Shirt.Woot

Thanks for the votes!

This is a good one, that's why I bought it, at a department store...

oopss, didn't mean to post that so big!

Oh well, looks like I've been rejectorated. How my slogan wasn't a slogan is beyond me, but whatever.

Re: I [no heart] Apathy

I totally dig your shirt. I'd wear it!!! Although there are those days you just want the whole world to see you walking around with a heart on...

Geckotek wrote:Perhaps the unrejection can be a precedent in a positive direction. Rejection an entry that shouldn't be rejected in the first place should not be an irreversible action. Saying "Oops" just doesn't cut it. So now you can hold Woot accountable when they screw up.

Also, for those whining, keep in mind that A) this precedent can work to your advantage in the future and B) the rules say "printed" and it has not been printed. Obviously many people here like this shirt and want to buy it. Why not buy it from Woot for $10 instead of somewhere else?!

I want to buy this shirt. I want to buy it from Woot. I want to pay $10 for it. I am glad it was un-rejected.

See, I completely disagree. Apparently, you have never read the pages and pages of people complaining about getting rejected. That is only going to escalate dramatically, now that there has been an un-rejection. In the past, people's complaints could often be stopped by simply stating that it was impossible to un-reject an entry. Since that is no longer the case, it will go on and on and on and on and on. I think woot should make the right decision before the reject an entry, don't get me wrong, but opening the door up to complaints about rejections isn't going to benefit anyone.

Re: No I in Uncool

i expect nothing short of rolling on the floor laughter from a text shirt from your clever mind... i am a tad dissapointed

FlamingoNut wrote:I'm not big on these text shirts, but I llo'd when I saw this one. Want it!

Thanks, flaming nut!

jzelts wrote:Thanks, flaming nut!

*flamingo nut *giggles*

snassiri wrote:Go run a marathon and use all your energy at the outset and let me know if you win. Heck, let me know if you even finish the race period.

Sorry, I saw this and had to point out that the logic is bad. In any given race, your energy expenditure rate should be based upon the distance you need to go. Applying your "slow and steady" concept to a sprint, like the 50 or 100, would help you lose every time. Sometimes, slow and steady doesn't win, which is why you won't see top-fuel dragsters slowly accelerating to 250 or a guy running a sprint that starts off the line walking, just so he has more energy at the end.

so true! if it means anything, this is the only shirt that make me *really laugh out loud!
A+++

Re: WHITE IS NOT SLIMMING

This shirt makes Kate Moss look fat.

Re: minion of gozer- resub since rejection was wrong

resubbing because i feel the rejection was without merit.

This is NOT a direct quote- nobody ever says this in Ghostbusters. the font is custom shaded, and is not the same as the movie. There are many other entries that list names of characters in them. Therefore I believe it was unfairly rejected. But if there's some prohibition on character names, i'm unaware of it....

Re: Relationship status

Let's face it, defining a relationship has been reduced to a scroll down menu on a social networking website, saving us many hours of long conversations about where we stand and whether or not we're obligated to be monogamous. Why fight it?

Re: universal timing

INEXCUSABLE

its true, everyone else already knows it, why not wear a shirt that says, "i'm ok with it. and besides, Lou Diamond Phillips would want it that way.

Re: Plays Well With Otters

Rejected because: This is adorable and funny, but unfortunately, not original http://item.express.ebay.com/Baton-Rouge-Zoo-Plays-Well-With-Otters-T-Shirt-3T_W0QQitemZ320209980043QQihZ011QQfromsoiZ1QQcmdZExpressItem

Aw man, well it was only a matter of time. I looked for a shirt like this but didn't find one. After someone posted it, I was sorta kinda hoping for that .01% chance that a baby shirt would be a wee bit different than this design, but I knew better.

In other news, I'm going to start saying "a wee bit" more often.

Re: Masticate, Everyone Does

mas·ti·cate
Pronunciation[mas-ti-keyt] Pronunciation Key
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing. 1. to chew.
2. to reduce to a pulp by crushing or kneading, as rubber.

joelterrific wrote:I would have hoped this move would be viewed, as Geckotek said, a positive move toward fairness in the Derby. In the past, there have been a few (I emphasize few) entries that may have benefitted from this, but it's not a simple push of a button or wave of the wand. A developer has to be involved and is, very arguably, not the best use of their time.

I think it's still fair to say that we do not generally 'unreject' entries, but that's because we don't generally plan on making mistakes. I hope this move doesn't open us up to a flood of lobbying for the reinstatement of legitimately rejected designs, but I also think we need to have the ability to admit our mistakes and make right when we can.

