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

montenzi wrote:[quote="Merlebird"I've sent a PM to montenzi to ask for more details about what the "ultra-limited" NEO:WAVE variant might look like. I'm most intrigued by this passing remark:

montenzi wrote:you can pick your own color if you don't like green.

Replied! And yes, I am talking about back designs/box designs mentioned in the first post here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=10913
They are "original" as I changed my mind and printed another back/box for NEO:WAVE. But I can print any variation of available designs (with or wihtout borders) or change color or print two back designs One color per winner but two back designs (with and without borders) are possibe. Hope it helps.

Jelly.

Magicorthodoxy did a great deck review on the 2018 NPCCD decks. I also really like the 2017 NPCCD decks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW1yCsq56z0

TGW has also said he will do a review in the future of the 2018 NPCCD decks.

Dentyne has a set for sale. Also playingcarddecks.com also has some sets for sale as well.

I'll take one of Montenzi's custom deck tiers that he was f̶o̶o̶l̶i̶s̶h̶ generous enough to offer. That'll teach him to underestimate Amy's community organizing skills!

Up next is Risible.

Merlebird wrote:Up next is Risible.

One and only post in January, hasn't been online for close to three weeks. Let's hope that Risible comes to claim a prize and not miss out on getting amazing and free decks.

Räpylätassu wrote:

Merlebird wrote:Up next is Risible.

One and only post in January, hasn't been online for close to three weeks. Let's hope that Risible comes to claim a prize and not miss out on getting amazing and free decks.

This is the exact thing I was trying to avoid but suggesting a minimum post limit or something of the sort for voting. Either way this contest has come a long way this year, largely due to Amy (thank you!), but I still maintain that this issue be brought up again next year.

This process is definitely helping me build patience, lol. It's like I'm a kid going to Disneyland for the first time. I'm in line to get in and Mickey is just inside the gate, holding up a sign with my name on it. Then I realize the park won't open for another 72 hours.
Very excited for my turn to come soon. As a new collector, there are lots of great choices on the list!

vasta41 wrote:

Räpylätassu wrote:

Merlebird wrote:Up next is Risible.

One and only post in January, hasn't been online for close to three weeks. Let's hope that Risible comes to claim a prize and not miss out on getting amazing and free decks.

This is the exact thing I was trying to avoid but suggesting a minimum post limit or something of the sort for voting. Either way this contest has come a long way this year, largely due to Amy (thank you!), but I still maintain that this issue be brought up again next year.

yez

TwoPiece wrote:

vasta41 wrote:

Räpylätassu wrote:

Merlebird wrote:Up next is Risible.

One and only post in January, hasn't been online for close to three weeks. Let's hope that Risible comes to claim a prize and not miss out on getting amazing and free decks.

This is the exact thing I was trying to avoid but suggesting a minimum post limit or something of the sort for voting. Either way this contest has come a long way this year, largely due to Amy (thank you!), but I still maintain that this issue be brought up again next year.

yez

While I agree that it is a pain in the posterior, it is a great way to get new people to try UC. It certainly does not mean that they will remain active, but nothing is perfect. We'll see if we can make some wiggle room around "missing" people, but I don't see any simple way to fix it beyond setting up a max time to respond before you forfeit your prize in this case.

Thoughts?

Mike Ratledge wrote:While I agree that it is a pain in the posterior, it is a great way to get new people to try UC. It certainly does not mean that they will remain active, but nothing is perfect. We'll see if we can make some wiggle room around "missing" people, but I don't see any simple way to fix it beyond setting up a max time to respond before you forfeit your prize in this case.

Thoughts?

I think that the contest definitely attracted more users that have contributed, at least a little bit, than 1-and-done posters.

I'm not really sure how to handle the potential "missing" winners, though. Give them 5 business days to claim a prize before returning it to sender?

With 22 people to make selections, I don't think we can wait so long. I would suggest something like 48 hours. If nothing else, it would put some responsibility on those receiving the prize to stay active and check in a bit. I do understand some will want to check with the giver and clarify some things before making a selection, and that bites into their 48 hour timeline. However, if we don't, it will take forever to get through this.

One sadder option is to assign prizes to numbers and handle it that way (not this year, but something to consider in future years). I don't like that option myself, but just offering it up if the prize selection process drags on too long.

I hope we don't have too many MIA recipients though.

Bradius wrote:I hope we don't have too many MIA recipients though.

As a non-winner, I'm hoping that everyone is MIA so I get a chance of being bumped up into the winners list.

Actually. The official rules in the fine print state that: "All remaining unclaimed prizes go to the last selected prize winner.", which in this case would be TwoPiece! Unless he doesn't claim them, in which case they go to me.

Bradius wrote:Actually. The official rules in the fine print state that: "All remaining unclaimed prizes go to the last selected prize winner.", which in this case would be TwoPiece! Unless he doesn't claim them, in which case they go to me.

Ah, yes.

