UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

Here is a link to the long discussion on this deck and there are a number of great photos throughout the pages as well as a wealth of information on the deck and it's creation, which was not without some controversy. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12129&hilit=damask&start=420

Here is a not so great photo of the court cards I took. There are some better shots, but this is one of each of all the courts together.

Eric Lee wrote:I have already PM'ed Amy on this, but thought to bring it up here to discuss listing the actual innovation reason for the Best Innovation award.

That should ensure people vote for the right reason: Innovation and not their fave deck/designer. Brief 1 sentence summary of the innovation itself to go with the deck name should be sufficient. Otherwise, people joining in from TGW's channel and other places may think that HotRS also deserves the Innovation award as well!

Awesome suggestion Eric! I just updated the thread to include a brief description under every nominated deck in that category to denote exactly what aspect of the deck was specifically being nom'd for its innovation - just in case the pics were not clear enough and to ensure people are considering & voting based on that particular innovation rather than based on other, irrelevant factors that don't necessarily pertain to that category.

Thanks again for the suggestion!

Bradius wrote:Here is a link to the long discussion on this deck and there are a number of great photos throughout the pages as well as a wealth of information on the deck and it's creation, which was not without some controversy. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12129&hilit=damask&start=420

Just saw some pics of it, cant w8 for gentleman wake review. And I wonder why is this deck not included in the nominations for Best cards backs as well as for Best Deck overall

The simple reason why Damask didn't get nominations from me: Best Back - I think there are some others with better designed and creative backs. It did not get a nomination for best deck from me because I don't think it has innovative courts. The courts are essentially Lotrek's standard courts with a few extra additions and adding of an extra foil. While it is definitely a great deck of cards, and not a disappointment to me, I think Arabesque was a more innovative design from Lotrek's workshop in 2018.

In all fairness though, I do have a Red Damask deck open on my display table in my office. So while it didn't get a nomination from me for these to categories, I sure as heck am showing it off proudly!

However, you are welcome to nominate it for those two categories by sending a private message to PipChick.

Houston, we may have a little bit of a problem...



Okay, just to warn y'all, this is going to be a bit of a long post... sorry in advance.

Now, I probably should have clarified this before, but since it hadn't come up as being a potential issue, I didn't and I apologize because I think it's worth mentioning as it relates to deck eligibility for the DOTYs.

Anyways, this entire time I've been considering a deck as 'released' and therefore eligible for the DOTYs not only based on its availability to order, but rather more specifically, based on the criteria that those specific deck orders have been filled and the deck has actually been making it into the hands of the general public - basically, if a deck has been physically received by any one person, than it's considered 'released'. The reason for making this very, seemingly trivial, but clear distinction is for 2 reasons:

1. because, as we've seen before, sometimes a deck is 'released' and available for order, but orders don't actually get filled for a period of time (or, in even rarer cases, may never get filled) for whatever reasons - the most recent example I could think of would be Daniel Madison's Trawlers (or pretty much anything 'released' by DM as he seems to have a pretty terrible reputation in regards to managing orders and such... ) in which he allows pre-orders but takes FOREVER to actually get them out to people and often does so in what seems like small batches with many, many people still not having received theirs. But as I said, if even one deck is out there in the wild in someone's hands, I still consider it 'released' regardless of whatever issues may be holding up the majority of the other orders.
2. because you can't really judge a deck based on the different criteria of each category only on the ad pics - because, as we've also seen before, sometimes changes are made that greatly affect the look/feel of the deck that could hinder one's judgement on whether or not that deck should be awarded whatever title it's being considered for.

With that said, this distinction really only affects the eligibility of decks for the DOTYs when they are 'released' at the very end of the year in which case orders may not be fulfilled until early of next year, therefore disqualifying them from eligibility of that year's DOTYs.

This year, we had the issue brought up in regards to the eligibility of Virtuoso FW17 which had been nominated for the category 'Best Deck for Cardistry & Flourishing) and I already discussed here. Initially, I was in favor of allowing it to stay despite the deck's name that suggests otherwise, but things have come to light that make me question whether it really should...