As someone who tries to placate those people who lobby, I just liked the absoluteness of it better. Surely you, of all people, understand how difficult the wooting populace is when rules are not black & white.

(And please, don't think this has anything to do w/ my entry. I would happily sacrifice my entry to not have to put up with everyone and their friends and their supporters complaining about rejections.)

That said, I also regularly argue that it's your pool, so go play somewhere else if you don't like it. Thanks for weighing in.

MKugs wrote:I can't help but feel so many pass this because at first glance it appears to be "rejected."

you're probably right, which is sad because I LOVE this shirt. gmv

Re: My other shirt smelled better...

I've seen this phrase on many shirts before, hell I think even Walmart has this phrase on a shirt.

Re: emo kids don't understand me

I finally found it you twit. The shirt derby is so large, my computer will not load the page where they all are, but I found a way to vote for you thru the post by Skek on PWA, or somewhere, anyway it got done, Texas Guy, Hope you win. Keep on trucking, watch out for the sand.

Re: Plays Well With Otters

I knew I had seen this phrase somewhere before. Tough luck, shan.

Re: Masticate, Everyone Does

Guess the wootinator doesn't want anyone to chew.

linylou wrote:you're probably right, which is sad because I LOVE this shirt. gmv

thank you!

bluchez wrote:See, I completely disagree. Apparently, you have never read the pages and pages of people complaining about getting rejected. That is only going to escalate dramatically, now that there has been an un-rejection. In the past, people's complaints could often be stopped by simply stating that it was impossible to un-reject an entry. Since that is no longer the case, it will go on and on and on and on and on. I think woot should make the right decision before the reject an entry, don't get me wrong, but opening the door up to complaints about rejections isn't going to benefit anyone.

By that logic women's suffrage and the civil rights movements should have been answered with an "I'm sorry, but it would be unfair to all those oppressed in the past if we let you vote now."

Geckotek wrote:By that logic women's suffrage and the civil rights movements should have been answered with an "I'm sorry, but it would be unfair to all those oppressed in the past if we let you vote now."

Actually, no, I was referring to concerns for the future (not injustices of the past). A more appropriate analogy would have been that "by that logic, giving the African Americans right to vote will only mean that in the future women will start complaining that they can't vote."

bluchez wrote:Actually, no, I was referring to concerns for the future. A more appropriate analogy would have been that "by that logic, giving the African Americans right to vote will only mean that in the future women will start complaining that they can't vote."

And I dare you to say there's something wrong with that. =P

Geckotek wrote:By that logic women's suffrage and the civil rights movements should have been answered with an "I'm sorry, but it would be unfair to all those oppressed in the past if we let you vote now."

I would say that giving citizens the right to vote on their leaders is virtually 100% positive.

Comparatively, giving people the grounds to complain endlessly about their unfair rejection from the derby has very few benefits to anyone- particularly for those of us who enjoy interacting with this forum's community.

As far as this particular insane decision is concerned, I'd love to hear more details on why this case is so special that it required the derby's first unrejection. By my count, it wasn't even the most unfair rejection from the fog in this derby (while other removal reasons are arguable- what is pg13?- this was at least purely factual).

Re: minion of gozer- resub since rejection was wrong

I'm not a fan of this one, but in fairness this is probably more original than the "Carmen is in San Diego" one.

Geckotek wrote:By that logic women's suffrage and the civil rights movements should have been answered with an "I'm sorry, but it would be unfair to all those oppressed in the past if we let you vote now."

I think that a more appropriate analogy - if we're going to use women's suffrage to compare, anyway, AND based on what I can understand of what I've read* - is this:

"Okay, women...we're going to let you vote now. Sometimes. Sometimes it's a really big hassle to let you vote, so you can't always vote. Hmmm. We could have let you vote in the past, but it was a big hassle, AND there was that big drunk monkey party, you know how things get hectic around here..."

* Disclaimer: I'm stupid.

Re: No I in Uncool

Anyone wearing this shirt says "I am insecure, so I have to build myself up by putting you down." I expect better from you, Adder.

6walnuts wrote:Anyone wearing this shirt says "I am insecure, so I have to build myself up by putting you down." I expect better from you, Adder.

Have you SEEN text shirts?

Geckotek wrote:I'm not a fan of this one, but in fairness this is probably more original than the "Carmen is in San Diego" one.

Indeed. If this is rejected for being a reference from Ghostbusters, Carmen should be rejected for being a reference to Carmen SanDiego

joelterrific wrote:I would have hoped this move would be viewed, as Geckotek said, a positive move toward fairness in the Derby. In the past, there have been a few (I emphasize few) entries that may have benefitted from this, but it's not a simple push of a button or wave of the wand. A developer has to be involved and is, very arguably, not the best use of their time.