Bradius wrote:With 22 people to make selections, I don't think we can wait so long. I would suggest something like 48 hours. If nothing else, it would put some responsibility on those receiving the prize to stay active and check in a bit. I do understand some will want to check with the giver and clarify some things before making a selection, and that bites into their 48 hour timeline. However, if we don't, it will take forever to get through this.

I would say that they should be given 72 hours to respond that they're chosing their prize and need to contact the prize giver like what the 1st 2 winners did. If it's their turn over the weekend, some may not check so frequently, like myself. So it gives them Sat to Mon to respond. \

Is there anyway for the mods to contact the winners via email? If so, that will be a better option. But this is something to consider for 2019 DOTY. Perhaps have the voters include 2 other means of communication like their preferred contact beside UC PM such as email, FB, IG, TW.

I usually get an email if I receive a PM, so I believe ~2days waiting period should be enough?
At least the winner should have time to come and say something like "I need some extra time to make the decision"

I'm in for a time frame, I like the Idea of 2 to 3 days.
Of course, if in this time the winner comes around here and says he is clearing the situation with the prize giver, we should give him more time.
That shouldn't take to long either, though.
Also maybe we can make something like if one at least replys to this thread after the set time frame but before we are all done, we can let him the last choice?
I don't know if everyone is ok with that. Maybe for this time, cause there was no set time frame during announcement of the Awards.
For next year we can announce it straight away and have no such choice.

My 2 cents:
48hrs is PLENTY of time and that rule should be implemented next year. People know when New Year's is. People who care about this forum know we've been doing the DOTY awards for years now. There are five (count them, FIVE) stickies about the DOTYs and they're RIDDLED with dates and times. Anyone voting has presumably read the rules and knows when the contest will end so they can plan accordingly. The is no excuse for anyone to not know:
A) when the contest begins
B) when the contest ends
C) when the prizes are drawn
and D) that they have two full days after the previous winner claims a prize to select their own

So really the winners have well over 48 hours to know when to either select a prize OR state some reason why they cannot or need more time. I have no sympathy for people who expect to pop in here once a year to win some free stuff and don't even have the decency to be punctual about it. I'm speaking hypothetically but anyone that takes more than 48 hours to claim free playing cards should forfeit their prize selection. I will be proposing this next year and I will be strongly encouraging all MODs to consider it.

I will take it a step further and say that it's a slap in the face to Amy who has worked her ASS off managing this competition and spending countless hours trying to make people aware of the contest. Her attention to detail is fantastic and anyone who cannot or chooses not to read her clear, well thought out instructions should be ashamed of themselves.

TL;DR Risible's prize selection should be forfeited and the next winner should pick.

vasta41 wrote:I will take it a step further and say that it's a slap in the face to Amy who has worked her ASS off managing this competition and spending countless hours trying to make people aware of the contest. Her attention to detail is fantastic and anyone who cannot or chooses not to read her clear, well thought out instructions should be ashamed of themselves.

Start with the man in the mirror, Paul

Merlebird wrote:

vasta41 wrote:I will take it a step further and say that it's a slap in the face to Amy who has worked her ASS off managing this competition and spending countless hours trying to make people aware of the contest. Her attention to detail is fantastic and anyone who cannot or chooses not to read her clear, well thought out instructions should be ashamed of themselves.

Start with the man in the mirror, Paul

I said "anyone who cannot read her instructions," not her novels, DAD.

I volunteer to receive prize #3.

I'm the 4th on the list, and I vote for Amy to get the 3rd prize

Mike Ratledge wrote: While I agree that it is a pain in the posterior, it is a great way to get new people to try UC. It certainly does not mean that they will remain active, but nothing is perfect. We'll see if we can make some wiggle room around "missing" people, but I don't see any simple way to fix it beyond setting up a max time to respond before you forfeit your prize in this case.

Thoughts?

Perhaps we can add a stickied thread a week before the drawing as a Q&A directed at the prize donors. Then maybe set a 24-hour time limit, which should give plenty of time even considering the different time zones involved. Merlebird and Gonzolo both made their choices within that time frame even with reaching out to the donors for clarification while they were on the clock. Most of the prizes this year are very straight-forward (a list of specific decks or a specific subscription or some other kind of related prize), so the choice should come down to personal preference without the need for clarification. That's why I'm thinking a 24-hour period, coupled with a Q&A ahead of time, will help streamline the process.

yushucc wrote:I'm the 4th on the list, and I vote for Amy to get the 3rd prize

I vote YES!!!

