| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2006 12:02:04 PM · #376 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few more thoughts in the morning:
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.
|
Thanks, Jason. I was considering posting some similar speculation.
I find that progression of events more likely than specifically asking people to vote highly for him. It also fits with the SC's determination that the ghost votes varied in number, and that they seemed to be normally distributed.
That is, a friend checks in to vote for Rikki's shot, then bounces around voting what they think until they hit 20% so they can stop.
That whole scenario fits better with what someone said about Rikki's biggest initial mistake was letting his excitement overwhelm his judgement. It's also possible his judgement wasn't very good to begin with, and this will be a learning experience.
When I screw up, and get honest feedback about it, I do my best to see through the hurt and absorb the legitimate points. I hope it happened the way you guessed. If so, Rikki will come out of this stronger.
Here's something I try to remember:
Judgement comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgement.
Now, even though I find that scenario the most likely in my mind, as you said, it's purely speculation. Which brings me to my final point.
The big problem with major rule violations like this is what Bear_Music said elsewhere: you don't know what REALLY happened. You end up wondering about everything he's ever said or done. And that's what disturbs me most. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:10:12 PM · #377 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Thanks, Jason. I was considering posting some similar speculation. |
Ditto. That seems to be about what happened- if you can look past the thread asking about Ghost voters right before they appeared... :-/ |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:18:05 PM · #378 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A few more thoughts in the morning: |
Thanks for clear that up, hope Rikki comes back, I have nothing against him
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:22:38 PM · #379 |
I've nothing really groundbreaking to say.
I don't care if he comes back myself... I'm sure he will be carefully watched... I had my house robbed by a neighbor (a couple grand and a camera - timing is everything) and I caught him. He was very embarrassed and I have lived next to him for the last year and a half... He hasn't re-offended because of shame.
I keep his personal information in 4 different locations in envelopes in the care of friends in case there is any trouble. There won't be.
In Rikki's case, I don't know if he will re-offend... I doubt he will.
Look at Rose/Maestro/whoever... They keep returning... This is because of what the site contains...
It's equally possible that Rikki was doing the voting himself (just didn't have the time for for the 30 ghost votes and he could monitor how his score was doing anyhow.... maybe less votes were culled because he was monitoring the current challenge threads and his own score) as it is that his workmates were voting for him. Maybe a *little* more likely that he was doing it himself (how many people do you know that would keep up such behavior for a year...).
Regardless, it's not up to me.
What I would ask for though is along the lines of ChinaBun/Queanbeez (Chinabun?)'s thoughts...
Would it be possible to restrict his returning account to the same name?
He would have to swallow his lumps, but that certainly seems fair...
Voting is the gathering of people's opinions... PM's reflect something similar, just put into words...
I don't have the time of day to go chasing him down about this as I had quite a neutral feeling towards him, but I would feel more comfortable knowing exactly who he is when he does return. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:27:06 PM · #380 |
I'd like to suggest something that is very much a parallel to all this.
How often have we seen "I have a picture in the finals on www.whateverphotocontestsite.com and here is the link to vote on it", followed by numerous congrats and voted for you replies.
Seems that kind of farming for votes announcement shouldn't be allowed anymore here either. It's really the same thing.
Just my 0.02¢ |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:29:17 PM · #381 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
I wish!
The boys' club knows how to do it - give high scores to the very blah photos, low scores to the ones that might have a chance, 10's to your buddies.
Bingo - your voting pattern looks 100% normal, and the club members ribbon again. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:29:50 PM · #382 |
Traditionally if a user returns and asks to have a canceled account reactivated it's the old account. The logic is you can't quit the site and just pretend you never existed.
It's possible he would be allowed to change his user ID, but the account would still be his. Rest assured that if he elects to return after the suspension his entries would be closely monitored for some time.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:31:11 PM · #383 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Thanks, Jason. I was considering posting some similar speculation. |
Ditto. That seems to be about what happened- if you can look past the thread asking about Ghost voters right before they appeared... :-/ |
I agree. I would "speculate" that this was his frustrated response to combat this... I don't need to speculate that any type of ballot box stuffing is unfair at best and cheating at worst.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:32:43 PM · #384 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
I wish!
The boys' club knows how to do it - give high scores to the very blah photos, low scores to the ones that might have a chance, 10's to your buddies.
Bingo - your voting pattern looks 100% normal, and the club members ribbon again. |
I don't understand this "boys' club" you are referring to. Would you like to elaborate or perhaps put names to your suspicions? I personally have never been emailed anyone's challenge entries nor asked to vote for any 'friends' here (and I think I have a few). Maybe I'm just not one of the boys?!?!?!