I think it's still fair to say that we do not generally 'unreject' entries, but that's because we don't generally plan on making mistakes. I hope this move doesn't open us up to a flood of lobbying for the reinstatement of legitimately rejected designs, but I also think we need to have the ability to admit our mistakes and make right when we can.

So when you rejected Josephus' "drunk slug" design mistakenly and all he got was a formal apology, how was that different from rejecting a shirt with a slogan that existed elsewhere on a derby where you insisted that the slogans had to be original? Is it because this one was in the fog and has a chance of selling well? Yes, it is a positive move forward as a concept, but all it's going to lead to is more whining about vote reinstating on peoples own designs, as well as more disenchantment with the derby. You've basically told everyone in the derby "hey, thanks for playing for the last 42 weeks, but these threadless guys are the designers we REALLY want."

Why this shirt? Why lie for 43 derbies to save a TEXT shirt? Do you really expect the derbygoers who have been here 20, 30, 40 derbies to be ecstatic that you decided to overturn what was a hard-set rule, in fact not even a rule but a stated impossibility, for this shirt, a shirt in the fog by more professional designers, when you've never done it for people who've played the game for months? If you want to play havoc with your rules, fine, but it is unfair to everyone, not the least of which people in the top 10, to change them in the middle of a derby, unannounced. I think we have a right to know why this shirt, with a slogan still in the running at threadless, deserved it more than any number of others that were rejected as a mistake.

Re: Silly Shirt, Words Are For Books

Wow! I'm pretty sure this isn't going to win but I'm stoked it's up to #11. Thanks for your vote - keep 'em coming.

hookajoe wrote:"Ping Pong" is a brand name.

The generic term "ping pong" predates the trademarked brand name, which is "Ping-Pong" (with a hyphen).

AdderXYU wrote:So when you rejected Josephus' "drunk slug" design mistakenly and all he got was a formal apology, how was that different from rejecting a shirt with a slogan that existed elsewhere on a derby where you insisted that the slogans had to be original? Is it because this one was in the fog and has a chance of selling well? Yes, it is a positive move forward as a concept, but all it's going to lead to is more whining about vote reinstating on peoples own designs, as well as more disenchantment with the derby. You've basically told everyone in the derby "hey, thanks for playing for the last 42 weeks, but these threadless guys are the designers we REALLY want."

Why this shirt? Why lie for 43 derbies to save a TEXT shirt? Do you really expect the derbygoers who have been here 20, 30, 40 derbies to be ecstatic that you decided to overturn what was a hard-set rule, in fact not even a rule but a stated impossibility, for this shirt, a shirt in the fog by more professional designers, when you've never done it for people who've played the game for months? If you want to play havoc with your rules, fine, but it is unfair to everyone, not the least of which people in the top 10, to change them in the middle of a derby, unannounced. I think we have a right to know why this shirt, with a slogan still in the running at threadless, deserved it more than any number of others that were rejected as a mistake.

I'll co-sign that. Why now, guys? And why this shirt?

AdderXYU wrote:So when you rejected Josephus' "drunk slug" design mistakenly and all he got was a formal apology, how was that different from rejecting a shirt with a slogan that existed elsewhere on a derby where you insisted that the slogans had to be original? Is it because this one was in the fog and has a chance of selling well? Yes, it is a positive move forward as a concept, but all it's going to lead to is more whining about vote reinstating on peoples own designs, as well as more disenchantment with the derby. You've basically told everyone in the derby "hey, thanks for playing for the last 42 weeks, but these threadless guys are the designers we REALLY want."

Why this shirt? Why lie for 43 derbies to save a TEXT shirt? Do you really expect the derbygoers who have been here 20, 30, 40 derbies to be ecstatic that you decided to overturn what was a hard-set rule, in fact not even a rule but a stated impossibility, for this shirt, a shirt in the fog by more professional designers, when you've never done it for people who've played the game for months? If you want to play havoc with your rules, fine, but it is unfair to everyone, not the least of which people in the top 10, to change them in the middle of a derby, unannounced. I think we have a right to know why this shirt, with a slogan still in the running at threadless, deserved it more than any number of others that were rejected as a mistake.

Why keep a bad policy in place for bad reasoning:
1) Keep people from complaining in the future - WRONG!!! People will always complain anyway.
2) It's unfair to people in the past - WRONG!!! See my earlier arguement.

I really wish you people would just let this move forward.

Woot, on your part you should revise the rules and make them crystal clear.