To break it down; even though Virtuoso FW17 was available for order late in 2017 (Dec. 20th exactly - which resulted in so much interest that the sheer number of people trying to order all at once actually caused the site to crash and required that the release be postpone while they fixed the technical issues - which then resulted in a later relaunch of it's release on Dec. 26th), from my scouring of the deep depths of the internet, it seems orders weren't technically filled and the deck wasn't physically in people's hands until very early of 2018 which means that it never should've even been considered for 2017's DOTYs at all because it technically wasn't "released" then. Sure, people could order it, but if those orders were not actually getting out to people than I don't think it should have ever been considered "released" and therefore eligible to qualify. Nevertheless, it was and this is where are problem lies.

Looking back through the DOTY Award results of last year from Allan's awesome 'Hall of Fame' thread here, it seems this deck was not only considered eligible, it actually won first place in the 'Best Deck for Flourishing' category - which is kinda ironic because in 2017, no one had yet even had the opportunity to actually handle this deck and it was only in 2018 that they did... That's not to say that those votes were or should've been invalid because technically the contest did conclude a few months into 2018, at which point orders had been fulfilled and people were able to make a fair judgment.

However, I feel it still was a bit of an oversight and it begs the question; should the Virtuoso FW17 still be considered for eligibility in this year's DOTYs??

Right now, it's a bit of a difficult conundrum as it not only qualified for 2017 when I don't believe it really should have, but also that it won... So, I'm still unsure if we should keep it in for this year. On one hand, our oversight from last year shouldn't disqualify a deck that should be considered for this year, but on the other, is it really fair considering it already won an award in that category which it should never have qualified for recognition to begin with... If it remained in this year's line-up for nominations, we risk the hypothetical chance that the same deck may win in the same category 2 years in a row which totally defeats the purpose of holding annual awards if we allowed such a deck to possibly win twice

For this reason, I'm in favor of removing it from the list of nominations and revoking it's eligibility based on a technicality.

If there's anyway to confirm that even just one person received their order before Jan. 1st, 2018, than that would definitively disqualify it and the case would be closed - but unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find such evidence and believe me, I've tried searching high and low just to put this controversy to rest... ugh

Anyways, let me know what'cha y'all think - should it stay or should it go?

In my opinion: If it was considered eligible one year, regardless of the legitimacy of that eligibility, that same deck should NOT be considered eligible in the following (or any other) year.

If it was considered eligible and voted on; then that was its year. If it wasn't technically eligible, oh well, oversights/mistakes will always happen, it still shouldn't be considered eligible for more than one year/DOTY contest.

MagikFingerz wrote:In my opinion: If it was considered eligible one year, regardless of the legitimacy of that eligibility, that same deck should NOT be considered eligible in the following (or any other) year.

If it was considered eligible and voted on; then that was its year. If it wasn't technically eligible, oh well, oversights/mistakes will always happen, it still shouldn't be considered eligible for more than one year/DOTY contest.

yep, that's sorta where my feelings are at too - thanks for the input; I'mma remove it from the nominations list. Apologies to those that nom'd it but due to the conundrum that has come to light, the Virtuoso 'Virts' FW17 has now been officially deemed 'ineligible' for 2018's DOTY Awards and any votes submitted for that deck will not be tabulated.

As already stated in the rules of participation on the official DOTYs thread that can be found here:

"If your vote(s) contain any ineligible deck(s), you will be immediately informed and allowed to submit a new vote."

Carry on

Go.

I consider the deck released in 2017 because that's when it was up for sale (it wasn't a kickstarter project). Most people may have received it in the beginning of January but the deck was already produced in 2017 and surely there were people with their hands on the final product in 2017. Voting was done after people received and tried the deck and, I'm sure, people voted consciously and not as "fan boys".

I also share Neo's opinion:

If it was considered eligible one year, regardless of the legitimacy of that eligibility, that same deck should NOT be considered eligible in the following (or any other) year.

Just one more thing:
I was checking and I've ordered the 2017 virts on the 21st December 2017 from jpgamesltd.co.uk (I had just placed one order for some decks when I saw the 2017 deck and wrote an email to Paul to add it to the order) . I can't say for sure but it seems I've received the order on the 28th or 29th December.

Smocito wrote:Go.

I consider the deck released in 2017 because that's when it was up for sale (it wasn't a kickstarter project). Most people may have received it in the beginning of January but the deck was already produced in 2017 and surely there were people with their hands on the final product in 2017.

