to buy the set already know that it isn't an "official" modular. So the only ones who would get "confused" are those who see others posting about the set, and ask where they can get one too. Will they be disappointed that they can't buy it? Yes, but that just speaks to how much money lots of people are willing to spend on the sets that come out of this program. Lego would be wise to increase its visibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think most modular fans would mind if these sets were more widely available. I wouldn't mind!

So unless Lego plans to make more Modulars themselves, I see no reason to limit about a third of the designers and buyers from making and buying what they actually want, in the way they actually want it! And even then, removing them from the BDP also takes away the chance for incredibly unique modulars we could not get otherwise.

Just my opinion, what do you guys think?

@GirlWoman said:
"I'm sure people will be normal about this"

I feel like I've now become part of this cliche but these continuing micro-movements from so many companies towards "perceived virtuosity" are starting to concern me, especially as a parent of 5 little ones.

-Yellowcastle (This is an opinion. Names, characters, places and incidents either are products of the author’s imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual sets or locales or persons, existing or retired, is entirely coincidental)

I love modulars, so this is really sad. The modular line being limited to one release per year is almost a crime: a lot of people are ready to spend money on more of those sets per year, and this program shows it.

It's also sad because despite a lot of modulars being submitted, high quality ones were few and far between. Brickcross Station captures the magic of official builds, and that's why it's been so popular. Programs like this allow for a huge amount of filtering, and so excluding modulars means there are fewer pearls being discovered.

While some may argue that the Marvel and Ninjago City lines also count as modulars, they don't quite fit with the rest of the modular line either. We're never even sure if Ninjago City will see another addition, and then the superhero thing gets old in the end too (plus the minifigs don't fit).

I hope there are some upsides related to these news, maybe Lego has plans to capitalize on that market further, but so far it's bad news for the adult collectors.

@R0Sch said:
"What's next? Probably forbidding Castle/Vikings, Pirates and Space too because LEGO recognizes that AFOL's want those nostalgic themes, instead of meaningless licenses and would rather want to cash out themselves on those?"

Given the trendline, what's next is that they'll assert that castles, Vikings, sea piracy, and outer space fantasy are all their intellectual property and forbid submissions.

Me personally, I do not care about the Bricklink Designer Program. And I find the endless stream of custom modular buildings in programs like this, and in the AFOL community at large, to be tiresome, excessively fussy, and too fantastically saccharine for my suspension of disbelief to survive.

What *does* alarm me is Lego trying to claim ownership of buildings arranged in rows. That goes way beyond just saying "It's our program, and we don't want to make this stuff, so bug off." What they're saying in this document is that Lego literally *owns* the idea of some undefined and non-exclusive combination of row buildings with sidewalks and streetlights on 32x32 baseplates. They're claiming that fan MOCs that employ the same concept are violations of intellectual property rights (aka, illegal under copyright law, and subject to legal action). That is a bit flabbergasting, and much bigger news than whatever dubious new restrictions they have chosen to impose on this program.

I've love to be paranoid here, but just this May Lego sued out of existence a Dutch train enthusiast's business because he was selling kits which—GASP—included Lego elements mixed with non-Lego pieces needed to make good trains, and—again, GASP—had put non-Lego printing on some of the bricks (which he legally owned). Every AFOL should be appalled that Lego seems to be flirting with the idea that it maintains control over what we do with the product after it leaves the cash register.

I can understand most of these but the ban on animals in captivity is ridiculous. Many, many large cities in the US and UK have zoos -- does LEGO oppose them?

So can I depict petroleum as a raw material, just not as a "fuel"? So a MOC depicting the life cycle of ABS from crude oil to plastic you would be fine. Unless I show that dead dinosaurs which made that oil, because that would break a different rule.

@BrickTeller said:
"So can I depict petroleum as a raw material, just not as a "fuel"? So a MOC depicting the life cycle of ABS from crude oil to plastic you would be fine. Unless I show that dead dinosaurs which made that oil, because that would break a different rule. "
So long as those dinosaurs were organic and cage-free, you should be okay.

What's next, all food items should be vegan? Diversity quota for minifigures?

I understand not wanting a bunch of modulars as submissions but this is going a bit far.

Fishing depictions are okay but industrial scale overfishing is one of the largest environmental disasters of modern marine ecology…but that’s fine I guess.

More importantly, what does Lego have against identical twins? Limiting the use of a single minifigure head print (aside from skeletons ofc) is just bizarrely arbitrary? I just can’t think of a good reason for this. It’s not like BDP has been flooded with minifigure head packs or something. Unless this is just a roundabout way of prohibiting people from using classic smileys?

