6 and 4

I have to put in for 1 and 4. 1 was the first I saw, and it was absostikin'lutely great. 4 was just plain cool.

-=Thoketan=-

Would this PM I recieved from Toa_Ausar be allowed?:

 

Hey, just thought I'd drop you a quick line and ask if you could please vote for me in the Prime Time Blog Challenge.

 

My entry can be found in the Second Poll under the #4 but

 

Anyway, I would greatly appreciate it if you could please do this for me when you have some spare time and be sure to vote for one entry in the First Poll as well, otherwise your vote for me won't count.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

~ Åusår

 

Vote Second Poll #4 (but vote first poll also)

 

Because you say that blogging to say "Vote me" is illegal.

 

Assuming it is allowed,

 

Poll 1: Entry 1. Oh, how perfect . . . I really like the color scheme, which was what this was all about. So . . . And it was executed well and I like Mechas a lot now, so the choice was easy. Sorry, ~Ballom~.

 

Poll 2: Entry 10. It was interesting, interesting, different. Sadly, this section was uninteresting in their color schemes. So I chose white. But this MOC was . . . different. I liked it. Sorry, Toa_Ausar.

Yes, that would be breaking my rule about "not advertising/saying 'vote for me'". Did Ballom ask you to do so also? Because you apologize to him aswell.

 

Anywho, Ausar has broken my rule, and as punishment for breaking this rule, his entry is now DQ'd.

 

Anyone who voted for Ausar can change their vote to another entry if they so choose.

 

P

I may have solicited replies in a BBC Contest or two, but I did not do so here. It is my understanding that he was apologizing for not voting for my entry only because he is one of my friends.

Really, I did not rally support at all.

~B~

-Entrants (if they have a blog) will be DQ'd if they make a "Vote for me" entry in their blog. They can link to the poll all they want to, but if they tell others to vote for them, it'll be a insta-DQ.

((Primus)):

You talked a serious game of semantics in our PM discussion regarding your specific word choice for The Challenge and whether an axle with a stop bush was the same as a pin with a stop bush because of their official LEGO names. You said if you didn't specifically say something then it was not what you were referring to.

Now the rules here in this polling say nothing about PMs. You added the specific caveat "(if they have a blog)" to this rule and thus since I don't have a Blog it does not apply to me because previously you had said that you had not specifically used certain words in the PMs you sent me regarding the other rules.

Remember, you added that caveat, not me. So it's highly unfair for me to be punished for your lack of clear rules. If you had said no PMs, mentioned no advertising, or had not mentioned that you were specifically talking to bloggers, then I would never have sent out reminders.

Also, at no point does it say that you can't advertise anywhere in your rules, so technically your semantics are disqualifying me for a rule that doesn't exist. Honestly, you don't even use a single derivative of the word advertise.

Again, this is highly unfair since it's not even in the rules you outlined and thus I request that you reconsider in the interest of upholding your integrity.

~ Åusår

-Entrants (if they have a blog) will be DQ'd if they make a "Vote for me" entry in their blog. They can link to the poll all they want to, but if they tell others to vote for them, it'll be a insta-DQ.

 

((Primus)):

 

You talked a serious game of semantics in our PM discussion regarding your specific word choice for The Challenge and whether an axle with a stop bush was the same as a pin with a stop bush because of their official LEGO names. You said if you didn't specifically say something then it was not what you were referring to.

 

Now the rules here in this polling say nothing about PMs. You added the specific caveat "(if they have a blog)" to this rule and thus since I don't have a Blog it does not apply to me because previously you had said that you had not specifically used certain words in the PMs you sent me regarding the other rules.

 

Remember, you added that caveat, not me. So it's highly unfair for me to be punished for your lack of clear rules. If you had said no PMs, mentioned no advertising, or had not mentioned that you were specifically talking to bloggers, then I would never have sent out reminders.

 

Also, at no point does it say that you can't advertise anywhere in your rules, so technically your semantics are disqualifying me for a rule that doesn't exist. Honestly, you don't even use a single derivative of the word advertise.

 

Again, this is highly unfair since it's not even in the rules you outlined and thus I request that you reconsider in the interest of upholding your integrity.