The problem we have with considering a deck's eligibility based on when it was printed results in the same 'in-between-the-years' conundrum; There are many decks that have already been printed at the very end of 2018 but are still in the process of assembly and won't be ready for fulfillment until well into 2019 - and that's IF everything goes as it's supposed to. In some cases, a deck may be printed and all ready to go out for delivery, but the creator then fails to uphold some contractual agreement and the decks may not make it to backers/buyers as it sits in a sort of fulfillment limbo. That's why I've decided to only consider the deck 'released' when it's finally actually 'out there in the wild' so to speak in the hands of the general public and not just those of the printer or fulfillment warehouse as it waits to be delivered.

Smocito wrote:Voting was done after people received and tried the deck and, I'm sure, people voted consciously and not as "fan boys".

oh, I have no doubt about that; as I said before in my post above: "That's not to say that those votes were or should've been invalid because technically the contest did conclude a few months into 2018, at which point orders had been fulfilled and people were able to make a fair judgment."

Anyways, I agree with both of you and the deck has already been removed from the nominations list - it is now officially 'ineligible' for 2018's DOTYs and any votes submitted for that deck will not be tabulated. Thanks again for y'all's input; I just wanted to keep everyone in the loop about these sorta decisions and be clear about the reasoning why it was initially accepted as a nomination and why it no longer qualifies for consideration.

PipChick wrote:

Smocito wrote: it is not officially 'ineligible' for 2018's DOTYs and any votes submitted for that deck will not be tabulated.

Think you meant 'is is NOW officially 'ineligible'...

TheGentlemanWake wrote:

PipChick wrote:

Smocito wrote: it is not officially 'ineligible' for 2018's DOTYs and any votes submitted for that deck will not be tabulated.

Think you meant 'is is NOW officially 'ineligible'...

yes! lol - my bad!

So, NOW, it's official! lol

Hey y'all,

I added some of logos to one of the graphics we got from my friend with the intention to promote among social media (IG, fb, reddit, etc.) to give a shout out and thanks to all of our very generous designers/producers that have donated to our DOTYs' prize giveaway
However, I also know that a majority of the prizes are also being donated privately from our super awesome members of our very own UC fam and I'd like to give them a shout out too

So, if you have an IG of FB account that you'd like to be tagged in so we can give you recognition, please let me know - I'd like to have this posted by tomorrow at the latest. And if you don't want to be tagged, that's fine too, but still just let me know. We're all really thankful for the donations regardless and I just want to use this promotion as a way to show our immense appreciation not only for your contributions to the DOTYs but to the UC community as a whole

Annnnd, if there's anyone else out there - either you or someone you know - that would like to show their support of the UC community by contributing to the DOTY Awards, be sure to take a look here at our *OFFICIAL* 'Deck of the Year' Awards thread to learn more on how you can! Remember, donations can be made by anyone, be of any size or value, and be anything relating to playing cards, cardistry and/or magic. Donations are still being accepted and will continue to be so all throughout voting and up until prior to announcement and presentation of the Awards on March 1st, 2019 to all designers/producers in recognition of their amazing work. To make a donation, simply declare it in our 'Prize Donations' thread here. Any and all donations are very much appreciated and we all thank you for helping to make United Cardists the amazing community that it is.

You can also show your support by using your own social media to help promote the DOTYs by spreading the word and letting others that might be interested know how they too can participate

Thanks!

Amy, do you remember The One Million Dollar homepage? http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com It was just $1 per pixel for everyone, not just for designers. Their slogan was - "Own a piece of internet history"

UC has always been more of a community & I don't feel I am liking that only the logos of designers/producers are being shown if we take into account the majority of prizes are being donated by private collections of UC members. Case in point, look at the brick being donated by Sinjin7. Understand that we have limited space on the banner but this is a problem to solve.

On a separate note, everyone likes free decks. I get almost 1 or 2 messages per week (Messages increase when I post KS fulfillment update) on IG for sponsorship or free decks request. I'm sure others here will be getting more of such if not less. This promotion may increase registrations looking to try their luck in getting free decks, nothing more. I do not have any solution for this nor I know if it is a problem worth solving. Just my 2 cents.