@yellowcastle said:
"As a biologist by education and former zookeeper, I resent the implication that Zoos and Aquariums should be lumped together with circuses under an animal abuse grouping. Accredited zoos and aquariums around the world are teaching institutions, helping new generations appreciate and invest in the concepts of conservation and protection of our natural world. Additionally, they provide critical stewardship for the studying, breeding, and repopulation of a depressingly large number of endangered species.

Are they all wonderful and well run? Surely, not. But throwing them all out with the bath water is ridiculous and irresponsible."

Another former keeper (ectotherm keeper here), and I completely agree! It’s frustrating enough we get demonized as keeping animals in “cages” and such by regular guests, but for a company to put that out too just stings.

We must pretend that Lego bricks are made of renewable materials and then also pretend that most of the electricity is not generated by coal fired or natural gas fired power plants.

Must keep the false impressions alive.

Are we allowed to curse/swear on here? Because I have some choice words for LEGO. They are becoming so full of themselves it’s absurd.

So fossil fuels bad, and yet every single lego brick ever made is made out of plastic.

IE made from oil.

"In order to help us project a vision of a sustainable future"

The bricks are made of plastic. PLASTIC!

@haani:
When’s the last time they featured a filling station or a portable gas can? Speed Champions has a lot of cars that recognizably must be gas-powered, but any recent sets that draw attention to a power source has featured a charging station.

@HeavyLobster:
I see you arguing that they shouldn’t ban Modulars because almost none of them ever get chosen, and also because they’ll offer tons of options to buy designs that TLG will never produce. So, which is it? Are they incredibly rare or fairly common?

@Blazenhozen said:
"So fossil fuels bad, and yet every single lego brick ever made is made out of plastic.

IE made from oil."

Some of the polyethylene parts are made from plants. They’re also researching alternatives to MABS.

@JayCal:
It’s just an extension of their established rules. Ideas projects that get produced as sets go on the permanent restricted list, so the program doesn’t get repetitive. Anything currently or recently in production goes on a temporary restricted list, so people don’t just crib the current lineup. Why they appear to still allow Modular submissions to Ideas is the bigger question.

begun, the woke rules have

Pathetic woke guidelines.
The LEGO Group has definitely started calling the shots at BrickLink.
The hypocrisy is astonishing. The company that sells PLASTIC TOYS and changed packaging to a method that increases emissions due to an overall rise in the weigh of the transports they use to send their product around. is virtue-signalling about "tHe EnVirOnMeNt" and "rEnEwAbLeS" (funny I don't see them promote the best "green energy" of them all: nuclear).

Well...it's more money they'll spare me.
Let them keep going and I'll give LEGO the same treatment I've given Disney and close my wallet for good.
As the ancient proverb says: With great wokeness comes great brokeness.
If LEGO wants to find that out the hard way...so be it.

@AllenSmith said:
" @R0Sch said:
"What's next? Probably forbidding Castle/Vikings, Pirates and Space too because LEGO recognizes that AFOL's want those nostalgic themes, instead of meaningless licenses and would rather want to cash out themselves on those?"

Given the trendline, what's next is that they'll assert that castles, Vikings, sea piracy, and outer space fantasy are all their intellectual property and forbid submissions.

I've love to be paranoid here, but just this May Lego sued out of existence a Dutch train enthusiast's business because he was selling kits which—GASP—included Lego elements mixed with non-Lego pieces needed to make good trains, and—again, GASP—had put non-Lego printing on some of the bricks (which he legally owned). Every AFOL should be appalled that Lego seems to be flirting with the idea that it maintains control over what we do with the product after it leaves the cash register."

That train company also was misusing the trademarks on their website, responded late to the subpoena, didn’t have an actual response to the subpoena (it was basically “Nuh uh, I’m not violating anything and won’t change anything”), and couldn’t verify the safety of his prints. He claimed that he used the machines found in LBR stores to print minifigs, and when asked, had 0 proof of any machines he owned. Also as he was damaging the bricks by inserting bearings into them (before reselling them as genuine Lego), the bearings contained lead. This one isn’t as cut and dry as he’d want you to think.

Also, it seems pretty obvious that TLG would restrict BDP sets that follow their exact internal IPs. The Forestmen aren’t the same as every other group of men in the forest. Ice Planet isn’t the same as every other outer space fantasy. BDP, similar to Ideas, should be about cool things that TLG hasn’t done yet. Rehashing the toys you had as a kid is the opposite of that