pollux

LOGOLYMPIAD - EVENT 3 VOTING

Recommended Posts

I actually agree with McElroy's disqualification. Not saying it's not great work, but if I'm being 100% honest here, my eye goes to the icon before it goes to the wordmark. The uniform stroke doesn't differentiate it from the wordmark, and the icon being in front of the wordmark obstructs it more than it reinforces. Moving the icon down, or even removing it from the wordmark, would have taken it to the next level.

It's unfortunate because it's great work, but it's the rule. Sorry, bud.

Then I think you could have just not voted for it, if you didn't like the design choice.

There were several design choices that move your eyes to move to certain points of the wordmark first before the wordmark, to include the Mammoths that everybody seems to like. You either like it and it works, or you do not. But there was no rule against it. I'd hate for us to be disqualifying people solely on opinion on what one person's eye moves to first.

You say removing it would have "taken it to the next level" while others say they think it's the best one, period, without a change. We should only disqualify due to strict rule breaking, not design opinions.

There's a difference between incorporating elements into a wordmark and having two different design elements proximal to one another.

I went back and re-read the rules - I was mistaken, there's no clear-cut rule about it, save for the one that says "do NOT submit logos." But that said, I still see where Pollux is coming from. And since this event is his baby, his word is law.

I stand by my opinion. There are facets of his design that simply don't work for me -- things that I would do differently. But he's McElroy, and I'm Derschwigg. That's the beauty of these boards and sports design in general. Hopefully he can tell the difference between constructive criticism and an insult.

But frankly, I feel like this thread is losing sight of it's purpose. We can all wax philosophical after the votes have been tallied. Until then, let's all try to keep our commentary on the matter to a minimum. You're welcome to PM me if you feel incensed to talk about it further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gold: #7

Silver: #6

Bronze: #18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually agree with McElroy's disqualification. Not saying it's not great work, but if I'm being 100% honest here, my eye goes to the icon before it goes to the wordmark. The uniform stroke doesn't differentiate it from the wordmark, and the icon being in front of the wordmark obstructs it more than it reinforces. Moving the icon down, or even removing it from the wordmark, would have taken it to the next level.

It's unfortunate because it's great work, but it's the rule. Sorry, bud.

Then I think you could have just not voted for it, if you didn't like the design choice.

There were several design choices that move your eyes to move to certain points of the wordmark first before the wordmark, to include the Mammoths that everybody seems to like. You either like it and it works, or you do not. But there was no rule against it. I'd hate for us to be disqualifying people solely on opinion on what one person's eye moves to first.

You say removing it would have "taken it to the next level" while others say they think it's the best one, period, without a change. We should only disqualify due to strict rule breaking, not design opinions.

There's a difference between incorporating elements into a wordmark and having two different design elements proximal to one another.

I went back and re-read the rules - I was mistaken, there's no clear-cut rule about it, save for the one that says "do NOT submit logos." But that said, I still see where Pollux is coming from. And since this event is his baby, his word is law.

I stand by my opinion. There are facets of his design that simply don't work for me -- things that I would do differently. But he's McElroy, and I'm Derschwigg. That's the beauty of these boards and sports design in general. Hopefully he can tell the difference between constructive criticism and an insult.

But frankly, I feel like this thread is losing sight of it's purpose. We can all wax philosophical after the votes have been tallied. Until then, let's all try to keep our commentary on the matter to a minimum. You're welcome to PM me if you feel incensed to talk about it further.

Nice.

Write 4 more paragraphs telling me why I'm wrong, and go on to say that if I write more then I'm the bad guy, and I should write a PM ... all of which, if you didn't feel the need to get some sort of last word of condescending superiority and ass kissing, you should have just sent in a PM yourself.

BTW, thanks for turning off your PMs so that it isn't even possible to do so.

I don't think this takes away from the purpose of this thread. We are discussing what was expressed in the OP, and frankly, it would appear that this would have been the winning entry but it was not included for any justifiable reason.

