Numerous issues have been raised about the fairness of the contest and judges' decisions thus far. I remember reading and rereading the official rules several times after the contest started but was still left with many unanswered questions. What was clear to me was that the actual makeover winner selection process (or criteria) was vague. I understood that winning was somehow tied to being (1) among the top 20 point-earners and (2) "the most deserving" shelter, but what is meant by "most deserving" has not been disclosed by Zootoo and is open to interpretation--but not public scrutiny. Ironically, we are left in the dark on an animal-advocate website that has enlightened us in many ways.

In one of my earlier comments (weeks ago), I wrote something to the effect that this makeover contest offers "the greatest hope and the greatest disappointment". For hundreds of shelters that struggled to get supporters, the disappointment occurred before the contest ended; for others it started when they didn't make the "top 20"; and for still others, it emerged when they didn't make the (newly-created category?) "top 3". Three shelters are still vying for the "greatest hope" and, within a day or so, two more shelters will join the ranks of the "greatly disappointed". Needless to say, emotions are running high, brewing and flaring. This contest has brought out the best...and the worst...of zootooers.

Each zootooer will have to decide for himself/herself which zootooers' views are legitimate or worthy, but I would like to add something for your consideration: Things are not always as they seem. Things can be misinterpreted or misconstrued because of ignorance--not knowing or being aware of a crucial piece of information, for whatever reason. When one reaches the point of realizing the way things really are, one may feel embarrassed and/or regret speaking out too soon. [Maybe this journal entry is two days early....]

I'll give one (hypothetical?) example of how things may not be what they appear to be. Some zootooers have pointed out that "Top Cat" stated on national TV (and have videotaped documentation of the same) that the shelter with the most points would win the (up to) $1 million makeover, and that the WAHS had the most points but didn't even get into the "top 3" semi-finalists. They see this as deception, an injustice, and proof of an unfair contest. Zootoo has vowed to be objective yet many are crying "foul" before the winner has even been announced. Is it not possible that there is also an objective point system to determine the "most deserving" shelter? To be objective, zootoo judges should have established their selection criteria in advance, as well as how the factors would be weighted to yield a final composite score--or points--to declare the winner. "Top Cat" may have been referring to this point system when he made his statement on national TV, but zootooers assumed he was referring to the top scorer in the FIRST phase of the contest. That is, perhaps the "(top 20) shelter with the most points" pertaining to "most deserving" criteria WILL win.

I learned a long time ago that "facts" do not speak for themselves--they have to be interpreted. Is your glass half empty or half full? Is "Top Cat" an honorable and noble man or a disgraceful and evil cad? He's pledged (up to) $1 million to show us what he's made of...maybe this does speak for itself.

P.S. In response to one zootooer's comment regarding how "fare" this contest is, I'd say it has taken its toll on all of us!

P.S.S. What might have happened to these six (ex-)shelter cats if there hadn't been enough resources to take care of them until they could be adopted?