Will The Real Style Shady Please Stand Up? / archive / creative journal

July 9, 2006

Will The Real Style Shady Please Stand Up?

imagined by: James Mathias

Today David pointed me to this entry at The Watchmaker Project it details some shady business occurring at one of my fellow 9ruler’s sites Unmatched Style. The shady business appears to be a “design contest” gone bad.

Apparently according to the original contest post at Unmatched Style, a design contest for a top prize of $1500 bucks was announced to help redesign nursinghomes.com, the post said; “The winner will receive $1,500 in cash.” other rules included were very specific and not hard to understand;

“All the really good entries will be featured here on Unmatched Style.”, “You only have to submit images for three pages - no code.” and “All entries must be received before July 3.”. Those were the rules.

So what happened next is odd to say the least, in this post The winner was announced, now according to the rule number two the winner (sam brown) is entitled to, nay owed $1500 in cash money. Did he get it? According to Shane at Unmatched Style, in a word no. But, here’s what Shane had to say vaguely about it. by the way comments are off on that post, surprisingly enough.

"Ultimately, none of the four entries won the $1,500 prize because each was missing a critical piece of the requirements. There are many possible reasons why that is, and I think it’s different for each entrant, but at the end of the day I think one thing it highlights is the importance of a good back-and-forth discussion between the client and the designer during the entire process for a project like this with any sort of unique requirements.

Congratulations go out to all of our entrants, though, and best of success to them in the future!" - Shane from Unmatched Style

This is quite odd to me, no real explanation on why the winner got stiffed, no explanation or—more importantly—apology. In my opinion this behavior is not becoming a member of 9rules and I move to have his site removed from the 9rules community before he gives us all a bad name. This behavior has me ashamed to be affiliated with Unmatched Style however loose that affiliation may be.

Lastly, this debacle makes a great argument against design contests and spec work, in this case not only did all the entrants lose out, but the so-called winner was also screwed.

Will The Real Style Shady Please Stand Up?
07.9.06 at 6:19pmthrown down:
James Mathiasimagined by:
Developmentally Ablestored in:
782 peeps, 23 of whom commentedenjoyed by:

More of the Same

10 recent “Developmentally Able”

Big Business Bulli…
⇒ on: Aug. 26, 2007
6pins has launched…
⇒ on: Apr. 19, 2007
Steal Ma.gnolia
⇒ on: Apr. 4, 2007
Getting Logitech&#…
⇒ on: Feb. 3, 2007
Can I get that ico…
⇒ on: Dec. 21, 2006

Help Wanted
⇒ on: Dec. 6, 2006
13 Applications of…
⇒ on: Nov. 16, 2006
Will The Real Styl…
⇒ on: Jul. 9, 2006
Mr. Alan Jax is an…
⇒ on: Jul. 9, 2006
Links to Me Will b…
⇒ on: Jun. 27, 2006

your comments

comments off

23 comments

Comments off for this entry.

Jul. 09, 2006 (6:23pm) [#1]

David Sissitka

Glad to see that you’re trying to get the word out, I hate people like that.

Jul. 09, 2006 (6:25pm) [#2]

James Mathias

Me too, dishonesty makes me sick.

Jul. 09, 2006 (11:12pm) [#3]

viperteq

I’m not a ruler, but I appreciate you putting integrity front and center like that. I’m sure that Scrivs and Tyme have read your post and are doing some investigating.

Jul. 09, 2006 (11:31pm) [#4]

James Mathias

Thanks Viperteq. I’ve always been the guy since I started my web journey to stand up and say when I think somethings not right here. In the beginning it was mostly pointing out rippers and script kiddies, but I’m very comfortable extending my scope to all acts of deviant behavior.

I’m sure someone from 9rules will see this, I know a couple of them read my blog, but I don’t think Scrivs or Tyme do, I don’t think they have the time.

Jul. 10, 2006 (5:24am) [#5]

Adam

Good to know that some members of the nine are still committed to the foundations and not just taking it as a form of self promotion.
Hope they sort this one or another.

Jul. 10, 2006 (10:48am) [#6]

James Mathias

For me it was tough decision to join 9rules to begin with, so I’m not about to part ways with my ethics just to be a part of it. Same james, just now with more leaf.

Jul. 10, 2006 (2:48pm) [#7]

Mike Stickel

Weak, very, very weak. I am all for removing US from 9rules as well. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable.

Jul. 10, 2006 (3:44pm) [#8]

James Mathias

Totally, I’m really glad I’m not the only one who feels this way.

Jul. 10, 2006 (4:41pm) [#9]

karmatosed

I agree that this is at least behaviour that needs investigating by the 9rules team. It does raise an eyebrow of cynicism in me as to their real reasons for the contest.

