For starters: Those who know us and know how we operate our contests would know, by now, that we usually stay silent about overly controversial things during the entry/voting periods unless we need to make distinct intervention. Then, when the contest is over, we conduct an in-depth podcast, speak about the proceedings openly and candidly, and address feedback on how things went down. This contest is no different, and you can expect our full opinions on everything that happened after the art portion concludes. We planned to follow that precedent and discuss it at the end, but since it’s a discussion topic… here we go.
We have a lot to say on this, so this will by no means be the last we speak about it, but for the purpose of a statement: To be completely blunt, Double’s MoC being allowed through was an oversight on our behalf that we did not notice, and was not brought to our attention, until after the voting period had concluded.
That’s really the long and short of it. There’s no great conspiracy, there’s no secret behind the scenes reason, there’s no hidden agenda… it was a mistake, plain and simple. When looking at his entry picture, our eyes gravitated towards other aspects of the design and we didn’t notice the fingers peeking through the shield at the bottom. This might be an unsatisfying answer for some, but it is what it is. We’re not happy about it, trust me, but we’re humans and we made a mistake.
So, you may ask: why not take action against it? Aren’t the rules meant to be enforced? Yes, yes they are. We have no issue disqualifying entries that break the rules, and have done so in the past. We would have mandated this be changed if we had caught it before it won, and if it hadn’t been changed, it would’ve been disqualified. However… it won. People liked it and voted for it on the MoC’s merits. Ultimately, you could say it’s Double’s fault for breaking the rules, but to be honest, the responsibility lies with us for not noticing it. As such, we don’t feel comfortable rescinding the MoC’s rightful victory because of an oversight on our part. That wouldn’t be right, and would just serve as a much larger source of controversy for the majority who supported it.
Does the MoC actually break the rules? Yes… but also, not really. Let me explain. Honestly, @vootcaboot puts it way more succinctly than I can:
This is our stance, in a nutshell. Yes, Double’s MoC violated a rule that we put in place, and as such, had we not made a mistake, it should have been disqualified. However, when considering why we put the rule in place, Double’s MoC doesn’t violate those principles. We didn’t want people incorporating the shields in ways that didn’t suit their intended purpose, and to keep as much parity as possible with the way that Norik and Iruini wield them. We felt like the simplest way to do that would be to restrict people wielding the shields in odd or abstract ways (I saw a lot of people wanting to mount them on shoulders, use them as a surfboard, etc.). As such, while Double’s MoC breaks the rule on a technical level… ultimately, we’re happy with the result and it’s perfectly suitable for the spirit of both the contest and the Toa Hagah.
What about the size comparison? We’ve seen people discuss that too, how Double didn’t provide a proper size comparison between Whenua and Iruini… Once again, spirit of the rule vs. the letter of the rule. We didn’t want people entering weirdly tall Hagah or super short MoCs, so we implemented a rough spectrum of Hagah sizes to ensure an accurate representation. As such, even if he were slightly shorter than Whenua or slightly taller than Iruini… it’s not a problem in our eyes, as it would still be within the general spectrum. However! We do take note of the fact that Double was pretty blatantly messing around and not taking the guidelines seriously, using a height comparison picture between Turaga Whenua and Rahaga Iruini. That hasn’t escaped us, and we’re gonna be discussing that going forward.
You guys need to take responsibility! You have to treat the rules of these contests seriously and uphold an even standard! You’re right, and we are taking responsibility for this; it was our bad, at the end of the day. Ultimately, some of you will probably find this response unsatisfactory, and there really isn’t anything I can do about that. Double’s Bomonga is a good representation of the character and people clearly enjoy it, so we ultimately feel that’s what matters most. However, we do understand the concern. Ultimately, no matter our own feelings on the rules, or how tiny and insignificant the rule violations are, the fact is that Double did violate multiple rules and still ended up allowed through regardless. Whether people agree or disagree with our rules, whether they think they’re justified or stupid, we did spend months deliberating them for a reason. Often times, our rules are designed to serve a greater purpose, and are deliberately very specifically worded to prevent loopholes. As such, we agree that what happened here isn’t the ideal situation. It’s pretty frustrating for us, and we’re going to be taking steps to ensure this doesn’t happen again going forward. My initial idea is to greatly expand our contest operational staff, to have more eyes actively reviewing each entry to make sure rule compliance is in full order.
To anybody who feels… idk, inconvenienced or whatever by this outcome, I’m sorry. In the end, I feel very satisfied by the winners of the contest and I’m happy with our final designs. I look forward to seeing what everybody creates in the art portion, and you can look forward to our more detailed thoughts on the events of this contest in our post-poll discussions and our Nak & Jay episode.