@PipChick - You have done an awesome job on DoTY & the above is in no way questioning any of the ways you're looking to proceed ahead. Similar to @ShermJack, I do have a small gift for you in appreciation of the way you spearheaded DoTY as well as the other online Playing Cards deck spreadsheet. It will reach you at the right time

I used to regularly check the thread of latest decks @PrincessTrouble used to maintain at PCF, and after she hung her boots, only then I realized the value of the work she was doing. I learned and not going to repeat the same mistake here. You have done a great job here, and you need to be appreciated

montenzi wrote:Amy, do you remember The One Million Dollar homepage? http://www.milliondollarhomepage.com It was just $1 per pixel for everyone, not just for designers. Their slogan was - "Own a piece of internet history"

YES! and if we all just chip in one deck, than we'll all win... at least one deck... lmao

btw montenzi, if we reach our 200 voter goal, do you think you'll donate a deck to our prize giveaway...?? hmmm...??

guru wrote:UC has always been more of a community & I don't feel I am liking that only the logos of designers/producers are being shown if we take into account the majority of prizes are being donated by private collections of UC members. Case in point, look at the brick being donated by Sinjin7. Understand that we have limited space on the banner but this is a problem to solve.

Yea, I totally understand what you mean. But I'm not sure how else to recognize those awesome contributions other than by tagging them under the UC logo at the very top to signify private donations from regular community members... The problem is, I don't know everyone's IG/FB to tag nor if they even want to be tagged - that was sorta the main reasoning for my post above - I know it's not a perfect solution, but I feel that we also gotta somehow promote those designers/producers that are donating because otherwise, what's the incentive for them or others to do so? I mean, besides just being awesome and wanting to

guru wrote:On a separate note, everyone likes free decks. I get almost 1 or 2 messages per week (Messages increase when I post KS fulfillment update) on IG for sponsorship or free decks request. I'm sure others here will be getting more of such if not less. This promotion may increase registrations looking to try their luck in getting free decks, nothing more. I do not have any solution for this nor I know if it is a problem worth solving. Just my 2 cents.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love me some free decks and even though I probably wouldn't lower myself to begging for 'em shamelessly by constantly badgering designers/producers through social media as I definitely see others do, I'm hoping that promotion with the use of sponsors' logos along with shout outs to their social medias, instead shows other potential sponsors that we're not just out here tryin' to cop a few freebies but that we're really trying to legitimize the DOTYs as something more than just a giveaway opportunity for people, but rather in a greater sense, as a way for the card community to come together as a whole - no matter where their specific interests in playing cards may lie nor where they are in the world - to have the opportunity to voice their opinions in regards to which decks & designers have really stood out this year and show recognition for their exceptional work.

Sure, there's always gunna be some people that'll just cast nonsense votes without any thought or consideration just so they can potentially get something for free, but I'm hoping that we're also able to appeal to others that find these Awards - and to a further extent, the UC community - something of value that they'd want to be a part of regardless. I'd like to think that a few of the new members that may have initially only joined for the DOTYs are finding our community to be enjoyable and a place they may want to come around to more often as they actually begin to engage with others. Maybe that's just wishful thinking, but if we can foster that sorta positive and active environment, I don't see why not And for designers/producers, how awesome is it to have a place that offers not only a platform to promote your own projects and direct contact with your consumer base, but also a community that can & does provide open and honest feedback and input with the wholehearted intention of improving not only your own specific products, but the industry as a whole. It's sorta like a close partnership and that's what the inclusion of the logos on the promotional graphic was intended to represent Maybe I'm still just too starry-eyed naive and unrealistically optimistic in that regard, but I'm not above trying to see what works and what doesn't - I mean, there's no harm in trying, right?

guru wrote:@PipChick - You have done an awesome job on DoTY & the above is in no way questioning any of the ways you're looking to proceed ahead. Similar to @ShermJack, I do have a small gift for you in appreciation of the way you spearheaded DoTY as well as the other online Playing Cards deck spreadsheet. It will reach you at the right time

I used to regularly check the thread of latest decks @PrincessTrouble used to maintain at PCF, and after she hung her boots, only then I realized the value of the work she was doing. I learned and not going to repeat the same mistake here. You have done a great job here, and you need to be appreciated

That's so incredibly sweet of you and I'm really glad to hear. The thing is, I really do enjoy this hobby quite a bit, but with the pathetic state of my financial situation, I often am not able to show my own support of the designers/producers I most admire all of the time by backing their projects despite how much I'd really, really love to. So that often leaves me cheering on from the sidelines lol. So, what I can't contribute to in cold hard cash, I try to with time and effort as a way to give back so to speak and hope that it in some small sense helps the community as a whole. I know it's not a lot, but even if one person sees it's value than that's satisfying to know that it's effort worthwhile doing. So thanks, it really means a lot

I would like to avoid recognition since it's likely that every deck will be destroyed in-transit.

