Assassin15 wrote:So, if wooters don't vote the way YOU want them to, then they shouldn't vote at all eh? In case you haven't noticed, Woot is based in the US, which is not exactly a communist country. People can have opinions without consequences such as revocation of freedom, contrary to what you seem to think.
I'm totally not defending this derby (it's the second most revolting, behind "kawaii", I think), but that comment was one of your most ridiculous.
As for the shirt, it's ok, I wouldn't wear it, but it's probably one of the most creative ones.
I'm not sure how my comment is in any way ridiculous if this is one of the most creative ones.
Should a less creative shirt win? Not remotely. Why? Because it's less creative. Why should a boring shirt win? Sure, someone might prefer a boring shirt, and that is their prerogative, but why should that boring shirt print over a creative shirt. Which is to say, if you saw two shirts, one boring and one creative, and you had no strong feelings about either one, and knew nothing about the potential popularity of either one, WHY would you pick the boring one?
Ok. Let's pretend that the creative one had no merit in execution. However, this design, as well as Walmazan's, which I also noted in the comment you took exception to, are also two of the most well-executed ones. That's not something you can argue against and come out looking like you know what you're talking about. So we're looking at a creative, well-done design, against less creative, less well done work. Again, which would you pick to sell?
Ok, so you're afraid something won't sell. But this entire derby is about popular internet junk. Either anything on theme would sell decently, so long as it's also well done, or everything has outlasted its shelf life, meaning nothing has a great chance of doing well. This is an absurd defecation of a derby. What these shirts have going for them is being on theme while also potentially being wearable by normal people. There are less on-theme pieces (three lolcats are not three memes) and less wearable pieces (let's just toss a bunch of things on a shirt... these two pieces form a cohesive scene out of all this pointless mashery).
So if the two pieces are indeed among the best, and I'd obviously argue ARE the best this week, and they don't win, that means the likelihood is that something worse won. And if three worse pieces win against two of the best ones, would you not say the voters got it wrong? And if the voters get it wrong, what benefit is there to their voting? They'll only get it wrong again!
If you can judge art only on its popularity, you've missed the entire point of art. It has very little to do with what I think. Science doesn't want us to believe in evolution or global warming because they do. They want us to believe it because incredibly difficult to refute evidence states that that is the most likely reality. Art may be based on opinion, but some aspects of art are not. You can quantify skill and originality and flow and coloration and such. You admit yourself that this is one of the most creative pieces, and you say it in a way that praises creativity. So I'm not really sure how my conclusion, that one of the best pieces not winning implies voters buttafuocoing to do their job correctly, is somehow offensive to you.
Oh, and you might notice that there are lots of tee contests in the US. They all allow votes. But only woot operates solely on most votes = print. Because the other sites know better. Woot has every obligation to run its contest legally and fairly (and I'd argue it does neither), but there is no obligation that every vote in America must be decided purely by majority rule. That's not even how we select presidents.
