| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2006 10:59:57 AM · #351 |
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 question this, too. It seems hard to believe that over 30 coworkers would not only vote but vote 20%, over 40 times, just so that someone could win a virtual ribbon. That would never happen in my office and I suspect that most coworkers aren't willing to put in that kind of longterm effort. Granted, I don't know Rikki's office but I have my suspicions. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:00:35 AM · #352 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
The issue should be an immediate change of rules that will curtain, to some extent, it happening here again. |
I could not dissagre more, just because one looser abused the already stated and mostly understood rules, does not mean we have to tighten the whole DPC concept which in my opinion is great as it is, as it is based on respect and trust
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:04:26 AM · #353 |
If I am able to get forgiveness from my savior for my sins and lack of judgment it is only right that I do the same to my fellow man. For that reason I will be able to accept his apologies. However because other and I have the right to forgive him he still must pay for his actions. Forgiveness does not translate to immunity.
Looking at the overwhelming complications this has caused to the site and its integrity I personally feel his punishment was rather lenient. I can see how this issue would have constituted an all out ban from the site for life.
I looked at his profile before it was deleted and counted 45 DQ’s out of 90+ challenges. That translates to ½ of his entries were tainted. Also it started almost immediately because his second entry was DQ’ed.
Also this has been going on for a year from what I could tell. That means he effected the site in a negative way 22% of the sites existence and while growth was at its highest. Not to mention the ghost account have effected countless others by giving random votes that, IMO, should not count even if they seem to be fair. Reason, because if not for having to vote the minimum they would have not voted on any picture other than his. And I can̢۪t help but believe those votes were random clicks instead of based on the photographs merit. So unless all votes from all ghost accounts are deleted then DPChallenge results are and will be skewed in those challenges during the time period of 6/2005 to 7/2006.
I don̢۪t really think he took the time to see how complicated of a problem he would create by doing what he did. But if you look it has effected hundreds of photographers, dozens of challenges.
So I forgive Rikki but feel he must pay for his actions even though I feel his punishment was to lenient. Every though I am able to forgive him it will be very hard for him to regain my respect. Possible but will take time.
Just some of my thoughts.
SDW
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:05:14 AM · #354 |
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
And the site also allowed multiple votes, so evidently they had no problem with that. I went to that site to look but did not vote. If I did, it would have been on the best picture, IMO.
The situation here is entirely different. |
No, not entirely different. True, that particular site was encouraging this behaviour, but the ethical problem is unchanged by that fact. I was always wondering how many people who openly rig votes on other sites, do the same at the DPC. Here is the the thread in question. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:06:06 AM · #355 |
Originally posted by Pano:
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
The issue should be an immediate change of rules that will curtain, to some extent, it happening here again. |
I could not dissagre more, just because one looser abused the already stated and mostly understood rules, does not mean we have to tighten the whole DPC concept which in my opinion is great as it is, as it is based on respect and trust |
Sorry. Must jump in. Pet peeve of mine...
It's LOSE or LOSER, not LOOSE or LOOSER, unless of course you really meant that the offender was "loose" and needed to be "tightened"...
I now return you to your regularly scheduled "omigod!" thread... |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:06:43 AM · #356 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
Also it started almost immediately because his second entry was DQ̢۪ed.
|
Just for accuracy, I believe his second entry was DQed because he wasn't able to provide a proper original because he hadn't downloaded them properly. I remember working with him on that. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:10:57 AM · #357 |
Originally posted by mk:
It seems hard to believe that over 30 coworkers would not only vote but vote 20%, over 40 times |
They didn't all vote every challenge. Sometimes it was only a handful of people. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:11:44 AM · #358 |
very interesting.
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
And the site also allowed multiple votes, so evidently they had no problem with that. I went to that site to look but did not vote. If I did, it would have been on the best picture, IMO.
The situation here is entirely different. |
No, not entirely different. True, that particular site was encouraging this behaviour, but the ethical problem is unchanged by that fact. I was always wondering how many people who openly rig votes on other sites, do the same at the DPC. Here is the the thread in question. |
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:14:41 AM · #359 |
I'd like to propose that any new ribbon winning images be placed on the Front Page somewhere for a week, so for those and in particular, the members that have never one a Ribbon can get the glory, viewing, favorites, extra comment benefits that they deserved and were robbed of.
For the record, this is a selfless proposal.
proposal bump |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:21:30 AM · #360 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
...DPChallenge results are and will be skewed in those challenges during the time period of 6/2005 to 7/2006. |
The additional user accounts didn't start appearing until around November of last year. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:21:46 AM · #361 |
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
So I forgive Rikki but feel he must pay for his actions even though I feel his punishment was to lenient. Every though I am able to forgive him it will be very hard for him to regain my respect. Possible but will take time.
Just some of my thoughts.
