Shirt.Woot

Re: They're Watching.

You totally nailed the buying public, I want to offer my sincerest apology for my hasty critism, earlier. You are a genius and I bow to your frenetic design prowess. Kudos, mon advisaire.

You are selling like ..."Hotcakes!"


brUno
+1

Re: Think Inside the Box! (V2)

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs50/i/2009/278/f/6/Solid_Snake__Art_Trade_by_chu00master.jpg We need to put this shirt in a box an ship it to Japan. They would love it over there!

Re: Think Outside the Box

https://y2mzuw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1mYyO8Q3gv79vCdZNZKkfGRrWPPd1I2IPNBZm5b82oQfIEGAafeOIilfQcsMk9EzSyl2R0HrvK1QjlPKLwjYHYo3T-AB_k3hDFJE64W2Ine_74mPkTbgNSBU4I3a7mvUuRY16XQeCoyePIpVUzuuluNQ/piecewalker_122909.jpg
Best selling game for the PSP, 2011! Go Snake

MetalGearSolid Rules! Get your Tshirt, NOW!!!!

Re: Think Inside the Box! (V2)

https://y2mzuw.blu.livefilestore.com/y1mYyO8Q3gv79vCdZNZKkfGRrWPPd1I2IPNBZm5b82oQfIEGAafeOIilfQcsMk9EzSyl2R0HrvK1QjlPKLwjYHYo3T-AB_k3hDFJE64W2Ine_74mPkTbgNSBU4I3a7mvUuRY16XQeCoyePIpVUzuuluNQ/piecewalker_122909.jpg
I had to share: MGS Peacewalker is the "Best Selling Game for2010 on the PSP."
-Playstation Magazine

Hide your snake in a box!
Get Justin Timberlake to write a song about it...
♫"I got my _ _ _ _ in a box, baby!"♫

thatrobert wrote:

• Congratulations on winning a Best Loser Award!
  
• This is not SPAM.
  
• Winning a BLA does NOT mean this shirt won't print -- I'm hoping it does.
  
• Your one and only gift is this crappy little badge in your shirt thread. Enjoy.
  
• When I was 17, I had wrists like steel and I felt complete.
  

I am always so thrilled to get one of these! Thank you so much. *blushes*

blinddog3d wrote:Here's a shot of the "Box," this is marked for delivery to the "Heliport" cuz it's "Hella-far away!" Good chance to take a nap.

Prisoner Uses Metal Gear's Cardboard Box to Escape!

This is hilarious!!!

♫Put your snake in a Box, baby!♫
brUno

thatrobert wrote:Cats don't hate you. If you're allergic to them, they're very affectionate.

ROFLMAO! Its true - I am very allergic to cats, and they always try to love me to death, literally.

I almost never post, but I simply had to on this one. I absolutely love it! I am a big fan of your designs jewel - keep up the incredible work! GMV!

megsck wrote:first off, i wasn't arguing when i first posted, i was simply stated what i understood the write and the derby rules to mean.

now i am arguing:

1)the write up helps clarify the derby theme, so you should be paying attention to it.

2) your main argument seems to be that they are promoting the information rather than the wiki site. there are two flaws with that, 1) you aren't the artist so you don't know what they were intending to promote. and 2) it doesn't matter because they are BOTH INTANGIBLE.

3)this point you made sure to ignore in my previous post. Look at all the other derby entries with intangible objects...notice something? they are all REJECTED. I would take that to CLEARLY MEAN that they want TANGIBLE common everyday products, not INTANGIBLE common everyday products.

so in conclusion, even if the write up didn't clearly express they wanted TANGIBLE objects (which to me, it did very clearly read that) The fact that they rejected so many other designs because they were INTANGIBLE should be OBVIOUS to you that they want TANGIBLE things.

so you are basically arguing that they should unreject this ONE shirt, because you think the website is tangible? because that is what it comes down to. they rejected it because they found it to be INTANGIBLE. you can take that to mean the the rules for this derby include only TANGIBLE objects. so please, tell me again why this should be unrejected?

