Re: Not in Kansas anymore
I don't hate the concept, although I do think it would have been just as funny, and had more depth if it showed an X on missouri instead of the "you arent here" X on kansas.
As for rejection, I definitely think both sides can argue down to the wire and still be unsure, considering the wording and the strictness of the one rule debated here.
I would say you could argue that the map is NOT of Oz. However, it would be hard to argue that they are not IN Oz, considering the characters used and what the map is a reference to.
I guess it depends on how strict the rejectionator is. BUT, the rejectionator DID reject the first design even though you COULD argue parody.
So in order to be consistent, this should get rejected. According to the first rejection, the rejection was due to the fact that she was IN the fictional world, not because the map was OF the fictional world, which seems different than the wording of the actual rule.
In order to bypass the rejection, you would have to argue that she is NOT in Oz. The argument that the map is not OF Oz seems irrelevant to the original rejection premise.
I guess in my opinion, the original rejection was worded wrongly, and implies that setting matters and maps that are in a setting are assumed to be of the same setting.
Bah, whether or not this passes, let's make sure the axe is consistent.
I think you should've kept the map the same as the original because I think it feels too obvious here.