TwoPiece wrote:I would like to avoid recognition since it's likely that every deck will be destroyed in-transit.

In that case, we must encourage the one who got your prize to post pics of the final state of destruction when it finally reaches them! (it's like watching a car wreck. Can't take your eyes away.) On a side note, I finally noticed that two of the fingers in your avatar actually point downwards!

PipChick wrote:Yea, I totally understand what you mean. But I'm not sure how else to recognize those awesome contributions other than by tagging them under the UC logo at the very top to signify private donations from regular community members... The problem is, I don't know everyone's IG/FB to tag nor if they even want to be tagged - that was sorta the main reasoning for my post above - I know it's not a perfect solution, but I feel that we also gotta somehow promote those designers/producers that are donating because otherwise, what's the incentive for them or others to do so? I mean, besides just being awesome and wanting to

I can see why Sunish comments on this. Perhaps make a separate graphic with "UC DOTY contributors"? That way they don't get promoted on the "official" DOTY graphic and thus it seems less like favouritism?

MagikFingerz wrote:I can see why Sunish comments on this. Perhaps make a separate graphic with "UC DOTY contributors"? That way they don't get promoted on the "official" DOTY graphic and thus it seems less like favouritism?

Well, the "official" graphic is going to stay as is on the official thread and it's already been shared on FB, IG & reddit - a few times over in some cases - but really only from my own personal accounts (which I have my own uneasy feelings about but whatevs; that's a whole 'nother issue in and of itself... ). I sorta pieced this one together myself since I really don't wanna take advantage of my friend's generosity by asking her to give more of her time and talent to something she's totally unaffiliated with and is obviously not getting paid for - the first time was a favor she did for me on her own accord and I don't really feel comfortable requesting more from her - understandable, no? But if you, or anyone else, knows of someone that would be willing to do something like creating a new "UC DOTY contributors" graphic, that'd be awesome because I definitely agree that'd it'd be cool to have.

But since the Awards start in roughly 10 days from now - which really doesn't leave a whole lot of time if we wanna try and get more sponsors for the DOTYs - this was what I was able to come up with on my own. With that said, understand that I absolutely have no graphic design skills whatsoever and just wanted to use one of the graphics we've already been given to "create" something that recognized our contributors. And, as I wrote in the first post, I'd like to give those other, private members shout outs too but I don't know the accounts they use to which I could tag them in, nor whether or not they actually want to be tagged/recognized outside of UC... The only member of that particular group that this actually affects is 2pc and although he's weighed in on the matter, I know that his opinion alone does not reflect all the others... That's also why I wanted to share this graphic here and ask before just posting away on social media. So, if those others that are donating would appreciate to be tagged (which I'd love to do because y'all are awesome and the world needs to know it ), then I was planning to do so under the UC spade logo at the top of the image.

Again, I know there's not really an official symbol or emblem or logo tied to United Cardists and it's brand (or at least one that I'm aware of), but I thought the idea behind including the spade with 'UC' was to sorta represent an informal logo in which people can easily identify and associate with the 'United Cardists' community as a whole. That's also the main rational I had for arranging the images as I had in specifically keeping those designer/producer logos below that UC spade logo because first and foremost at the top, those members of the community should be held in the highest regard. As for the arrangement of all the other logos, I honestly just put them in alternating order of 'blacks' and 'whites' - please don't read too much into thinking that they've been put in any sorta order of "favoritism" or anything of the likes because each are exactly the same size and were just placed on either side to frame the main image... nothing more than that, I can guarantee lol

Anyways, as of now, this image has only been posted here to gauge feelings about it, but it seems that there are more that are finding issues with it than not so perhaps it shouldn't be posted at all. I just thought since we do have designers/producers donating to our prize giveaway - pretty amazing prizes and doing so willingly - this would be a small gesture from the community to give their companies visibility in one graphic that might appeal to other designers/producers looking for similar exposure and encourage them to want to become sponsors as well, or at the very least, come check out UC for themselves knowing that we show support of the industry and the work that they do in feeding all of our passions in this crazy, weird hobby lol

oh wells; if this graphic is so opposed, would y'all rather then just prefer that we re-use again the same "official" graphic and just simply tag the sponsors without the inclusion of their logos? would that suffice enough for everyone?

Let me know - thanks!

