'Iridescent' Artwork Contest Problem Options

[Hahninator]

KATHYxx found an article worth bringing up from deviantArt - read here. It appears that the winner of the 'Iridescent' artwork contest that Linkin Park recently held may have broken the rules.

"Right so.. We all know they had a contest going on.

Most of you even submitted entries to this contest.

A few simple Rules:
- One per person
- TF3 has to be included
- No watermarks from the user
- Has to be 1200x1200 or higher
- Submission Deadline June 12th"

Click here for the pictures the post refers to when they say that the winner has submitted EIGHT images to the contest.

"Most of the entries were correctly done within the rules. Some uploaded more then what they should of (they just didnt read) but - this guy won it? So why did we spend all of our time on one submission when they wouldn't of bothered looking through them properly?"

What do you guys think about this?

[HybridThe0ry97]

Nobody should care. He submitted 8 so what...that doesn't mean that the band doesn't have a right to choose who they want on their cover.

[KATHYxx]

Nobody should care. He submitted 8 so what...that doesn't mean that the band doesn't have a right to choose who they want on their cover.

It means he was eight times more likely to get discovered than someone who followed the rules.

It means that a lot of people wasted enormous amounts of time trying to do their best. I spent 8 hours on mine and mine is mediocre at best. I can't imagine the anguish of someone who really tried on this contest.

It means that, unless action is taken, all contests following this are going to be a farce, because it's going to become a spam hell if quantity over quality is what the judges are looking for.

It means that the contest wasn't fair and didn't follow it's own contract. The rules are written in lawyerese for pete's sake.

And finally, it means that the winner isn't a good of artist as the other participants. Choosing ONE and only one entry is the hardest decision in the entire process. It's a make or break moment. Allowing a cheater to win basically puts everyone else at a very large disadvantage as he didn't have to go through the most difficult part of the process.

If the band wanted to "choose who they wanted" they would have hired a graphic designer to do exactly what they wanted. Instead they did a contest and didn't follow their own rules in judging.

[Doris The Spider]

It means he was eight times more likely to get discovered than someone who followed the rules.

It means that a lot of people wasted enormous amounts of time trying to do their best. I spent 8 hours on mine and mine is mediocre at best. I can't imagine the anguish of someone who really tried on this contest.

It means that, unless action is taken, all contests following this are going to be a farce, because it's going to become a spam hell if quantity over quality is what the judges are looking for.

It means that the contest wasn't fair and didn't follow it's own contract. The rules are written in lawyerese for pete's sake.

And finally, it means that the winner isn't a good of artist as the other participants. Choosing ONE and only one entry is the hardest decision in the entire process. It's a make or break moment. Allowing a cheater to win basically puts everyone else at a very large disadvantage as he didn't have to go through the most difficult part of the process.

If the band wanted to "choose who they wanted" they would have hired a graphic designer to do exactly what they wanted. Instead they did a contest and didn't follow their own rules in judging.

Well said.