*sigh* You want me to repeat the whole argument that I had with Johndis5? Alright.

1)To me, it is obvious from the excerpt and description of the derby that they are using the word 'buy' loosely. "convince you to buy junk" for example.

2) It does not matter what the artist had intended when making it, it matters what the shirt itself promotes to the audience.
Just because you can not see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Is air tangible? You can't hold it, yet you are always touching it. Also, the fact that it is not a physical object, does not mean that it is any less of a product: what the derby was LOOKING for.

3) Just because there is a similar pattern, doesn't just magically make the rejections right. In the rules, it said that they didn't want CONCEPTS. Information is not a concept. Maybe some of those shirts shouldn't be rejected either (like I said about the 'functions' shirt earlier).

Finally, PLEASE stop using the word 'obvious'!! Just because something may seem 'obvious' to you does not automatically make it true. All it does is make you sound very closed minded. That only what you think is right.

Once again I am not arguing to 'unreject this ONE shirt'. As I stated before, other shirts may be falsely rejected as well, such as the functions shirt. From the rejection, it seems that they spent too much time debating over it ("After way too much debate") that the easy thing to do is to just reject it and be safe. To me it seems that they knew that their rejection of intangible was not a strong reason that they needed to throw in something else to reinforce it ("also the logo is probably too close for comfort") which I also already gave a reason why I thought that was wrong as well. Also please do not assume what *I* can take something to mean.

Now I know why you were so big on that blog idea...(You can put it back in your signature.)
I also fixed all of your spelling mistakes for you. I don't have time to fix all the capitalization errors. (Studies actually show that it hurts your argument if the grammar, spelling, etc is wrong.)

Finally, I am done repeating myself...

AdderXYU wrote:* No copyrighted or trademarked product names. Seriously. Keep it generic.

* No using any existing slogan or part of an existing slogan for a different product. So your "Bananas: Just Do It" design will have to wait.

blah, blah, blah

I take their generic rule to mean no product names (like pepsi, or brawny paper towels). i dont even mention my product name on the shirt, i just have a towel and im pretty sure a towel is as generic as you can get. The word hitchhiker is not trademarked or copyrighted and its not the brand name of any towels that im aware of.

im not using any existing slogan for towels that im aware of either, and simply referencing an awesome book does not mean that im lifting the slogan from it. im simply stating a that towels are a hitchhikers best friend.

i would argue that this is a new slogan for towels that i havnt seen before, and since its referencing a known cult novel i think its pretty hip. so im not seeing why you chose to, out of all the other shirts that reference something else, you came to mine and say that it "tramples the soul of the theme" to that i'd say that you are being overly dramatic and obviously just trying to bash my entry because you have a personal grudge with me.

im sorry that my design offends you in some way, i was just making a shirt that i think people would love to wear and that has some personal meaning to me. i think im hardly corrupting the derby with it.

Armagedon wrote:2) It does not matter what the artist had intended when making it, it matters what the shirt itself promotes to the audience.
Just because you can not see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Is air tangible? You can't hold it, yet you are always touching it. Also, the fact that it is not a physical object, does not mean that it is any less of a product: what the derby was LOOKING for.

the derby wasnt just looking for any and all products, they wanted specifically, everyday common TANGIBLE products.

Armagedon wrote:3) Just because there is a similar pattern, doesn't just magically make the rejections right. In the rules, it said that they didn't want CONCEPTS. Information is not a concept. Maybe some of those shirts shouldn't be rejected either (like I said about the 'functions' shirt earlier).

this is your main problem. woot makes the rules. when they reject something, they are inforcing the rules. therefore if they reject many designs because they say that its intangible. argument over, wikipedia is not tangible, therefore not allowed in this derby. obvious.

obviously i apologize for my spelling errors, that is something i dont pay attention to while posting on woot threads since i wasnt aware i was in an english class or it mattered in any way.

go tea!

megsck wrote:the derby wasnt just looking for any and all products, they wanted specifically, everyday common TANGIBLE products.

