neuropsychosocial wrote:I have the same impression as Diana; that conversation is clearly about World Nomination: whole 'nother ball of shirt-wax than what margiecakes was referencing, I believe.
Having seen Narfcake's comment, I understand where LL was going with his link. It is fair to assume that the shirts being sold at the con were probably being sold by the person who stood the most to profit off them -- the creators. Though that isn't proven at this point, it was implied by the original designer of the 'World Nomination' print, and it is logical to infer that the sellers of the shirt were the same offending parties who stole the idea.
As I said, I was under the impression that woot staff claimed that no rigging/cheating was taking place. Of course, that really could just be semantics. Is it 'cheating' to use the money you've earned from keeping your shirt in a sales spot to purchase more shirts to keep your shirt in the sales spot in order to sell more shirts on, and off, woot? (That was a mouthful!)
Perhaps it isn't 'cheating' as much as it is disappointing, somewhat unethical, and abusive. It certainly seems to be the latter. Abusive to the entire concept of woot as 'print on demand' for a reasonable price, only to turn around an resell for as much if not more, effectively using woot as a
'free' printing press. Also, ausive to the other artists who do not take advantage of that strategy, or perhaps cannot afford to take advantage of that strategy (what with their own shirts being reckoned as a byproduct of the game), potentially stealing money and accolades from their pockets as they respect the law of un-tampered demand, the system proposed, and the company that provides them an opportunity to sell shirts without using it as a printing press.
Wow. That is incredibly convoluted and wordy. I blame my headache, and hope it makes sense.
Also, to be all political/oi, oi, oi down with the man! Ideally shirt.woot is a democracy, to some degree. Using monetary gain to perpetuate sales in order to turn a greater profit and continually rig the system in one's favor is greedy, self-serving, and anti-democratic. I guess that is what offends me. Yes, I am aware that woot is a business -- one owned by Amazon, no less -- but why the pretense of derbies/the reckoning (e.g. democratic selection of shirts) if the profiteers are allowed to control the vote?