Jul. 10, 2006 (6:34pm) [#10]

James Mathias

Exactly my thought, it’s proof positive that design contests are not on the level.

Jul. 10, 2006 (6:43pm) [#11]

Tyme White

“I’m sure someone from 9rules will see this, I know a couple of them read my blog, but I don’t think Scrivs or Tyme do, I don’t think they have the time.”

Surprise!

Scrivs, Colin, Mike and I have all seen it. We are investigating. smile

Please don’t hesitate to send me an email especially concerning suspicious member behavior. The guys and I get busy at times but never too busy to deal with something like this.

Jul. 10, 2006 (7:06pm) [#12]

James Mathias

Hi Tyme,

Welcome to me.

I am suprised.

I’m glad to know you guys are all over it. I have a problem with e-mailing folks I know are busy with things. Next time I run across something like this I’ll e-mail you.

Thanks for letting me know. If it turns out to be a harmless misunderstanding, please let me know so I can correct my post accordingly or apologize publicly for any hurt feelings. I’m not above admitting my mistakes if there is one.

Jul. 10, 2006 (10:25pm) [#13]

Tom Park

This is sickening. This is beyond the usual boundaries of No-Spec. I wonder what Sam, or any of the guys, who willingly entered this kind of design contest have to say about this.

Jul. 10, 2006 (10:40pm) [#14]

James Mathias

Yes it is beyond the usual boundaries.

I can’t speak for Sam, but he did e-mail me this morning and thanked me for pointing this out. I don’t think he wants to comment publicly and I don’t blame him. I hope he gets paid what he deserves.

Jul. 11, 2006 (4:17pm) [#15]

Scrivs

Site removed and email sent to have badge removed. And to keep the name of Ryan Latham intact, the original owner, he did a great job with UMS when he ran it, but unfortunately I was never aware of new ownership and therefore membership should never have transferred over in the first place.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention James.

Jul. 11, 2006 (4:50pm) [#16]

James Mathias

Hi Scrivs,

Thanks for the update, I appreciate it. No problem bringing it to your attention.

As for Ryan Latham, I agree he did a great job with Unmatched Style, and I was sad to see him go. A gallery is never the same when the orginal owner leaves, I think the same could be said for your old haunt CSS Vault, and the newly sold stylegala. It’s a shame to say the least.

I’m glad it all got worked out!

Jul. 15, 2006 (11:51am) [#17]

Andy Warwick

Not in *any* way defending this–as it’s pretty despicable, and is another example (as if any were needed) as to why spec work is wrong–but I guess the critical missing pieces come from not reading the additional brief on the nursinghomes.com homepage (scroll right down).

Yes, there *is* a badly-written ’brief’ that the entrants probably missed, which (I assume) is why nursinghomes.com are un-willing to pay the prize money and hence left Shane in a somewhat awkward position.

I have to wonder if he is as stitched-up as winner Sam here. Of course, he should do the right thing and pay anyway, as it’s not Sam’s fault there was insufficient contract stuff in place to protect Shane, but isn’t that always the case with spec work…

If Shane wasn’t clear enough on the rules, it’s still his responsibility to pay out on his competition in absence of any other agreement, even if only morally.

The real interesting thing going forward is will any of the contest entries elements appear on the nursinghomes.com site; I suggest all four entries keep a very careful eye on them to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Jul. 15, 2006 (11:03pm) [#18]

James Mathias

Yes, you see I did not see that on nursinghomes.com at all, it may have been added after the contreversy, but I do not know for sure.

In any case, however, if the designs were not complete, nursinghomes should have worked with the “winner” and made sure that the requirements were met. I believe it was a simple case of spec work gone bad, and that nursinghomes.com may have purposefully made an excuse to keep from having to pay. Although to be clear I do not know everything about the story, so there may be things that have not been made public that would change my whole view on this issue.

Jul. 17, 2006 (6:19am) [#19]

Matthew Pennell

“I did not see that on nursinghomes.com at all, it may have been added after the contreversy, but I do not know for sure”

It was there from the start, although I don’t think it in any way could be considered a full requirements specification.

Jul. 17, 2006 (10:32am) [#20]

Tobias

Was UMS part of 9rules before the Shane guy bought the site back in March? Perhaps 9rules should have a clause that sites that have switched owners need to reapply.

Jul. 17, 2006 (12:18pm) [#21]

James Mathias

@Matthew, thanks for the clarification, I wasn’t sure. I also agree it doesn’t seem to be complete.

@Tobias, I believe it was just overlooked, but apparently fixed now.

Jul. 18, 2006 (7:33pm) [#22]

CadillacKitty

i can’t believe people would do that. *smack* outside of that, i’m speachless.