Paradox55 wrote:Just not feeling good about this one, I even suspect that the artist's one shirt purchase is probably Imposter. I've asked Woot for some help putting my mind to rest. What Seki did is beyond despicable, I would not want her to get yet another foot in the door.
I tattled for the same reasons. They won't do anything.
The truth is, this ISNT a very unique style (and as far as that's concerned should really only damn the people who use it further for lack of creativity), but the fact is that it is just like another former user's in ways that shouldn't be overlooked. Given the history of said user, which anyone who's been here long enough would know despite the intentional covering up, I don't trust it at all. This is someone who was banned elsewhere for making fake accounts to promote art. This is someone who has used proxies to sell art. There is no proof this isn't someone that same artist sent a file to in order to enter: the shenanigans which went on in various artist alley situations in the past are proof enough that this isn't an exaggerated, impossible scenario.
Moreover, there are those same sloppy aspects of the other user, the same glowy aspects, the same zero-concept-pure-kawaii thematic nature. It should concern anyone.
But the fact is, the way woot operates, what can be done? What is to stop anyone in the digital age from sending a file to someone else to enter it? What is to stop them from splitting their prize with the person for the sake of being allowed to participate again? If they didn't go that far, there's even less to prevent them from simply making a new voting account and subbing under it, and then just giving their mom's name, or their friend's name, or whatever, when the design wins. That's the simple fact: there is no way to prove this is Sylvia Shi, and there is no way to prove it isn't. What we know is there is INCREDIBLE similarities to her work, and what we know is she is banned from working here.
This is just one more reason woot needs to have quality control, not just the thematic controls that they nevertheless enforce weakly. With the history of the users, and the loopholes inherent in the system, there can be no fair vote, but moreover, there can be no assurance that people who have abused the system will ever be truly banned.