Once again you are assuming something that you do not know.

megsck wrote:this is your main problem. woot makes the rules. when they reject something, they are inforcing the rules. therefore if they reject many designs because they say that its intangible. argument over, wikipedia is not tangible, therefore not allowed in this derby. obvious.

obviously i apologize for my spelling errors, that is something i dont pay attention to while posting on woot threads since i wasnt aware i was in an english class or it mattered in any way.

Fine to clear up this whole 'tangible' deal: http://shirt.woot.com/Derby/Entry.aspx?id=51479

Can you go to the store and buy three Internets? No. I'm done repeating myself.

Yes, woot makes the rules, so shouldn't they follow their own rules? Maybe the rejection is right, but nothing has truly proved it as of now and the fact that you left out most of my post shows that the arguments for rejection may be running thin.

I did not say you were in English class. I was simply helping you present your argument in a more clear and effective manner.

megsck wrote:
obvious.

obviously

*facepalm*

megsck wrote:I take their generic rule to mean no product names (like pepsi, or brawny paper towels). i dont even mention my product name on the shirt, i just have a towel and im pretty sure a towel is as generic as you can get. The word hitchhiker is not trademarked or copyrighted and its not the brand name of any towels that im aware of.

im not using any existing slogan for towels that im aware of either, and simply referencing an awesome book does not mean that im lifting the slogan from it. im simply stating a that towels are a hitchhikers best friend.

i would argue that this is a new slogan for towels that i havnt seen before, and since its referencing a known cult novel i think its pretty hip. so im not seeing why you chose to, out of all the other shirts that reference something else, you came to mine and say that it "tramples the soul of the theme" to that i'd say that you are being overly dramatic and obviously just trying to bash my entry because you have a personal grudge with me.

im sorry that my design offends you in some way, i was just making a shirt that i think people would love to wear and that has some personal meaning to me. i think im hardly corrupting the derby with it.

This is "not just clever, but clever-clever," as David Bowie would say. I don't know who you are, but I feel we are brothers from another mother. This is so unbelievably subtle, it's genius and I'm really sad you aren't in the fog, because I would consider anyone who wore this Tshirt "the coolest guy at comicon!" I want one of these so I can wear it to comicon and get Capt. Kirk to want his picture with ME! That's how cool this shirt is!
brUno

PS- "#1, make it so!"
*vote*

Re: hotcakes

I bow to your retro savvy! It cannot be denied. Kudos.
*vote*
brUno

Armagedon wrote:*facepalm*

im not assuming anything, its written in their write up and on what they are rejecting. They want TANGIBLE objects, there is no debating it, THEY SAID IT.
Its been known that the rejectioner does not go through every single entry, but im sure apelad appreciates you bringing attention to his design.
Woot is following its own rules, its rule was that they wanted TANGIBLE objects. Their rejection was right because they make the rules and this entry did not fit them. i left most of your post out because i didnt think i needed to address the rest of it because i feel its irrelevant.
and thank you for your help but i think im doing just fine making a clear and effective argument...oh did is say clear? i meant obvious.

bribrem wrote:why is it batteries are never included - and when you do buy batteries nothing else is included, they lead such a co-dependent lifestyle. Alone Batteries are useless and without them many other devices are useless... do i smell a conspiracy...

It's like Hot dogs and hot dog buns. Bye both and you have 2 naked dogs. 8 dogs - 6 buns. something tea-like for us?!

