Shirt.Woot

Wow, so on the Side Sell and the Reckoning, I, if I wanted, can now order up to 15 shirts (or aprons) at one time? Is this correct or an odd little glitch right now?

AGrant311 wrote:Wow, so on the Side Sell and the Reckoning, I, if I wanted, can now order up to 15 shirts (or aprons) at one time? Is this correct or an odd little glitch right now?

You could always order as many as you wanted from the reckoning, you just were limited to three per order form. More info on what you are seeing?

blanked wrote:You could always order as many as you wanted from the reckoning, you just were limited to three per order form. More info on what you are seeing?

The drop-down for any item page goes from 1-15. Just for Shirt, though, not on the mothership. And not for today's shirt, so that's nice for designers.

blanked wrote:You could always order as many as you wanted from the reckoning, you just were limited to three per order form. More info on what you are seeing?

The quantity is going to 15 per order form now (on reckoning shirts and stuff in the weekly side sell). At least on the ones I tested, it did. (BootsBoots's shirts in both).

So, you could:

1. Buy 15 shirts
2. Iron some numbers on the back
3. Have the hippest softball team anywhere!

That will make gaming the reckoning at the closing bell that much easier.

taternuggets wrote:That will make gaming the reckoning at the closing bell that much easier.

Oooh. Good point. Especially because it has been theorized that some people buy their own shirt and then resell them elsewhere. Bad news, bears.

taternuggets wrote:That will make gaming the reckoning at the closing bell that much easier.

True that. But can you imagine 15 Randoms arriving in your mailbox?!?

"AB15" doesn't have the same ring as "ABT," although I'm sure CowboyDann could make quite the gif...

neuropsychosocial wrote:True that. But can you imagine 15 Randoms arriving in your mailbox?!?

"AB15" doesn't have the same ring as "ABT," although I'm sure CowboyDann could make quite the gif...

My ears were burning.


Never Buy Fifteen

Hmm sorry if my question is so stupid but... if i want 3 shirts but 3 DIFFERENT shirts, should i make 3 orders and pay 3 times for shipping (im outside usa) ? Thx

His purchasing power is over nine thou...
Um
Fifteen!

There is one dropdown for quantity and one dropdown for size. Can you still order multiple sizes at the same time? And does that mean you can buy up to 15 of each size you want?

I suppose could just buy a tee and find out...

goldenthorn wrote:So it seems one can indeed still order multiple sizes, up to fifteen in an order.

Thanks. I'm just being particularly lazy this morning. Curious but lazy, leads to questions instead of jusat doing myself.

neuropsychosocial wrote:True that. But can you imagine 15 Randoms arriving in your mailbox?!?

:D

Though if you did that though the Wootstaff would start throwing the same shirt multiple times in the bag/box. I've only had them do that once, when they were "disposing" of the Yay Broccoli shirts.

taternuggets wrote:That will make gaming the reckoning at the closing bell that much easier.

Alas, yes. We haven't seen much of it recently, but in the past year, I've sure seen my share of it.

neuropsychosocial wrote:True that. But can you imagine 15 Randoms arriving in your mailbox?!?

A guy can dream, right?

If fifteen shirts end up in my mailbox all at the same time, I wonder if they ship them in a box, or if I would get them all in several of those neat bags.

As far as possible gaming of the Reckoning goes, what if they were to reduce the amount that you could buy one hour out from the closing bell? Would it reduce possible abuse of the system if it went to three an hour before? It might also add extra drama to the reckoning if that last hour had even more emphasis placed on it. At least that is my thought.

CowboyDann wrote:My ears were burning.


Never Buy Fifteen

Awesome, Dann! I knew we could count on you. I love it!

bluejester wrote:If fifteen shirts end up in my mailbox all at the same time, I wonder if they ship them in a box, or if I would get them all in several of those neat bags.