To be honest, I think 24 hours is truly enough... I check the thread almost every other day because I'm not only interested in whether I win a prize or not, but also interested in which decks are the winners (congrats to Lorenzo! I put HOTRS in five or six picks in my vote)

I agree we should invite more people to the forum, but not the ones only care about winning something but not even the decks themselves... Just my two cents

Not everyone has reliable access to the internet or wifi on the weekends, and not everyone can make sure they've got the day off when their number comes up. Seventy-two hours would give enough leeway that if a raffle winner gets pulled up for a sixteen-hour double nursing shift, or has a family emergency, or somebody steals the copper out of their wiring and it'll take a couple days to get the tech out and their internet back up, they won't get the one-two punch of losing their prize, too. As Bacon said, most winners are not going to take that long to select one; we can always revisit the issue if we find people are consistently running out the clock, but I just don't foresee it happening.

Eric is probably right that we should request alternate contact info, or at least strongly suggest that raffle voters enable email notification for PMs (which would require making sure those work properly, but that's a separate discussion). Voters who suspect they might not be immediately reachable could perhaps let organizers know in advance of the drawing and work something out with them. Regardless of what time limit is decided, Crunoke is right that retroactively establishing it for this year's raffle feels less than fair.

Merlebird wrote:Not everyone has reliable access to the internet or wifi on the weekends, and not everyone can make sure they've got the day off when their number comes up. Seventy-two hours would give enough leeway that if a raffle winner gets pulled up for a sixteen-hour double nursing shift, or has a family emergency, or somebody steals the copper out of their wiring and it'll take a couple days to get the tech out and their internet back up, they won't get the one-two punch of losing their prize, too. As Bacon said, most winners are not going to take that long to select one; we can always revisit the issue if we find people are consistently running out the clock, but I just don't foresee it happening.

Eric is probably right that we should request alternate contact info, or at least strongly suggest that raffle voters enable email notification for PMs (which would require making sure those work properly, but that's a separate discussion). Voters who suspect they might not be immediately reachable could perhaps let organizers know in advance of the drawing and work something out with them. Regardless of what time limit is decided, Crunoke is right that retroactively establishing it for this year's raffle feels less than fair.

Great perspective on this. I especially like the idea of reaching out to organizers if you know you will be hard to reach.
What would you think about a prize winner creating a draft order, so to speak, in the event of loss of communication? He or she could send organizers their ranked list of the available prizes and the organizers could serve as a proxy to announce the next available choice on the prize winner's list if we get no communication after the allotted time? This would ensure a winner doesn't lose his or her prize and there could be a second level of communication required to claim that auto-selected prize after the selection process is over. Probably just over-complicated, I guess

Just give me the f^&*in' slot already.

I say give it until Friday (They will have had a week by then) and if there is still no contact or evidence of Risible logging into his UC account then the next person should be allowed to select their prize. The final prize should then be allocated to the next person in line or randomly drawn for all the remaining voters who didn't win first time around.

akicer wrote: I agree we should invite more people to the forum, but not the ones only care about winning something

I was also very wary about this.
It would be interesting to see how many new members are still active once this years DOTY is over.

I often forget that not every place in the world has as easy access to internet as in Finland. 4G coverage that does not cover the entire country but does cover 100 % of the population, works also inside buildings and in forests, save for the most remote places in Lapland. Unlimited data plans are cheap and commonly sold as average data usage per user in a month for DNA (one of the three major operators in Finland) was 19,8 GB in the first half of 2018.

Ever since I switched to using a smartphone from my old and beaten Nokia in 2013, I've taken it for granted that I can access to internet anywhere I want to with fast and reliable speed, no need for a Wi-Fi.

BaconWise wrote:What would you think about a prize winner creating a draft order, so to speak, in the event of loss of communication? He or she could send organizers their ranked list of the available prizes and the organizers could serve as a proxy to announce the next available choice on the prize winner's list if we get no communication after the allotted time? This would ensure a winner doesn't lose his or her prize and there could be a second level of communication required to claim that auto-selected prize after the selection process is over. Probably just over-complicated, I guess

I admit I wrote (well, Swyped) out a similar suggestion for a ranked listing of top three or five prize preferences that raffle participants could submit in advance. But I came to more or less the same conclusion you did that it would further complicate an already involved process. And it would still require raffle winners to contact mods and prize donors within a reasonable timeframe, which means we've just come back around to arguing about how long a timeframe is reasonable - with an added wrinkle that's a bit of a doozy.

It's clearer if I use an example. In sticker price alone, the year's subscription to Kings Wild Shorts is, I think, the most valuable*, so for many raffle voters it was probably their first choice. Suppose Gonzalo ranked it on his prize preference list accordingly at the time he submitted his ballot. His name gets drawn first, the mods declare his choice in absentia, and prize selection rolls merrily along. Except, in this hypothetical, Gonzalo does not show up to finalize his claim within the allotted window of time. Who does the subscription go to? The next raffle winner on the list? The next one on the list who originally indicated a preference for that prize? The next runner-up to receive a prize drawing? We can't just send everything to 2pc and call it a day. He'll end up on Hoarders.

*This analysis does not account for the value of montenzi's dignity, which is, of course, w̶o̶r̶t̶h̶l̶e̶s̶s̶ priceless.