| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2006 06:56:43 AM · #276 |
Originally posted by hopper:
at my work, all computers go thru an isp scrambler of some sort and it appears as one computer leaving our office (i think). How do we know 30 different people were actually voting. And even if they were, they obviously not voting how they truely feel. Keep they're votes would be bad, in my opinion.
It seems more believable to me that Rikki created 30 accounts and voted 30 times himself from work. Do we know that this is not true?
|
I'll jump in here and say that some people have a hard time voting 20% of the images from ONE account. I can't imagine that he'd have time to vote 20% from 30 PLUS accounts for over 40 challenges.
That being said, we've reviewed all appropriate information and in my opinion have exhausted every possibility and have come to the proper/right conclusion. Trust us.
P.S. When does the AM shift come in? I'm tired. lol |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:01:55 AM · #277 |
It's all pretty shocking and I am stunned.
Congrats to Langdon and SC for their detective work and handling it in a fair manner. Thanks must also go to you for what must have been an unpleasant and difficult job. I know there are lots of people who appreciate your efforts.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:06:06 AM · #278 |
Originally posted by hopper:
at my work, all computers go thru an isp scrambler of some sort and it appears as one computer leaving our office (i think). How do we know 30 different people were actually voting. And even if they were, they obviously not voting how they truely feel. Keep they're votes would be bad, in my opinion.
It seems more believable to me that Rikki created 30 accounts and voted 30 times himself from work. Do we know that this is not true?
|
I beleive he used friends and relatives who became registered users.
One thing that always stuck in my mind from a long while ago was in the forums one night he complained about getting a 1 and knowing who it came from, when I asked how he could tell he said that he used a graph to see who was online at the time and over sometime this enabled him to isolate the low voters.
I will try and find that thread because it makes sense now if he knew a large percentage of the people online he could track it. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:19:37 AM · #279 |
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
I been called crazy before for sugesting this is going on... He is not the only one by far. |
If that were true, others would have been caught by now.
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
...Lots of people voting the verry recognizable popular photographer instead of the actual picture. |
That's simply not true (as my current dual-5 entries will attest). Even Librodo and Heida, among the most recognizable around, have placed low sometimes with their signature styles and subjects. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:21:20 AM · #280 |
| Well...people have been Banned Permanently for lesser offenses in the past...he should consider himself lucky to get away with a slap on the wrist for such a massive tampering of the site...Just my 2cents... |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:25:27 AM · #281 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by frumoaznicul:
...Lots of people voting the verry recognizable popular photographer instead of the actual picture. |
That's simply not true (as my current dual-5 entries will attest). Even Librodo and Heida, among the most recognizable around, have placed low sometimes with their signature styles and subjects. |
Yes...I will second that. Even my recogniseable images get voted low....so it certainly isn't due to popularity. And I know I am one of the loud ones around here...and I will also tell you that if I know the photographer belonging to a particular image...I will either vote fairly (and that means certainly not a good vote)or I will not vote at all. If anybody needs help with an image then I always warn them...if you are going to show me an image then I will NOT be voting on it. It is the only way I can not be accused of unfair voting.
Even my nude images get hit hard...so what you are claiming is not across the board. I do know of others that have recognised or knew of peoples images on the first day of voting(according to certain comments) but I have no proof of their voting, so therefore I cannot state eitherway.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:33:50 AM · #282 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by mk:
Better double check your peeps. Now that it's happened once, you'd be up for a ban. |
No problem there. I don't think I've EVER had 30 friends! ;-) |
LOL, funny ... i didn't even told my friends about my hobby, from F.E.A.R :-)
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 07:34:25.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:49:13 AM · #283 |
Originally posted by Konador:
As a couple of people have posted, if someone voted on only 20% of entries, and Rikkis was one of them, Rikkis DQ will remove all their votes, since it is no longer 20%. That is why scores and ribbons have changed hands.
In this case, it might turn out that the ribbons and scores are somehow replaced by Langdon, as to me it doesn't seem fair that innocent people should suffer because of honest votes removed by Rikki's actions. |
Honest people don't get punished by removing the 'ghost account' votes. Those 19.9% votes never should have been received in the 1st place. The fact that it raises or lowers someones average is immaterial since it brings it to a 'true' average. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:51:55 AM · #284 |
| F.E.A.R. False Evidence Appears Real? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 07:54:28 AM · #285 |
Originally posted by MrEd:
Originally posted by Konador:
As a couple of people have posted, if someone voted on only 20% of entries, and Rikkis was one of them, Rikkis DQ will remove all their votes, since it is no longer 20%. That is why scores and ribbons have changed hands.
In this case, it might turn out that the ribbons and scores are somehow replaced by Langdon, as to me it doesn't seem fair that innocent people should suffer because of honest votes removed by Rikki's actions. |
Honest people don't get punished by removing the 'ghost account' votes. Those 19.9% votes never should have been received in the 1st place. The fact that it raises or lowers someones average is immaterial since it brings it to a 'true' average. |
Are those votes being removed though? Perhaps the SC have decided not to do that because of the potential chaos? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:01:27 AM · #286 |
Originally posted by hopper:
... even if they were, they obviously not voting how they truely feel. Keep they're votes would be bad, in my opinion. ... |
I was wondering the same myself. It seems that it's been mentioned a time or two in this thread, but here's my 2cents.
If 30 ghost accounts (or accounts created by friends just to vote Rikki higher) are removed from DPC, I think all of those votes should be discarded. Think about it, if the sole purpose was vote a high score for Rikki's entries, and they had to hit 20% to make it count, do you think the other votes are honest votes? It would be more like, hit 3, hit 4, hit 5...as quickly as possible, without consideration for the image coming up for a vote.
