Derby #193: Catchy Slogans for Everyday Products

Citations Needed

After way too much debate, we've decided that this isn't a tangible everyday product, also the logo is probably too close for comfort

Rejected because: After way too much debate, we've decided that this isn't a tangible everyday product, also the logo is probably too close for comfort

add a comment

Comments

bassanimation


quality posts: 98 Private Messages bassanimation
Re: Citations Needed


LOLOL, I already know at least two people I'd have to buy this for. Great concept and nicely executed.

paigeg


quality posts: 7 Private Messages paigeg
Re: Citations Needed


Noooooooooooooooooooo! You have wounded me to the core. I'm a college instructor, and this, this - this is BLASPHEMY!

ThunderThighs


quality posts: 563 Private Messages ThunderThighs

Staff

Re: Citations Needed

I'm thinking a lot of teachers and librarians would like this. Heh.



FORUM MODERATOR.............ON VACATION!
To contact Customer Service, use the SUPPORT form at the top of every woot page
••• ► Woot's Return Policy ◄ ••• ► Did you check your spam/junk folders for a CS reply?
CANCEL?? How to cancel your order in the first 15 minutes!! - except Woot-Offs & expedited orders

blk909


quality posts: 0 Private Messages blk909
Re: Citations Needed


Or to quote David Sedaris: "truish"

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
Re: Citations Needed


I really want this. I reeeaaly want this!!

jmmbell1987


quality posts: 78 Private Messages jmmbell1987
paigeg wrote:Noooooooooooooooooooo! You have wounded me to the core. I'm a college instructor, and this, this - this is BLASPHEMY!


Prof, please. Wikipedia can be a gold mine of good, easily traceable and cited sources! :D

gricomet


quality posts: 35 Private Messages gricomet
Re: Citations Needed


I'm a college professor and I will definitely buy this shirt if it gets made. We talk about Wikipedia in my class lecture on social media and I have certainly had students want to use it as a source. Unfortunately accuracy really does vary, from extremely well cited to quite inaccurate.

Jessara


quality posts: 7 Private Messages Jessara
Re: Citations Needed


Every genealogist in the world needs this. Great concept, nicely executed, stealth message- the shirt has it all. WIN.

ee0600


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ee0600
Re: Citations Needed


I know several people, including myself, that would totally buy this. Great idea!

sharkswithlasers349


quality posts: 0 Private Messages sharkswithlasers349
Re: Citations Needed


I'll suck up the fact that this is on heather grey (I despise heather grey) simply because this design is awesome. I would definitely buy one.

Johndis5


quality posts: 3 Private Messages Johndis5
Re: Citations Needed


For a design that seems to be very popular, you'd think more people would be commenting about it.

colourcraze


quality posts: 1 Private Messages colourcraze
Re: Citations Needed


out of all the shirts in this derby so far, this is the one I would buy. +1

tomsman


quality posts: 2 Private Messages tomsman
Re: Citations Needed


Wow. 3 out of the 3 I've seen so far in the fog that are must haves! Library Science student here and I love this shirt. I've got to drum up some coin fast! This is going to be an interesting derby. +1

Looking for MXLs Alien Sonogram, Tin: Old Skool, Puppet Checkup and Flesh Wound from Teefury; A Wicked Mess, F5 Refreshes You, and Sissy Fight. PM or teetrade (tomsman)for trade or sell.

gricomet


quality posts: 35 Private Messages gricomet
Re: Citations Needed


Glad to see this has hit the fog. I need a copy of this shirt definitely.

saxophoneman2011


quality posts: 0 Private Messages saxophoneman2011
gricomet wrote:Glad to see this has hit the fog. I need a copy of this shirt definitely.


Agreed. I need this shirt!

CVBrennan


quality posts: 0 Private Messages CVBrennan
Re: Citations Needed


Fast, easy, Mostly true...

Wish i could say that about my professors, HAH!

midgerock


quality posts: 6 Private Messages midgerock
Re: Citations Needed


not an everyday object/item. Not some thing I can buy or hold. This is in the same class as a mmorpg or other items that were previously rejected for not being real everyday items.products like soap, toothpaste, etc.

If a Tiger is rejected then so should this.

odysseyroc


quality posts: 33 Private Messages odysseyroc
midgerock wrote:not an everyday object/item. Not some thing I can buy or hold. This is in the same class as a mmorpg or other items that were previously rejected for not being real everyday items.products like soap, toothpaste, etc.

If a Tiger is rejected then so should this.


I thought that comp images had to show halftones and not just gradients, too.





jbb04


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jbb04

Awesome!

fishbiscuit5


quality posts: 35 Private Messages fishbiscuit5
Re: Citations Needed


JLegos, where did you find that heather grey background? I've been looking for one that is up to woot's shirt comp standards. Thanks!



Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
midgerock wrote:If a Tiger is rejected then so should this.


This is a public service that people can and do use every day.
A tiger provides no service to most (if any) people.

I see absolutely no connection between the two designs that you are comparing.

Isn't it odd how you accidentally left out exactly what the rejector said just so it would fit your own argument?
"Off topic - Not seeing tigers an everyday product/object/thing"

midgerock


quality posts: 6 Private Messages midgerock
Armagedon wrote:This is a public service that people can and do use every day.
A tiger provides no service to most (if any) people.

I see absolutely no connection between the two designs that you are comparing.

Isn't it odd how you accidentally left out exactly what the rejector said just so it would fit your own argument?
"Off topic - Not seeing tigers an everyday product/object/thing"


let me clarify even further. Its not generic and not tangible. This design refers to wikipedia and that's it. its not generic only in using generic terms to describe it but its not a tangible product/object/thing.

plus as od-roc mentioned gradients are being used in comp and detail not halftones as rules describe.

jlegos


quality posts: 1 Private Messages jlegos
Thanks everyone who commented and voted!

fishbiscuit5 wrote:JLegos, where did you find that heather grey background? I've been looking for one that is up to woot's shirt comp standards. Thanks!


It is on the submission page. Here is the link http://files.woot.com/HeatherGray_Scaled.png

jlegos


quality posts: 1 Private Messages jlegos
midgerock wrote:let me clarify even further. Its not generic and not tangible. This design refers to wikipedia and that's it. its not generic only in using generic terms to describe it but its not a tangible product/object/thing.

plus as od-roc mentioned gradients are being used in comp and detail not halftones as rules describe.


There are no gradients in the design, only halftones, resized directly from my print file. They scaled down in a way that nicely simulates a gradient because the colors used are similar (white against light gray/blue). I'm glad the halftones are doing their job ;)

As for not being tangible product, I strongly disagree. Real life encyclopedias are a product, so there is no reason online encyclopedias can't be. If you take a look at the rejection notices, there are several products mentioned that would be allowed that don't have a physical form, such as a texting plan or internet service. An online encyclopedia is very much the same thing. And just because it is hinting at one in particular, the design does not use any brands and leaves it as generic as it can get with just "online encyclopedia."

chumpmagic


quality posts: 9 Private Messages chumpmagic
jlegos wrote:There are no gradients in the design, only halftones, resized directly from my print file. They scaled down in a way that nicely simulates a gradient because the colors used are similar (white against light gray/blue). I'm glad the halftones are doing their job ;)

As for not being tangible product, I strongly disagree. Real life encyclopedias are a product, so there is no reason online encyclopedias can't be. If you take a look at the rejection notices, there are several products mentioned that would be allowed that don't have a physical form, such as a texting plan or internet service. An online encyclopedia is very much the same thing. And just because it is hinting at one in particular, the design does not use any brands and leaves it as generic as it can get with just "online encyclopedia."


Here is the definition of the word product:
"an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale"

I think this is what midge is getting at. To me it's no different than saying shirt.woot! (the website itself) is a product.

There is a few other design in this derby that aren't really products too that have gone unreject, so maybe woot has a more broader vision of the word product... either that our they are too distracted rejecting zombie designs


wmorrill


quality posts: 0 Private Messages wmorrill

The only shirt in the fog actually worth printing. Both an excellent idea and something extremely wearable. I'm in for one when it prints. Great Job!

Johndis5


quality posts: 3 Private Messages Johndis5
chumpmagic wrote:Here is the definition of the word product:
"an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale"

I think this is what midge is getting at. To me it's no different than saying shirt.woot! (the website itself) is a product.

There is a few other design in this derby that aren't really products too that have gone unreject, so maybe woot has a more broader vision of the word product... either that our they are too distracted rejecting zombie designs


I would argue that the online encyclopedia is a service that provides a product (information).

midgerock


quality posts: 6 Private Messages midgerock
Johndis5 wrote:I would argue that the online encyclopedia is a service that provides a product (information).



then in turn this design should be rejected because an online encyclopedia is not a product. Just like Tigers and Functions is not a product, right?

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
midgerock wrote:then in turn this design should be rejected because an online encyclopedia is not a product. Just like Tigers and Functions is not a product, right?


First, functions are products. Have you ever heard of Microsoft Office, ANY operating systems, games, and on and on and on.