PipChick wrote: YES! and if we all just chip in one deck, than we'll all win... at least one deck... lmao
btw montenzi, if we reach our 200 voter goal, do you think you'll donate a deck to our prize giveaway...?? hmmm...??

We have a deal!

But not 200. Just 88 votes and I'll print a green Neo:WAVE deck at MPC (green background vs. blue) with the original back (green waves). For you and for two other voters. Each of you will get two decks. Custom text "made for ..." on any card. Only 7 will be made (one for me ) OR I can send Red Tiki and Black or White Tiki (if unlocked).

montenzi wrote:

PipChick wrote: YES! and if we all just chip in one deck, than we'll all win... at least one deck... lmao
btw montenzi, if we reach our 200 voter goal, do you think you'll donate a deck to our prize giveaway...?? hmmm...??

We have a deal!

But not 200. Just 88 votes and I'll print a green Neo:WAVE deck at MPC (green background vs. blue) with the original back (green waves). For you and for two other voters. Each of you will get two decks. Custom text "made for ..." on any card. Only 7 will be made (one for me ) OR I can send Red Tiki and Black or White Tiki (if unlocked).

OKAY PEOPLE! YOU HEARD THE MAN! 88!! that's all we need to get Montenzi on board We can do that can't we?!? (although, lets still try to reach higher if we could )

So Remember: VOTING IS OPEN ON JANUARY 20th AND ALL YOU WEIRDOS OUT THERE BETTER ACTUALLY VOTE THIS YEAR!

Where do we vote on Jan 20?

KT52 wrote:Where do we vote on Jan 20?

great question!

Votes will be accepted directly through private message (PM) to either myself, 'PipChick', or to 'DeckAwards'. You will also be messaged back a confirmation PM in return after your vote(s) have been formally received and accounted for.

To vote, just simply submit a PM with the subject 'DOTY Vote' and write a message containing the name of each deck as well as the category for which you're casting that vote for. You must include the category for each and every vote you cast so we know exactly what award you think each deck should win and please submit all votes within one PM to avoid confusion.

For example, your message should look similar to the following format:

• Best Tuck Case: 'Deck A'
  
  Best Ace: 'Deck B'
  
  Best Joker(s): 'Deck C
  
  etc....'

You can read in more detail about all of the rules of participation here

And, if you're still unsure of which decks to vote for or which for which category, you can also check out some of the awesome nominations submitted by members here

hopes this helps

and if you have any other questions or concerns, please feel free to ask 'em

WAIT! Hold up! Was the original Vertex deck project fulfilled at the end of 2017 or beginning of 2018? If it is the latter, then they have to be nominated for the Best innovation of the year!

My understanding was the first Vertex was issued in 2017. I searched passed discussions and saw there was consideration of the Vertex as best technical innovation for 2017.

In a different view in innovation, I am considering Jackson Robinson for the whole Shorts subscription concept and execution.

Bradius wrote:My understanding was the first Vertex was issued in 2017. I searched passed discussions and saw there was consideration of the Vertex as best technical innovation for 2017.

In a different view in innovation, I am considering Jackson Robinson for the whole Shorts subscription concept and execution.

+1

Hey y'all,

Sooooo, this week is the last week before voting opens and so I've been a bit busy on the 'gram posting everyday about the DOTYs. I'm using some graphics to recognize the nominated decks and in doing so, am tagging the designers/producers that have been honored in just the nomination alone. I know many don't visit as often as others and I thought this would be a way to not only promote UC and the DOTYs, but also directly reach them and let them know what's up and maybe give them the encouragement to visit our little community more often

Anyways, a few have been awesome enough to feature us in their IG stories and even on their their own feed to encourage their own fans to visit UC and participate - how awesome is that!

check it out:

THANKS montenzi! Other than the awesome shoutouts from our Gentleman Wake, he was the very first to help share the promotion of our DOTYs on his IG stories - you're the best!
Then came some from Sam Hayles and his associated accounts
And from Destino
PLUS, a feature on Marcelo Simonetti's IG. Take a look Tom - you're famous! lol
Anyways, I'mma still be posting everyday on IG until the day voting opens - which again remember, VOTING OPENS ON JAN. 20th!! So, mark your calendar and be ready with your votes!

OMG, this is it! My time in the spotlight has finally arrived!

Guys, please don't ask me for money or stuff when I get rich and famous, ok?

MagikFingerz wrote: ...Guys, please don't ask me for money or stuff when I get rich and famous, ok?

Request denied.