SDW |
the worst part for you is that you now have to go fix your first 500 blue ribbons photo...
doh!
;)
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:25:06 AM · #362 |
Originally posted by owen:
What DrAchoo and a few others said
I forgive Rikki
It doesn't help me in any way to hold bitterness toward him
One year ban is plenty and it is and should be a deterrent
Rikki has punished himself for long enough
He would have carried around a terrible feeling in his heart
There is no joy in getting ribbons etc. when you know yourself you didn't earn them
I don't think the site has suffered too much
People will cheat in all sorts of ways when there is a competition
This site has caught another and dealt with him appropriately
We all have, and do cheat in some way, some where in our lives.
For an amount of time we deny or justify it.
Most of us have been given another chance at different times and quite often been smart enough to learn.
I hope others here can forgive Rikki and let him return for there own sakes.
He would still be punished then purely by the lack of trust he could never regain here
I do feel sorry for those who have suffered through Rikki's actions and you will have to dig deepest to forgive if you choose to. |
Dito - basically. It is a true, a shame but true, but the one who loses most by his actions is him. The ones who it also cost is Landon and the rest of the hats people. Not only do they have to do a ton of extra work, but they have to deal with a whole group of people with a variety of emotions. This is never fun. Anyway Kudos for everyone trying to be calm and helpful during an emotional time.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 11:42:55. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:33:16 AM · #363 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
...DPChallenge results are and will be skewed in those challenges during the time period of 6/2005 to 7/2006. |
The additional user accounts didn't start appearing until around November of last year. |
Interesting. The following thread was pointed out by another user and it dates to October of last year.
Ghost Account |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:34:04 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Interesting. The following thread was pointed out by another user and it dates to October of last year.
Ghost Account |
Takes awhile to round up 30 pals. ;) |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:39:39 AM · #365 |
First, SC, THANK YOU. And Langdon and Drew, THANK YOU.
What a mess, and what a pain. Thanks again to all of you who have stuck with this thread through the night and explained and clarified various points.
I'd like to ask your indulgence to answer a couple more questions:
1) Wasn't maestro just banned for life for many fewer than 30 ghost accounts? Is the difference that this was her 2nd or higher attempt at the same scam, whereas Rikki's done it only once so far?
2) There is no #2 (sorry, couldn't make it all the way up to there not being a #6). ;)
Jeffrey
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 11:42:48. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:42:20 AM · #366 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by mad_brewer:
And the site also allowed multiple votes, so evidently they had no problem with that. I went to that site to look but did not vote. If I did, it would have been on the best picture, IMO.
The situation here is entirely different. |
No, not entirely different. True, that particular site was encouraging this behaviour, but the ethical problem is unchanged by that fact. I was always wondering how many people who openly rig votes on other sites, do the same at the DPC. Here is the the thread in question. |
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that the rules were different, not the ethics. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:43:59 AM · #367 |
How would you know if Rikki signs up under a different username on another person's computer (different IP)? Does the site run scripts to look for banned IPs?
Skid |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:45:06 AM · #368 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Interesting. The following thread was pointed out by another user and it dates to October of last year.
Ghost Account |
Takes awhile to round up 30 pals. ;) |
...or maybe one, strongly worded Memo to your underlings???
ending with the words,
"...your yearly job evaluations are just around the corner, keep in mind as you vote, that your raises will depend on MY Ribbon performance. 10 ribbons...10% increases across the board."
This may not be a joking matter but if you don't laugh, you'll cry.
And for the record, I'm not that forgiving. Let him have his lashings here in this thread. It's as close as we can get to corporal punishment and maybe a lesson to others. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:48:51 AM · #369 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I find all this profoundly depressing. I find it depressing that Rikki, a well-respected site member, did this at all, of course. I am shocked and appalled by that. It makes me wonder all sorts of things about him and his work; is it all his? Is it all done by the rules? And so forth and so on.
But I'm almost equally depressed by this strong current of sympathy or support for Rikki that I keep seeing popping up in this thread. It seems totally out of place to me. Maybe I'm just a hard-ass, I don't know...
R. |
Nope. I'm with you. As MK and others have said, there's something very hollow about a "sincere" apology that comes only when someone has been caught, especially when they have been systematically cheating for such a long time.
I have no issue with those who state that Rikki is their friend, that they personally choose to forgive him, to remain friends with him and so forth. That's normal, natural and I would hope that my dear friends stand by me if and when I do something wrong in my life.
I think they are wrong to try and excuse his behaviour, to try and minimise it's significance, to try and explain it away as irrelevant or to try and have others do the same.
Edit to add:
I don't feel personal animosity or bitterness towards Rikki - I didn't know him well enough for that to be relevant - but I do feel resentment at what he has put the site through (in particular site admins and council and those whose placements have been affected). I feel that the one year ban is too lenient given the systematic, prolonged nature of the abuse and given too the huge workload and impact it has caused.