I have a naked snake and he's in a box to save his buns.
Get some sleep, your battery is out of juice.
brUno

megsck wrote:im not assuming anything, its written in their write up and on what they are rejecting. They want TANGIBLE objects, there is no debating it, THEY SAID IT.
Its been known that the rejectioner does not go through every single entry, but im sure apelad appreciates you bringing attention to his design.
Woot is following its own rules, its rule was that they wanted TANGIBLE objects. Their rejection was right because they make the rules and this entry did not fit them. i left most of your post out because i didnt think i needed to address the rest of it because i feel its irrelevant.
and thank you for your help but i think im doing just fine making a clear and effective argument...oh did is say clear? i meant obvious.

They didn't specifically say that. I can understand where you are coming from when you are implying it, but there is still plenty of room for debate.

I had to bring up his design since it seemed to me like you needed some evidence that there is a possibility that you can be wrong. The guilt card does not work here, so don't try it. Technically, since you have not denied it, his should be rejected for the same reasons which means that I am also defending his design and you are arguing against it. I wonder who apelad would rather have on his side...

That specific rule says that they don't want concepts, which information clearly is not. They want products, which information also is in this case.

My post was completely relevant. It was answering your post! I even numbered it similarly to try to make it clear that it is relevant directly to your argument and the situation here.

and thank you for your help but i think im doing just fine making a clear and effective argument...oh did is say clear? i meant obvious.

If you replace clear with obvious in that sentence, it doesn't make sense: "I'm doing just fine making a obvious and effective argument."
Of course your statement is obvious. If I can read it in your post, then it is obvious. Your argument needs to be clear to be effective, not obvious. I just am trying to point out that it is a bad habit to put words in other people's mouths by saying something that is clearly debatable is obvious.

I don't understand why you are getting so worked up over this...

megsck wrote:im not assuming anything, its written in their write up and on what they are rejecting. They want TANGIBLE objects, there is no debating it, THEY SAID IT.
...and thank you for your help but i think im doing just fine making a clear and effective argument...oh did is say clear? i meant obvious.

I love the drama, here. I went on a little rant earlier on the electrical socket entry and I felt bad for going postal, but they replied with a, "Thank you for your feedback..." and a smiley face. I guess that's what happens when you fight for $1000.00

My $0.02:
They made the contest, they write the rules, they write the check, you can paranoid android all you want, but that's how they roll. My suggestion, live to fight another day.

I'm new and just learning the game. I will win one of these bustards, and I'll do it within 6 months. You gotta play to win, be adaptable. You have to make changes on the fly, not sit in front of your computer and make sad faces

I didn't win, not even close. I thought my art was good and my slogan funny. Others that had "less complicated" graphix and "predictable" slogans did way better than I did. I examine that and learned, "Sometimes, you gotta dumb-it-down."

I also vote on every single one I really would buy. It's Karma. Instead of being the "Squeaky wheel," get some WD-40 and something tea-like for us.

Cowboy up and rub some dirt on it. Geeze-Louise.

...and here's your change.
brUno

I want to thank everyone for the votes on "Pigs Love Bacon" and "Ultimate Disguise"
I really had fun and learned some stuff making them. It was my first time using gradients in Illustrator and I had a blast! You will be seeing more BlindDog, and each one will get better, til I win!!!

Armagedon wrote:stuff

they did say it, right in this thread, under the giant letters that say rejected.
what you brought up wasnt evidence, it was simply a design that hasnt been rejected. i wasnt trying to play any guilt card, but i think you are by implying im against someone. what if they get rejected now because you brought up their entry in this thread? whos side do you think he'll take then? (now that is a guilt card)
they say they dont want concepts, but they also say they want TANGIBLE OBJECTS. so this entry still is rejected.
i didnt say your whole post was irrelevant, i said i felt the parts i left out were. the only thing that is relevant is that the rule states they want tangible things, and this isnt tangible, thats it.

Armagedon wrote:If you replace clear with obvious in that sentence, it doesn't make sense: "I'm doing just fine making a obvious and effective argument."
Of course your statement is obvious. If I can read it in your post, then it is obvious. Your argument needs to be clear to be effective, not obvious. I just am trying to point out that it is a bad habit to put words in other people's mouths by saying something that is clearly debatable is obvious.