 

~ Åusår

*** Epic Story Topic ***

They can link to the poll all they want to, but if they tell others to vote for them, it'll be a insta-DQ.

I dunno. Seems pretty clear to me.

-Neku-

numbers 6 and 4

I think the proof that PMing people for votes is a bad idea is that we still have people coming in and blindly voting for #4, even though to do so, they'd normally have to know what #4 is and see it's already been DQ'ed.

Essentially, we just have people getting PMs,

coming into the topic,

not looking,

then voting for who they were asked to vote for.

So yeah, what's the point of a competition when people aren't actually looking at the entries?

-Entrants (if they have a blog) will be DQ'd if they make a "Vote for me" entry in their blog. They can link to the poll all they want to, but if they tell others to vote for them, it'll be a insta-DQ.

 

((Primus)):

 

You talked a serious game of semantics in our PM discussion regarding your specific word choice for The Challenge and whether an axle with a stop bush was the same as a pin with a stop bush because of their official LEGO names. You said if you didn't specifically say something then it was not what you were referring to.

 

Now the rules here in this polling say nothing about PMs. You added the specific caveat "(if they have a blog)" to this rule and thus since I don't have a Blog it does not apply to me because previously you had said that you had not specifically used certain words in the PMs you sent me regarding the other rules.

 

Remember, you added that caveat, not me. So it's highly unfair for me to be punished for your lack of clear rules. If you had said no PMs, mentioned no advertising, or had not mentioned that you were specifically talking to bloggers, then I would never have sent out reminders.

 

Also, at no point does it say that you can't advertise anywhere in your rules, so technically your semantics are disqualifying me for a rule that doesn't exist. Honestly, you don't even use a single derivative of the word advertise.

 

Again, this is highly unfair since it's not even in the rules you outlined and thus I request that you reconsider in the interest of upholding your integrity.

 

~ Åusår

*** Epic Story Topic ***

You snooze, you lose.

Oh, and if the PM is not enough proof, go check his topic. His last post tells people to vote for him.

Primus, the rule against the advertising reffers to a blog, not PMing.

"-Entrants (if they have a blog) will be DQ'd if they make a "Vote for me" entry in their blog. They can link to the poll all they want to, but if they tell others to vote for them, it'll be a insta-DQ."

that says if it's blog advertisement its a DQ, DQing someone because the rules were unclear, not specified, or your interpretation of legible writing is off, is completely unfair and ridiculous.

Primus, the rule against the advertising reffers to a blog, not PMing.

 

"-Entrants (if they have a blog) will be DQ'd if they make a "Vote for me" entry in their blog. They can link to the poll all they want to, but if they tell others to vote for them, it'll be a insta-DQ."

 

that says if it's blog advertisement its a DQ, DQing someone because the rules were unclear, not specified, or your interpretation of legible writing is off, is completely unfair and ridiculous.

This says if they tell others, period, it'll be DQ'd. Besides for some reason this was a popularity contest from the start. Now a skilled moc will win.

You're being too lenient here, Ferrius.

Common sense tells one that adding in not to advertise your moc in your blog is there because such a thing REALLY mucks contests up, which this most certainly has.

Even to put in the rules that you can't advertise ANYWHERE would be pointless, as there's an infinite number of ways to do so without attaching your own name to it, like having friends or family do it. You can only lead someone by the hand so much, y'know?

To me, it seems the rules are saying, "HEY! Don't go unfairly retarding the true results by spamming something self-servingly crazy, rude and arrogant."

I mean look, he's still DQed and there's still people just popping in, voting #4 and leaving.

You're being too lenient here, Ferrius.

Common sense tells one that adding in not to advertise your moc in your blog is there because such a thing REALLY mucks contests up, which this most certainly has.

 

Even to put in the rules that you can't advertise ANYWHERE would be pointless, as there's an infinite number of ways to do so without attaching your own name to it, like having friends or family do it. You can only lead someone by the hand so much, y'know?

 

To me, it seems the rules are saying, "HEY! Don't go unfairly retarding the true results by spamming something self-servingly crazy, rude and arrogant."

 

I mean look, he's still DQed and there's still people just popping in, voting #4 and leaving.

And, he said: "Entries must follow all BBC rules"

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to mass PM people for BBC contests.