Again, JMO. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:03:16 AM · #287 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MrEd:
So because the 'ghost accounts' were not members, those photos will not be DQ'ed? |
Non-members couldn't influence the vote on Member challenges, so no reason to DQ those. |
What a pity!
What about Open challenges and no camera Votes ? they are not important?
If you check the Avg (no camera) and Avg (camera), you can find out the Avg (no camera)is always less !!!
does it means that if you have nobody to vote for you , you will always behind?!!!
have you ever consider obligatory comments to prevent this? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:08:33 AM · #288 |
Originally posted by colyla:
Especially when you look in past (Ghost Account) threads |
Sometimes the one who shouts the loudest is the one with the most to hide.
----------
on another note...
----------
I don't believe for one minute that what rikki did could be called a mistake. "Mistakes" made repeatedly are intentional. Rikki's been here long enough to know what he was doing was wrong and continued on anyway.
As far as him being a nice guy, yeah, I'll agree with that, he was. But then again, most con-artists are "nice guys". That's how they get you. You hear about it all the time on the news.
To those who say "they're only virtual ribbons" I ask, how did it make you feel to win a ribbon? Did it make you feel the least bit happy? If it did, was it just "a virtual ribbon" then or was it more than than? Think about it. We all compete for the same ribbons week-in and week-out. We all want to achieve something and the recognition of our work in the form of a ribbon is one that is coveted. If you want further proof, look at Slippy's signature. He knows what he's talking about, he won a ribbon! :D
G |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:11:53 AM · #289 |
Originally posted by ggbudge:
Originally posted by colyla:
Especially when you look in past (Ghost Account) threads |
Sometimes the one who shouts the loudest is the one with the most to hide.
|
wow...I can't believe he posted that.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:14:59 AM · #290 |
most of rikki's ribbon winners looked like this:
1.
2. x
3. xxxx
4. xxxxxx
5. xxxxxxxx
6. xxxxxxxxxxx
7. xxxxxx
8. xxxx
9. x
10. xxxxxxxxxxxx
something seriously messed up with his curves.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:18:05 AM · #291 |
lack of honesty, integrity and honor
I am very disappointed,
& I hope this is all that falls out of the tree with this shake up ..
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:18:55 AM · #292 |
Originally posted by kiumars_kashani:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by MrEd:
So because the 'ghost accounts' were not members, those photos will not be DQ'ed? |
Non-members couldn't influence the vote on Member challenges, so no reason to DQ those. |
If you check the Avg (no camera) and Avg (camera), you can find out the Avg (no camera)is always less !!!
does it means that if you have nobody to vote for you , you will always behind?!!!
have you ever consider obligatory comments to prevent this? |
Far from "always" I have 8 entries with "no-cam" average higher and 4 with no "no-cam" votes, which means half of my 24 entries. Most are close to the "with-cam" scores, and only 2 or 3 are significantly lower.
You have everyone to vote for you...
Brought up every few days. Not practical.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 08:24:54. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:22:15 AM · #293 |
| That ghost thread makes me pissed man. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:26:09 AM · #294 |
I'd like to thank the SC members who stayed up all night and kept answering questions and repeated questions and comments all night!!
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:39:24 AM · #295 |
Thanks Admins and SC for discovering and exposing the fraud. I am sure it is/was a lot of work and your efforts are certainly appreciated.
Message edited by author 2006-08-01 15:03:22. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:44:38 AM · #296 |
| I hope he donated his MS Photo Tournament winnings to the foundation. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:48:05 AM · #297 |
Originally posted by Seanachai:
I hope he donated his MS Photo Tournament winnings to the foundation. |
it was said before in the thread that even before the tournament started he requested his winnings go back to the charity. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 08:52:10 AM · #298 |
Originally posted by kiumars_kashani:
Non-members couldn't influence the vote on Member challenges, so no reason to DQ those. |
What about Open challenges and no camera Votes ? they are not important?
If you check the Avg (no camera) and Avg (camera), you can find out the Avg (no camera)is always less !!! [/quote]
Not sure exactly what you mean here, but it seems a little off-topic. I was only saying that Rikki's entries in Member challenges would probably not be DQ'd because the extra votes came from non-members who couldn't vote on those entries.
FWIW, the no-camera votes are not always lower- I've seen plenty of high votes too. Actually, a single non-camera voter once scored an entry high, but didn't vote at all on mine- and it proved to be the difference between red and blue ribbons! It could just be that the 1 or 2 non-camera voters just happen be a little more critical. There's nothing wrong with that as long as all entries are judged on the same scale. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:00:22 AM · #299 |
Originally posted by DevonT:
so if we know who entered in a picture for a challenge than should we just not vote on it or try are best to put the correct score on it |
If I know which entries belong to my WPL teammates or my friends, I don't vote on them. I think thats a generally accepted practice here.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 09:04:50 AM · #300 |
You know, my mother always told me that cheaters never win. Those words haven't let me down thus far and I doubt they ever will.
Rikki, DUDE WTF were you thinking!?!?!?!?!
Reading this last night I think I was feeling a lot like Heather was and is feeling; except for the tears part. ;) I kind of feel like we all got suckered but someone we all got along with and even looked up to in times ya know? I can't imagine that the SC / D&L had an easy time with this so I'd like to show my support to them by saying THANK YOU! For a difficult job well done.
As far as Rikki goes, he got his punishment and it's not my place to hold a grudge or carry ill will towards him. I hope he learned his lesson and will become a better man for it in the future.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/18/2025 04:57:56 AM EDT.
