Comments on: Special Notice: Celebrate QuarkXPress Contest Winner

by: dm

Fri, 17 Jun 2005 21:00:33 +0000

p.s. I don’t mean to sound harsh, just trying to be fair.

by: dm

Fri, 17 Jun 2005 20:58:30 +0000

I totally agree with Jason above. Whether the design is good or not, the rule should stand and the 1st runner up should get the prize and donate to as a charitable contribution too. Many others who could have won this contest did NOT submit because of the rule and it would only be fair if they are allowed to enter the contest as well (redo the Quark part or cancel it).
Quoting Jason: “let an honest mistake suffer honest consequences”

and quoting Samuel:
“(Disclosure: I was involved in no way whatsoever with contest judging, nor did Pariah solicit any commentary in any form from me on the entries. When the winners were announced, I found out along with everyone else).”

by: Samuel John Klein

Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:58:54 +0000

The QuarkMan was by far my personal favorite of the Quark entries. It seemed to jump from the pages of the ’50’s pulps. The little “X” Press-wing fighters providing cover were a stroke of genius.

(Disclosure: I was involved in no way whatsoever with contest judging, nor did Pariah solicit any commentary in any form from me on the entries. When the winners were announced, I found out along with everyone else).

by: Jason Rooney

Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:41:56 +0000

I think it is a very fair solution to the problem. If he was the best he was the best and deserves the win. For him to donate the prizes just shows how unselfish Matt is and how willing he is to be fair. After hearing there were only 3 Quark entries I wished I submitted. The InDesign stuff was far superior to the Quark excpet for the Robot guy.

by: Jason Tolis

Sun, 05 Jun 2005 23:59:26 +0000

I’ve got to share a real lack of respect for this decision of yours Pariah. The issue isn’t whether or not Matt “knew” he was a disqualified applicant before you judged his work. I believe you as a courtesy, as I obviously don’t know you, but clealry there is a real error in judgement to allow Matt’s win to stand. You’ve stated that the rule only exists (I’m paraphrasing) “to disallow the potential of bias in judgement”. Well…now, by not holding yourself or Matt accountable to the rules set forth, you’ve seriously created the appearance of “bias” and a complete disregard for your own credibility and the business you represent. To set aside the rule because you can “justify” that action, is still ulimately dishonest…as you know the rule as well, and yet you are simply casting it aside. This rule that is an issue here isn’t one that is open to interpretation as some “laws” are per se, but is simple and black and white….but when you make a decision like this to allow the winner to still maintain their prize after you yourself have judged the matter….well, it’s blaringly obvious that you probably mean well….but in fact are rewriting the rule to accomodate your opinion rather than letting the rule stand and let an honest mistake suffer honest consequences. Now the whole matter is tainted with an apearance of justified dishonesty and your own repuation is open to a black eye. People should honor what’s right regardless of whether they can explain it away or not.

by: Brian

Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:41:04 +0000

Is that the one that was done in InDesign? *eye roll*