I would like to second Pawdrix' suggestion to cycle resulting ribbon winners on the home page for a week each until all have had that experience. I think it's only fair.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 12:10:56.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:51:03 AM · #370 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I'd like to ask your indulgence to answer a couple more questions:
1) Wasn't maestro just banned for life for many fewer than 30 ghost accounts? Is the difference that this was her 2nd or higher attempt at the same scam, whereas Rikki's done it only once so far?
|
Maestro's account was closed because we found out it was a former member who had been banned before who signed up under a different assumed identity, not because of any ghost accounts. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:51:33 AM · #371 |
Originally posted by gayle43103:
Wow...Rikki?? No kidding. I'm in total shock. |
Same here, wow I loved your/his work, hope he comes back....
Why? just why did he do that
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:52:12 AM · #372 |
A few more thoughts in the morning:
1) The ghost account thread mentioned above, I believe, was written before Rikki had won any ribbons. Perhaps the frustration he was feeling led to the activity (if you can't beat them, join them). I think this is far more natural a way for human nature to encourage dishonesty rather than a planned, purposeful action on its own.
2) I talk to Rikki regularly and he never let me in on any of this. I say that because the following is speculation. Wouldn't it make more sense that Rikki was originally excited about the site and emailed a few friends (he works in a large architecture firm) about it. One of the friends then goes and asks him what his next entry was. Rikki sends it to him. The sin has begun, but innocently enough. More people ask and Rikki complies with an email saying "I'm not looking for 10s", but we all know friends don't care about fairness (especially when they are not involved). Rikki wins a ribbon, his first. It feels good. Soon the whole ethical dilemma is forgotten and the action has become so "normal" he doesn't even think about it. It isn't a voting machine as much as a "hey guys, this is my next entry, isn't it cool?" Sometimes 4 friends decide to vote, sometimes 30. They vote on their own accord, but obviously bias their vote to Rikki. Rikki eventually forgets how much his score could be swayed and rationalizes his torrent of ribbons to the fact that he has improved as a photographer (something you can verify by looking at his early vs. late shots). The rest of his ethical standards remain and he is true when he says things like not wanting to win a ribbon through the DQ of a higher entry.
I am only 35, but I am wise enough to know that large errors in judgement are rarely made all at once and were rarely planned from the beginning. I don't say this to justify his actions but rather to make sense of them and once again point out that we all do similar things in our own lives. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:53:31 AM · #373 |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 11:57:38 AM · #374 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few more thoughts in the morning:
1) The ghost account thread mentioned above, I believe, was written before Rikki had won any ribbons. Perhaps the frustration he was feeling led to the activity (if you can't beat them, join them). I think this is far more natural a way for human nature to encourage dishonesty rather than a planned, purposeful action on its own.
2) I talk to Rikki regularly and he never let me in on any of this. I say that because the following is speculation. Wouldn't it make more sense that Rikki was originally excited about the site and emailed a few friends (he works in a large architecture firm) about it. One of the friends then goes and asks him what his next entry was. Rikki sends it to him. The sin has begun, but innocently enough. More people ask and Rikki complies with an email saying "I'm not looking for 10s", but we all know friends don't care about fairness (especially when they are not involved). Rikki wins a ribbon, his first. It feels good. Soon the whole ethical dilemma is forgotten and the action has become so "normal" he doesn't even think about it. It isn't a voting machine as much as a "hey guys, this is my next entry, isn't it cool?" Sometimes 4 friends decide to vote, sometimes 30. They vote on their own accord, but obviously bias their vote to Rikki. Rikki eventually forgets how much his score could be swayed and rationalizes his torrent of ribbons to the fact that he has improved as a photographer (something you can verify by looking at his early vs. late shots). The rest of his ethical standards remain and he is true when he says things like not wanting to win a ribbon through the DQ of a higher entry.
I am only 35, but I am wise enough to know that large errors in judgement are rarely made all at once and were rarely planned from the beginning. I don't say this to justify his actions but rather to make sense of them and once again point out that we all do similar things in our own lives. |
This is what I have been thinking, but you stated it much better than I can. Not bad for a youngster! |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:00:24 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by Pano:
It is very sad that some one would not understand the fun and aim of this site, I am always amazed by the pathological mind that can accept success or acceptance by cheating or misleading.. What kind of reality they live, how can they accept it?
I do not feel personally attacked by this person Rikki, but i after pulling such a grand scam I would take such an apology with a kilo of salt
I mean it is easy to say the right thing, if anything a second chance would be the only way for him to prove his regret.. how ever how do you manage a second chance when trust has been broken? I think the SC has take the right decision |
That person asked people to vote, and specifily said they didnt care if it was for them or not, but to vote for the best photo.
|
|