I don't understand why you are getting so worked up over this...

hahaha, im sorry, but this is making me laugh. im having a good time, im not in the least getting worked up. obviously you missed the fact that i was making a joke.

blinddog3d wrote:I guess that's what happens when you fight for $1000.00

The ironic thing is no one arguing makes any money whether this shirt is or is not rejected, I just feel like it should not be rejected.
(megsck might not want the competition, but I don't have the slightest idea)

My $0.02:
They made the contest, they write the rules, they write the check, you can paranoid android all you want, but that's how they roll. My suggestion, live to fight another day.

Let us hope that they enforce their rules then and not rules that never existed.

I like you (and your designs, especially "Ultimate Disguise"). It's nice to see people with your attitude on life. Seems to happen less and less.
I'm just trying to stick up for Jlegos's design in the hopes that perhaps I'll be proven wrong or justice will be enforced.

Hopefully I'll be seeing your name next to one of the shirts on the main page soon.

chumpmagic wrote:

And why are people still quoting my first comment here? That issue was cleared up almost instantly by the artist himself...

don't take it personally, most folks jump at any chance to prove they're clever. you've just inspired a few face plants.

Re: Citations Needed

I don't even know why this argument is going on...

I'd say the issue here isn't even tangibility. There are plenty of products that are not tangible these days (digital books, download music, insurance policy, et cetera...). The issue here is that this isn't a product by definition of the word product. Simple as that.

As I said before, saying wikipedia is a product is no different than saying that this website (shirt.woot or any other website for that matter) is a product when they are both clearly not.

Argue all you want about it, but your war is not with us or woot. Your war is with the definition of the word product.


Edit: change my untangle examples because they were all kind of the same *

AdderXYU wrote:Always consider the source. I'd never trust BP to tell me the gulf is clean.

even if you were swimming in it and actively witnessing its cleanliness? because that is basically the analogy you have drawn here.

megsck wrote:they did say it, right in this thread, under the giant letters that say rejected.
what you brought up wasnt evidence, it was simply a design that hasnt been rejected. i wasnt trying to play any guilt card, but i think you are by implying im against someone. what if they get rejected now because you brought up their entry in this thread? whos side do you think he'll take then? (now that is a guilt card)
they say they dont want concepts, but they also say they want TANGIBLE OBJECTS. so this entry still is rejected.
i didnt say your whole post was irrelevant, i said i felt the parts i left out were. the only thing that is relevant is that the rule states they want tangible things, and this isnt tangible, thats it.

Well it seems like it is an impossible argument with you as well. I've stated my reasons why I think the whole rejection is wrong multiple times already, so it seems clear that nothing more I say will convince you unless you haven't read what I wrote before.

Sure, maybe his will get rejected, but aren't you arguing that shirts like his and this one should be rejected??
Let's say his is already rejected. I am arguing so his will not be rejected, which is why (in my opinion) I think he would in turn side for the person defending him.

Many of the parts of the post that you left out were my cross-examining points directly linked to yours through numbering(1.,2.,3., etc) or just in a paragraph located in the same location where you gave a reason it should be rejected. Therefore, it seems like you have run out of arguments (even though you may not have) when these parts are ignored.

hahaha, im sorry, but this is making me laugh. im having a good time, im not in the least getting worked up. *obviously* you missed the fact that i was making a joke.

I'm glad that you are at least having a good time. I'm sorry, but emotions do not translate well over text, which is why from your writing style it seemed to me like you were getting a little flustered.

Surprisingly, sarcasm does not translate well either which is why I guessed you were making a joke, but assumed it was part of your debate and added my bit to it.

chumpmagic wrote:I don't even know why this argument is going on...

I'd say the issue here isn't even tangibility. There are plenty of products that are not tangible these days (digital books, downloaded video games, download music, et cetera...). The issue here is that this isn't a product by definition of the word product. Simple as that.

