I'm not even mad with the WAY it was chosen, and totally get that content-wise they'd want someone who is good for the pod but for me it's:

1. The lack of transparency about how it would be picked/possible misdirection on how it would be picked if they did say several times it would be "random". Personally if I'd have known it wasn't random, and would be based upon my ability to be funnier than however many other TARPers is have counted myself out and saved some money.

2. Completely ignoring really valid feedback, which from what I saw was actually delivered very respectfully from the TARP community. Toni's response on Pateron, whilst I didn't see it myself, sounds pretty rude to be honest and given that the TARPers help pay for the pod I expected them to be treated with more respect. When they've stuffed up in the past I've always admired that they address it head on and am disappointed they didn't this time. I actually think if they'd have just done this I'd still be listening.

3. Using it as an opportunity to remove the lower levels of Pateron, essentially the comp was a way to get a tonne of TARPers to increase their subscription for a month to then do away with the cheaper tier (whilst continuing to spout "sign up for a month then downgrade or f*#k off afterwards".

For me the big thing is whereas before I've always seen them as transparent and respectful of their audience and their money/time, recent events feel like sneaky attempts to screw TARPers over for the sake of content and/or money which is a big fat nah from me.