You're being too lenient here, Ferrius.

Common sense tells one that adding in not to advertise your moc in your blog is there because such a thing REALLY mucks contests up, which this most certainly has.

 

Even to put in the rules that you can't advertise ANYWHERE would be pointless, as there's an infinite number of ways to do so without attaching your own name to it, like having friends or family do it. You can only lead someone by the hand so much, y'know?

 

To me, it seems the rules are saying, "HEY! Don't go unfairly retarding the true results by spamming something self-servingly crazy, rude and arrogant."

 

I mean look, he's still DQed and there's still people just popping in, voting #4 and leaving.

 

And, he said: "Entries must follow all BBC rules"

 

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to mass PM people for BBC contests.

I'm a maybe on it isn't because I know Ballom and Ausar have done this already and they weren't banned from them as I remember. It may have been added without my knowledge or they got away with it though. =\

That'd certainly explain why some BZ contests go as they do.

Ugh.

No.

Anyway, some quotes from the Book of Primus in the entry topic...

Right off the bat:

How to submit your entry: I would like to keep this contest as "popularity voting" free, so the entries need to be PM'd to me before you make a topic for the entry (if you so choose).

 

...

 

Some more Rules:

 

-Entries must follow all BBC rules

And here are those rules:

9) The contest is open to the eighteen invitees, but voting is open to all BZP members and all Brickfair attendees to participate in. "Advertising" your MOC is fine by making a signature or avatar reminding people to vote for you, but mass-PMing is frowned upon. So is advertising your MOC in someone else's thread. Spamming may result in proto loss or even post-count reductions... so don't do it.

So here, you have a contest really shooting for anonymity of the entrants, while the BBC contest rules are already frowning upon mass PMs. Common sense / caring about getting "real" votes should fill in the rest.

Should.

Should.

Won't people still see the MOCs on Brickshelf and know whose they are?

 

-K-

 

Yeah, but I can't prevent that.

Concerning people's mocing "styles":

That's true Kaji. I'll keep the polling as anonymous as possible, but there's really nothing I can do as far as the entries.

Clearly a man who loves contest-destroying spam PMs.

Poll 1: 1 and 3.

Poll 2: 8 and 9.

so something being frowned upon means its against the rules? it just means the member is a bit prideful!

the rules were not clearly stated, so while auser should still be DQed you at least owe him an apology for not stating the rule clearly.

...okay, I'm sorry he cheated.

Just a note: that 'frowned upon' bit is actually a bit of mild implication. If I ever got proof of mass-PMing with relation to a BBC contest (because that's how it works: if I don't hear a word about it, how can I do anything about it?), I'd likely disqualify whoever was doing it. Maybe bar them from the next contest. I dunno. We'll see if/when it happens. But I wouldn't just let them walk after a stern glare and lecture.

wow thats so funny i forgot to insult you back...

you SHOULD be sorry that primus didn't specify the rule and punished Auser for his own incompetence... way to go guys.

-Entrants (if they have a blog) will be DQ'd if they make a "Vote for me" entry in their blog. They can link to the poll all they want to, but if they tell others to vote for them, it'll be a insta-DQ.

I come from a family of lawyers and so you're not going to win an argument on this with me.

Since the contest isn't legally binding it's no big deal, but after consulting several knowledgeable sources, legally the caveat that ((Primus)) posted "(if they have a blog)" carries for the entire bulleted section of text and thus I didn't break any rules.

Ask a lawyer yourself if you don't believe me.

~ Åusår

• P.S. I'm sorry that ((Primus)) poorly worded his rules and that I suffer for his incompetence.

First of all, I didn't insult you. There is definately a difference between a snappy reply and an insult. And why should I be sorry for Primus not specifically stating something that was incredibly obvious to start with? This seems silly to me. He's DQ'ed and Primus has no obligation to apologize.

EDIT: You're not suffering for his incompetence, you are suffering for your own inability to understand directions. Besides, numbers 8 and 6 have you beat anyway, if not in votes, in skill.

Oh, and also, you may want to watch yourselves. Just because they're blog comments doesn't mean we can't (or won't) slap you with an infraction for flaming each other to bits. Civility from this post forward would be a really good idea. Consider this your warning, all of you.