My last set of hoodies arrived in a extra-large woot bag (with walmazan woot monkeys! I'm considering hanging it on a wall if I can figure out how to make it look nice). I bet woot could get 15 Randoms into those bags.

Hmm, now I'm itching for another Random day just so we can all try this! Wait: (15*6.66=99.90); nifty total, but maybe not realistic. However, I suppose $5 for overnight shipping would be a bargain!)

As for gaming the Reckoning... in a way, I'd rather have an artist buy 15 shirts under his/her own name than the old "multiple accounts" game; at least it's honest. And to a certain extent, if an artist wants to spend $225 for the possibility of selling more than 113 shirts the following week... I don't know; if they do it under his/her own account, I'm not sure if I have a problem with it. This is different than my position a year ago, mind you, but I've spent time examining the ethics and business of this tactic and my position has developed over the past year as I've come to understand more about how the artists are paid by woot.

Narfcake wrote:A guy can dream, right?

So can a girl.

margiecakes wrote:Oooh. Good point. Especially because it has been theorized that some people buy their own shirt and then resell them elsewhere. Bad news, bears.

Not just been theorized, but fact.

LarryLars wrote:Not just been theorized, but fact.

I was referring more to the idea that 'someone' would buy his/her own shirts for $12 here to keep it afloat, and then turn around and sell it for $20 at a con or out of a storefront, whatever. Thereby using shirt.woot as cheap printing at a disadvantage to more ethical artists in the Reckoning.

I thought it had been argued -- by woot -- that they'd looked into things and that scenario was unlikely/incorrect. Maybe it's these weird rose colored glasses I have on.

*sigh* Such a possibility is so upsetting to me. I mean, I get that this is 'just a shirt site,' but what's the point of having a contest/reckoning if it is rigged by the highest earners and overlooked by the officials?




ETA: Can you tell me if that situation was ever resolved amicably? I didn't notice any restitution mentioned in that posting. This whole thing, of course, makes the reappearance of she-who-shall-not-be-named in the forums last week an even more bitter pill to swallow.

margiecakes wrote:I was referring more to the idea that 'someone' would buy his/her own shirts for $12 here to keep it afloat, and then turn around and sell it for $20 at a con or out of a storefront, whatever. Thereby using shirt.woot as cheap printing at a disadvantage to more ethical artists in the Reckoning.
...

That was referring to your idea; it's why some of us despise her ... STILL, if not to an even greater extent nowadays from her coming back to trollololol. Lovely, isn't it?

Resolved? I doubt it was amicable; afterall, she's still around.

LarryLars wrote:Not just been theorized, but fact.

Hmm, you may want to re-read that comment again. It's saying woot had distributed the shirt (even though there were questions about its originality and even though woot pulled it from sale) not that the artist in question was selling it at the con. Different facts there.

DianaSprinkle wrote:Hmm, you may want to re-read that comment again. It's saying woot had distributed the shirt (even though there were questions about its originality and even though woot pulled it from sale) not that the artist in question was selling it at the con. Different facts there.

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.

Narfcake wrote:trollololol

This is a new word to me, but I like it: rather onomatopoeic.

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?

margiecakes wrote: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.

Except the comment linked says this: "I am also very disgusted that I saw these shirts actually distributed while I was at Otakon. This means that Woot has profited from this incident and their lack of response shows that they still ignore the issue at hand. "

They are specifically talking about woot they don't even mention the artist when they bring up distribution. I see a ton of woot shirts at all the cons I go to whether or not the artist is even at the con. It's not a fair assumption.

Also I've seen this person's booth at A-kon... with my own eyes, they don't sell shirts just shiny prints. Giant shiny shiny anime prints and none of their woot art or any other art other than anime stuff. I almost didn't realize they were the artist in question since they didn't have any of their woot stuff at their table.

Edit: Just to note something that makes is thread seem rather silly... It looks like the whole buy 15 thing was a bug. It is now fixed back down to the normal buy 3. I wonder if anyone actually tested the buy 15 feature out during the short time we had it?