Second, have you aver heard of online wikis? There are hundreds of thousands on the internet. If that isn't generic, then I don't know what is. (For the moderator: Many Wikis have a similar logo)

Finally, here is the ruling on the tangible aspect: "We mean tangible things instead of concepts. Not "sleeping" or "exercise" or "advice"."
The creators of the derby seem to mean that they too many cookies non-tangible concepts and ideas like walking or sleeping. I physically use Wikipedia (and other wikis) almost every day.


I sincerely do not understand the rejection. It seems to me that I have proved all of the reasons that have been said to make this against the derby rules wrong, but if there are any other reasons that you (or moderators) may have about why it should be rejected, PLEASE tell me.
Sorry jlegos. I normally agree with rejections, but this one has no base at all.

Johndis5


quality posts: 3 Private Messages Johndis5
Armagedon wrote:First, functions are products. Have you ever heard of Microsoft Office, ANY operating systems, games, and on and on and on.

Second, have you aver heard of online wikis? There are hundreds of thousands on the internet. If that isn't generic, then I don't know what is. (For the moderator: Many Wikis have a similar logo)

Finally, here is the ruling on the tangible aspect: "We mean tangible things instead of concepts. Not "sleeping" or "exercise" or "advice"."
The creators of the derby seem to mean that they too many cookies non-tangible concepts and ideas like walking or sleeping. I physically use Wikipedia (and other wikis) almost every day.


I sincerely do not understand the rejection. It seems to me that I have proved all of the reasons that have been said to make this against the derby rules wrong, but if there are any other reasons that you (or moderators) may have about why it should be rejected, PLEASE tell me.
Sorry jlegos. I normally agree with rejections, but this one has no base at all.


I made the argument that an online encyclopedia is a service that provides a product, the tangle product being information. Therefore this shirt is advertising a service and not a product.

Your statement about there being many online encyclopedias is a fair one, but they are all services that provide the same product.

I don't think you covered that argument in you post, much less proved it to be invalid.

gricomet


quality posts: 35 Private Messages gricomet
Re: Citations Needed


Seriously? So they reject 2 out of the 3 shirts I liked this Derby. Very disappointed, don't agree with the ruling.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
Johndis5 wrote:I made the argument that an online encyclopedia is a service that provides a product, the tangle product being information. Therefore this shirt is advertising a service and not a product.

Your statement about there being many online encyclopedias is a fair one, but they are all services that provide the same product.

I don't think you covered that argument in you post, much less proved it to be invalid.


"All the information you'll ever need."

Actually, now that I look at it, the shirt seems to be advertizing the information (the product), not the encyclopedia itself.
It does say that an online encyclopedia is a way to obtain the said information, but it just looks to me that it is advertizing and describing the information that you will get when using this online encyclopedia (fast, east, mostly true).

(Sorry, I would have thought of something to argue against your post earlier, but for some reason I thought that you were arguing for keeping the shirt. )

I still strongly urge moderators to change their ruling on this shirt even though they don't do this often (or ever as of yet).

Johndis5


quality posts: 3 Private Messages Johndis5
Armagedon wrote:"All the information you'll ever need."

Actually, now that I look at it, the shirt seems to be advertizing the information (the product), not the encyclopedia itself.
It does say that an online encyclopedia is a way to obtain the said information, but it just looks to me that it is advertizing and describing the information that you will get when using this online encyclopedia (fast, east, mostly true).

(Sorry, I would have thought of something to argue against your post earlier, but for some reason I thought that you were arguing for keeping the shirt. )

I still strongly urge moderators to change their ruling on this shirt even though they don't do this often (or ever as of yet).


I disagree.

"Online Encyclopedia:
All the information you'll ever need."

Reads "Our service will provide you with all of the product you'll ever need."

fast, easy (service), mostly true (product)

It's certainly debatable, but that's my take on it.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
Johndis5 wrote:I disagree.

"Online Encyclopedia:
All the information you'll ever need."

Reads "Our service will provide you with all of the product you'll ever need."

fast, easy (service), mostly true (product)

It's certainly debatable, but that's my take on it.


It seems like this will just be something that neither you nor I will be able to persuade the other to agree on the other person's side, since while I do understand where you are coming from, I still believe it was within the derby guidelines.

For example, I read it as "This is one way to get fast, easy, and mostly true information."
That the information that you are getting is the main focus of the shirt's advertisement.

Oh well, looks like woot is just playing with their grey line again (As in rules. Happens a lot more over on deals.woot):
Allowed

Not Allowed

I still hope some staff will give this one more quick look, but it may be in vein.(Looks like they are staying well away from this 'problem' )

It has been (actually) enjoyable debating with you.

Johndis5


quality posts: 3 Private Messages Johndis5
Armagedon wrote:
It has been (actually) enjoyable debating with you.