As I said before, saying wikipedia is a product is no different than saying that this website (shirt.woot or any other website for that matter) is a product when they are both clearly not.

Argue all you want about it, but your war is not with us or woot. Your war is with the definition of the word product.

Oh no, not this again!!
Please read the past discussion first before you start to get into this.
The information is the product here!

chumpmagic wrote:I don't even know why this argument is going on...

i needed something to do while i was doing laundry =D

Armagedon wrote:Therefore, it seems like you have run out of arguments

i havnt run out, i only have one argument. that this design was rejected because it wasnt within the rules of the derby. i dont have anything against the design, i think it was funny, but it got rejected. i am simply trying to tell your that this rejection wont get overturned because woot rejected it for a good reason.

Re: Books - No Electricity Required

Oh Yeah!!

megsck wrote:i havnt run out, i only have one argument. that this design was rejected because it wasnt within the rules of the derby. i dont have anything against the design, i think it was funny, but it got rejected. i am simply trying to tell your that this rejection wont get overturned because woot rejected it for a good reason.

Sorry! I meant to type 'seemed' as in the past tense. I don't believe you have run out now (hence, we are still arguing ), but at the time when you didn't respond fully, there became a decent chance that you had(evidence being that you avoided my post). I didn't mean any disrespect by saying that.

megsck wrote:i needed something to do while i was doing laundry =D

Your laundry must take a long time :P

Since it seems that at the moment we have reached an impasse, I must be getting some rest. I might see you tomorrow, but if not, it's been nice debating with you.

Re: Citations Needed

Woot, damn you for rejecting this.
This was clearly within the spirit of the contest, and I would argue, clearly within the rules.

I'm especially annoyed by certain people with quite a few shirts in this contest arguing against what is honestly a better (and probably more popular) shirt, seems like sour grapes.

Booooo.

Armagedon wrote:Oh no not this again!!
Please read the past discussion first before you start to get into this.
The information is the product here!

I have read it and you have already brought up that point before... Am I suppose to agree now that you have said it more than once?
Sadly, the slogan is for the wikipedia knockoff company/service (not the information). That means it is not a "slogan for an everyday product;" It is a slogan for an everyday service...

Well, I am done. I know... I am not as fun as the others, but there is no point in arguing with someone that is completely committed. At least I give you the option to have the last word though

___

Also, I made my first comment shortly after I put a load in the wash Weird, no?

Re: Houseboats

Since I live on a houseboat, I will buy this if it comes up again in another derby!

Re: It's Not What You Think

hehe clever joke

Re: JUICE Swallow it and Shut Up

i like it, im surprised not more lovin

Re: I wouldn't touch these...

I like where you started. If it were me, I would'vr gone "I only need Tissues, Cause this shirt has short sleeves."

Or something like that. This is very cute and I've already been proven off-base on my prejudgment of another entry's design content(sockerface).

But I must commend your execution. Just wonderful. I give you a vote on cleanliness.
+1
brUno

Re: Styrofoam

i kinda like it.

i think it could use something else to make it look less flat

Re: tea!

I heart this so much!

blinddog3d wrote:......But I must commend your execution. Just wonderful. I give you a vote on cleanliness.
+1
brUno

I just notice that you used 6 colors to make a duochromatic. Shades in the same family. This is a 3 color print and it seems you made a production headache. You may want to look at that in the future derby battles.

Take a tute on seps in shades. It also depends what Adobe program you used (I'm assumiong Adobe?). I'm vvery new but I have friends that are forkin ba'kickin' in Adobe. I buy them beers and let them show off. I always learn something.

I'm gonna win one of these soon, so if you spot anything on mine, let me know. We'll keep it str8!

brUno

icymallard wrote:i kinda like it.

i think it could use something else to make it look less flat

Blue shading on the cup.
brUno

vixcarin wrote:Oh Yeah!!

...sorry, couldn't resist. When not feeling well, my humor gets...weird.

Still, hoping to see this print Jas.