Pollux had a chance to say "no logos may be included within or around the wordmark, at all ... only text, borders, blocking, basic shapes, and shapes incorporated into the text are allowed. ex: Current Patriots wordmark with logo would not be allowed (image provided), but current Minnesota Vikings wordmark with horns incorporated into the M and V font letters (image provided) and the Eagles wordmark (image provided) are acceptable."

But once you say logos may be used along with the wordmark, so long as they aren't bigger, then you have to stand by that ruling unless you clarify further that the included logo may not overlay the fonts within the wordmark ... which he did not. The dude made a design choice (that I personally don't agree with in concept - I don't like it covering the letters, either, but that is far from the point). That's it.

So, no, I don't see where he's coming from. If Pollux didn't want logos at all, then he should have forbid them, not disqualified people for following his direction and even his exact clarifications.

He stated: "Since I specifically mentioned that there shouldn't be any logos or uniforms in the criteria, I have to disqualify it."

That's not what his rules said. He said not to "submit a logo", which was clarified later within the same thread, by himself, as you can submit a wordmark with a logo on it (as opposed to just a logo by itself). Saying "I leave it up to your creativity" when asked about logos, and then disqualifying somebody for their creativity, is pretty messed up.

Thus, there is still no justification as to why it was disqualified.

This dude spent a lot of time on his entry. This ruling is ridiculous.

Heaven forbid we question a ruling because "his word is law" or that we discuss it at all.

Just go ahead and ban me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gold: 24

Silver: 7

Bronze: 9

I love the Aztecs wordmark, but agree with the disqualification. The logo isn't a minor tack-on/accentuation, it takes up a lot of space and obscures a portion of the wordmark, rather than being worked into it. Yes, there is a degree of subjectivity to it, and we're free to discuss it, but Pollux is the one putting this on, and has a legitimate justification for why he did it, and even took the time to explain why he did so.

On a side note, Ninjorz and Derscwigg are heading for a get-along shirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys everyone needs to calm down. The point of my post was not to start a :censored: storm between the Montagues and the Capulets. I just wanted to show that I felt the rules were unclear, I operated within the defined set of rules, and that some NFL teams do the same thing. There is no needs to derail this thread with personal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gold- 6

Silver- 1

Bronze- 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can we put the team name on the wordmark or just the city. If it is just the city, it seems that the submissions would be very similar.

Put both. The guideline mentions that you should put the city name, but you also need to have the team name on there. I don't want anyone submitting only the team name. I clarified the initial post.

What if you have a logo coming from behind the wordmark

General rule of thumb: the wordmark should take most of the space. If the logo is too big, then it's not a wordmark.

I leave it up to your creativity to add some stuff in or around the wordmark, but the main focus here is the wordmark.

I was going off of the bolded bit when Designing it didn't say no logo it said the word mark should take up most of the space which mine I feel does. I understand there wont be any change in decisions just a little butt hurt I guess.

Especially when You look at some NFL wordmarks

5357_new_england_patriots-wordmark-2013.

Believe me, the last thing I want to do is to disqualify an entry based on the content. It's very easy to DQ someone for not respecting the template format, or for missing elements that were required. Your entry gave me a very hard time, and I sought advice from two other members before making a call. Both actually agreed with my ruling - but that's irrelevant now since we're in the voting phase.

Regardless of the ruling, I understand your disappointment and frustration. The criticism is well received and I will make sure that rules are clear for the other events and future Logolympiads. As soon as the thread went up, I knew perfectly well that this would be a controversial call. It's not easy being the only one making the call, so I have to learn from those calls as well.

Guys everyone needs to calm down. The point of my post was not to start a :censored: storm between the Montagues and the Capulets. I just wanted to show that I felt the rules were unclear, I operated within the defined set of rules, and that some NFL teams do the same thing. There is no needs to derail this thread with personal attacks.

Great answer. Let's get back to voting, and hopefully, you'll still participate in the following events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing entries :D It was so hard to pick just three! (Wish I could make marks like that....)

Gold: 21

Silver: 17

Bronze 7

Honorable mentions: 4, 5, 6.

Really solid entries guys. Good job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.