bluchez wrote:I find it curious how seriously you think this particular piece is violating one of the most subjective rules when your piece violated one of the least subjective rules.
Out of print area is pretty consistently rejected, IMO. A seemingly exaggerated size on a shirt is almost never (if ever) rejected. This is due to the fact that the artist is typically guessing how it will show on a given size shirt, and noone is completely clear how much of the shirt it should cover.
The "Out of Print Boundaries" rejections come from when a shirt is obviously designed to wrap around collar, is shown blatantly over a seam, or covers the entire shirt. In fact, there are times that even these violations haven't been rejected, when woot deems that the overall effect of the shirt will not be changed by the misrepresentation. For example, while this shirt was rejected for a comp violation, it was not even mentioned that it shouldn't be over the seam. This shirt, as well, stretched almost from top to bottom, wrapped around the collar, but was judged to not be rejectable. This was because the decision makers did not feel it would greatly hurt the overall impression of the printed shirt.
So, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that "more shirts have been rejected for less concerning the placement of the design within the given template" or that woot has been particularly inconsistent in this area.
First off, I will say that I fully expected my shirt to be rejected and was not surprised or upset when it was. I don't understand what my submission has to do with this one, and I "find it curious" that you think it's related. I submitted mine because I put at least 5 hours into it and saw it through to completion, knowing the rules and that it would be rejected, but no harm was done. I'm not the only person who's ever submitted something that they knew would be rejected, regardless if it's a joke entry or not.
I will say that I don't know that "Celebrity likenesses" are one of the least subjective rules, especially for first-time derby entrants. From Webster's;
ce·leb·ri·ty - noun 1 : the state of being celebrated : fame 2 : a famous or celebrated person
fa·mous - adjective 1 a: widely known b: honored for achievement 2: excellent, first-rate <famous weather for a walk>
My common sense tells me there is a difference between the celebrity of Whalt Whitman, Edgar Allen Poe, Lincoln, Washington, and Chairman Mao, and that of Marilyn Monroe, Chuck Norris, Ben Stiller, or Mike Bibby (though Bibby was probably rejected for other reasons). Speaking technically however, they are all famous and celebrated, and therefore are all celebrities. According to the definition of celebrity and the rule "no celebrity likenesses" none of these characters would pass muster, but, like many of the guidelines and rules of shirt.woot, the rules and guidelines that we try and work within are set by precedent, and often inconsistently.
While the cited examples of "Aaaarrghyle" shown covering the whole front of the shirt are an interesting defense, neither are shown on a shirt laid flat where the empty sides are visible from the front like the shirt shown above, and I don't see how they really set any precedent related to why this shirt doesn't break rules or over-exaggerate the guidelines in a fashion worthy of commentary. Even your clipart lion playing bass, though rather large and composed almost entirely of stock vectors, looks as if it stays inside a 4:5 rectangle that fits on the front of the shirt. The rectangle that would frame the height of this print does not fit width-wise onto the front of the shirt, even if it is negative space in the design. It does, in fact, cover the entire shirt, which is one of the reasons you gave for "Out of Print Boundaries" rejections. The printing screens, apparently, just aren't that big.
As for derekfilley's Nintendo Zapper design, it's just a poor example to give. How many times have you seen shirts that have violated multiple derby rules but have been given only one as reason for rejection? I've probably seen hundreds. The Rejectorator hardly has time to check in to do rejections during the weekends, I don't think they're concerned with the tedium of listing each individual offense. Sometimes they don't list the most obvious ones and other times they will even list the wrong reason for what I can only assume is comedic effect at the expense of the exasperated designer.
Here is an example from this derby of a design that got rejected for being too small. While it sets no new precedent and I understand the rejection there, I don't understand the lack of rejection from the design above that is shown too large. I just don't think when it's shown framed in a perimeter that it's really not all that subjective.
Lastly, "[the area] that woot has been particularly inconsistent in" that I was referring to was rejections in general. I'm sorry if that wasn't very clear, but you seem to have made a few presumptions about my comments regarding this shirt. I apologize for coming off as malcontent. While I didn't vote for this design, I have nothing against this designer or design aside from feeling that it benefits from over-enthusiastically stretching the template in which it's placed inside. If I wrongly attacked this shirt it is only for that reason, and I apologize to the designer. I will leave policing to the woot overlords in the future. I'm aware of how long this turned out and, in all honesty, writing this out just wasn't worth it. I take issue only with woot's inconsistency in rejections, and quite truthfully I don't care if this design violates the rules nearly as much as you presume that I do, blu... but I did feel that I had the right to say that it does without the implications that it's somehow related to my rejected design.
Greatest song ever written about JFK here.
NSFW... or children... or anyone who's offended by the idea that JFK might have been a robot... fair warning.