*High five for keeping it classy! Go us!

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
Armagedon wrote:It seems like this will just be something that neither you nor I will be able to persuade the other to agree on the other person's side, since while I do understand where you are coming from, I still believe it was within the derby guidelines.

For example, I read it as "This is one way to get fast, easy, and mostly true information."
That the information that you are getting is the main focus of the shirt's advertisement.

Oh well, looks like woot is just playing with their grey line again (As in rules. Happens a lot more over on deals.woot):
Allowed

Not Allowed

I still hope some staff will give this one more quick look, but it may be in vein.(Looks like they are staying well away from this 'problem' )

It has been (actually) enjoyable debating with you.


what i went by is that its a common product that everyone can buy, BUY being the key word there. you cant really buy wikipedia, its free, so not only is it not tangible, which in the pre derby thread i believe they nixed blogs, and wikipedia is pretty much the equivilant of a blog for this purpose, its not something you can purchase. therefore you wouldnt really need a slogan to sell it.

IgnatiusRiley


quality posts: 1 Private Messages IgnatiusRiley

This got rejected? Damn it all to hell, woot, it's like you're trying to become the worst t-shirt site online.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
megsck wrote:what i went by is that its a common product that everyone can buy, BUY being the key word there. you cant really buy wikipedia, its free, so not only is it not tangible, which in the pre derby thread i believe they nixed blogs, and wikipedia is pretty much the equivilant of a blog for this purpose, its not something you can purchase. therefore you wouldnt really need a slogan to sell it.


In no part of the rules did it say that the product must be bought. Also, Wikipedia is completely run by donations (as we have seen a few months ago with that annoying little bar at the top), so in a way it is not free as in 'air' is.

Wikipedia is definitely not a blog. I have never once said or heard someone say "I'm going to go blogging tonight on Wikipedia". It is an encyclopedia and the shirt is advertizing the information (product) that you will get.

Finally, just because something is free, does not mean it doesn't need advertizing. 'FreeCreditReport.com', 'facebook', etc all need advertizing to run. Facebook would never have grown to this size without the owner and associates advertizing it (first by word of mouth and selectivity) and no one would have ever heard of a free online source to check your credit without the help of adds, songs, and slogans.

Thanks for adding your thoughts, but if I've missed anything or you disagree, please continue.

Johndis5 wrote:*High five for keeping it classy! Go us!

Yay! *returns high-five*

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
Armagedon wrote:snip.


i think you've missed what i was saying completely.

i said for this purpose, wikipedia is basically a blog, meaning its a free site where people can go and read things on the internet. also, in case you didnt know this, everyone can write on wikipedia, they get on there and type what they know about a certain thing, almost just like blogging! but either way, when the derby says slogans for common everyday products, i think its pretty obvious they mean things you can go into a store and buy. any site online as they discussed previously, is intangible and they said they were looking for tangible objects. they were only being consistent in their rejections when they rejected this. its not about the artwork or how clever it is, it just wasnt what they were looking for, dont worry, they can sub it again in another derby that fits its criteria.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
megsck wrote:i think you've missed what i was saying completely.

i said for this purpose, wikipedia is basically a blog, meaning its a free site where people can go and read things on the internet. also, in case you didnt know this, everyone can write on wikipedia, they get on there and type what they know about a certain thing, almost just like blogging! but either way, when the derby says slogans for common everyday products, i think its pretty obvious they mean things you can go into a store and buy. any site online as they discussed previously, is intangible and they said they were looking for tangible objects. they were only being consistent in their rejections when they rejected this. its not about the artwork or how clever it is, it just wasnt what they were looking for, dont worry, they can sub it again in another derby that fits its criteria.


If woot wanted it to be obvious that you must 'buy' the product, then they would have put it in the rules. I don't think you understand that the product here is the information.
Just because other people can improve and add to it does not make it any less of a product.

Here is the definition of 'blog': a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer; also : the contents of such a site
-Courtesy of Merriam-Webster
Now, that sounds absolutely NOTHING like Wikipedia. Even in the vaguest way, it is still hard to find any solid connection between the two.

You may think that the rules obviously say that the product must be bought in a store, but I prefer not to put words in other people's mouths. If woot meant to say something, then they would have said it.
I could make a shirt with the slogan "Air: Try some!" and it would fall completely within the rules yet you can not buy it or hold it. The only difference is my shirt would get one vote (mine) while this might have won the derby.

Finally, I don't care how good this shirt is or is not. I'm arguing that it should not be rejected because the rejection is wrong. There have been other shirts that I have liked in derbies much better than this that have been rejected, yet there was a good reason, so I did not argue to 'un-reject' it just because I liked the shirt.
In my opinion, the argument to reject this shirt has no strong base (if any) by looking the past conversation and the moderator's reason for rejecting.

I have kept my mind completely open to any good reason(s) why this must be rejected, but so far there has yet to be one, so I stand by my reasoning.

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
Armagedon wrote:I don't think you understand that the product here is the information.
Here is the definition of 'blog': a Web site that contains an online personal journal with reflections, comments, and often hyperlinks provided by the writer; also : the contents of such a site.
You may think that the rules obviously say that the product must be bought in a store, but I prefer not to put words in other people's mouths. If woot meant to say something, then they would have said it.
Finally, I don't care how good this shirt is or is not. I'm arguing that it should not be rejected because the rejection is wrong.
I have kept my mind completely open to any good reason(s) why this must be rejected, but so far there has yet to be one, so I stand by my reasoning.


again, you are not understanding what i am saying, i thought i was clear twice, but ill try one more time. im not saying that wikipedia is a blog, im syaing for this derby specifically, wikipedia is just like a blog in that its a page on the internet with information that isnt TANGIBLE. Wikipedia, nor the INFORMATION on it is a common tangible everyday product.

basically woot said in the pre derby that they thought people would understand from the write up that they wanted TANGIBLE EVERYDAY OBJECTS, they even went so far as to give you some examples of what they were looking for, "Other generic products to give you a better idea include bread, toothpaste, toilet paper, Cola, and yard sticks." does anything in that sentence give you any indication that wikipedia would be okay?

obviously your mind isnt open, since you refuse to even see how wikipedia differs from a yard stick. the rejectioner has the last say and he says it wont fly, they made up the rules, so obviously they didnt mean websites when they said common everyday products. so you stating your opinion that the rejection is wrong like its a fact is meaningless since if they rejected it, it was obviously right.

EDIT: also, if you want a strong basis for rejection, look at all the other rejected designs that had intangible objects...if they rejected those, why would they leave this one in? he is only being fair.

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
Armagedon wrote:If woot wanted it to be obvious that you must 'buy' the product, then they would have put it in the rules.
You may think that the rules obviously say that the product must be bought in a store, but I prefer not to put words in other people's mouths. If woot meant to say something, then they would have said it.


From the Derby write up:

It's weird to think that in today's world, just existing subjects you to a ceaseless bombardment of advertising, marketing gimmicks, and various ham-fisted attempts to convince you to buy junk. People will buy a t-shirt with a logo on it, essentially paying for the right to be walking billboards. So why not spread the capitalist spirit?

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
megsck wrote:From the Derby write up:

It's weird to think that in today's world, just existing subjects you to a ceaseless bombardment of advertising, marketing gimmicks, and various ham-fisted attempts to convince you to buy junk. People will buy a t-shirt with a logo on it, essentially paying for the right to be walking billboards. So why not spread the capitalist spirit?


That's just the write-up, not the rules. Besides, your cut out is also describing that the derby is about advertizing for a product.

You have also failed to argue against my other points.

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
Armagedon wrote:That's just the write-up, not the rules. Besides, your cut out is also describing that the derby is about advertizing for a product.

You have also failed to argue against my other points.


firt off, i wasnt 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 arguement seems to be that they are promoting the information rather than the wiki site. there are two flaws with that, 1) you arnt the artist so you dont know what they were intending to promote. and 2) it doesnt 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 didnt 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?

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
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...

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
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.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
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


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
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.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
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...

blinddog3d


quality posts: 0 Private Messages blinddog3d
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!!!

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
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.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
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


quality posts: 9 Private Messages chumpmagic
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 *


Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
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.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
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!

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
chumpmagic wrote:I don't even know why this argument is going on...


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

megsck


quality posts: 6 Private Messages megsck
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.

Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
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.

nmpls


quality posts: 22 Private Messages nmpls
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.

chumpmagic


quality posts: 9 Private Messages chumpmagic
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?


Armagedon


quality posts: 106 Private Messages Armagedon
chumpmagic wrote: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?


I'm sorry, but it seemed like I had to repeat myself since you completely ignored what I'd said before. I don't think that repetition will just make you agree with me, but you were bringing up an old issue which led me to believe that you had not read any of the past discussion.

How can you be sure that it is advertizing Wikipedia? From my perspective, the shirt is advertizing the information as the product being received.

Looks like it might get quiet in here since you seem like you won't respond...

ee0600


quality posts: 0 Private Messages ee0600
Re: Citations Needed


Meh. I was looking forward to buying this. But I see the rejectonator's point.

More Derby Entries

By date:

By rank:

Thumbnail