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:33:28 PM · #385 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
I wish!
The boys' club knows how to do it - give high scores to the very blah photos, low scores to the ones that might have a chance, 10's to your buddies.
Bingo - your voting pattern looks 100% normal, and the club members ribbon again. |
Again, if you have specific users you suspect please report them. It takes all of 5 minutes. The level of vote swapping that would have to go on to make a statistical impact is BIG. It needs more than just 4-5 folks who know eachother swapping 10s.
It's very easy to make vauge comments about "the club". If you have SPECIFIC people you think need to be looked at, tell SC. Making vauge statements does nothing to help eliminate the problem. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:34:05 PM · #386 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I'd like to suggest something that is very much a parallel to all this.
How often have we seen "I have a picture in the finals on www.whateverphotocontestsite.com and here is the link to vote on it", followed by numerous congrats and voted for you replies.
Seems that kind of farming for votes announcement shouldn't be allowed anymore here either. It's really the same thing.
Just my 0.02¢ |
The problem is that some of those sites encourage exactly that kind of behavior -- their goal is to drive people to the site page. I mean, some sites limit you to voting once per hour (rather like the MLB All-Star balloting), and it is not only ethical but encouraged by the contest sponsors that you get people to vote early and often. I see no reason to limit people's ability to request legitimate participation in such contests/events. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:36:09 PM · #387 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
I wish!
The boys' club knows how to do it - give high scores to the very blah photos, low scores to the ones that might have a chance, 10's to your buddies.
Bingo - your voting pattern looks 100% normal, and the club members ribbon again. |
This seems a little paranoid to me. Not sure I buy into the idea of a "Boys Club" here. I see a lot of new names on the homepage with each challenge, and of course a few reoccuring ones - to be expected.
In regards to Rikki, I was shocked to see that this thread was about him. While I didn't know him, I did respect him as a photog, and he had some wonderful shots. He also seemed to give a lot back to DPC, and it is a shame that he turned out to be less than honest.
Considering the gravity and size of his offence, I am with the school that thinks he's getting off awful light. If he is allowed back (not sure he should be), I agree that we should all know what his username is, should he change it.
It's quite a blow to come on after a 3 day absence and see this. My day has a sour taste because of it.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:36:28 PM · #388 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I'd like to suggest something that is very much a parallel to all this.
How often have we seen "I have a picture in the finals on www.whateverphotocontestsite.com and here is the link to vote on it", followed by numerous congrats and voted for you replies.
Seems that kind of farming for votes announcement shouldn't be allowed anymore here either. It's really the same thing.
Just my 0.02¢ |
Some contests are quite different Brad. I had one of these very posts last year in a contest I had entered where the proceeds went to an Outdoor Education School in the area. The overriding goal of the contest was to raise money and awareness, not necessarily to pick the best photo. With that, I received a specific email stating, "make sure to have your friends, family, and coworkers drop by to vote". With that in the email, I had no problem campaigning for votes on the site... |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:37:55 PM · #389 |
I'm shocked, I think this is something that could happen to mostly anybody on this site (whoever has friends and is eager to tell about DPC). Rikki is a great guy and I think his intention wasn't unfair but things happen.
I hope we can see Rikki back here and continue learning from him.
Good luck Rikki, keep the good work up!, don't stop improving on your photo skills.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:38:00 PM · #390 |
Originally posted by BradP:
I'd like to suggest something that is very much a parallel to all this.
How often have we seen "I have a picture in the finals on //www.whateverphotocontestsite.com and here is the link to vote on it", followed by numerous congrats and voted for you replies.
Seems that kind of farming for votes announcement shouldn't be allowed anymore here either. It's really the same thing.
Just my 0.02¢ |
I second the motion :) |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:41:07 PM · #391 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
This seems a little paranoid to me... Not sure I buy into the idea of a "Boys Club" here. |
Likewise. If it were true, you wouldn't see many new ribbon winners, the "regulars" would never have a low score, and I wouldn't have to try so darn hard! |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:43:29 PM · #392 |
Originally posted by blemt:
Again, if you have specific users you suspect please report them. It takes all of 5 minutes. The level of vote swapping that would have to go on to make a statistical impact is BIG. It needs more than just 4-5 folks who know eachother swapping 10s.
It's very easy to make vauge comments about "the club". If you have SPECIFIC people you think need to be looked at, tell SC. Making vauge statements does nothing to help eliminate the problem. |
I have no concrete proof, and therefore wouldn't possibly want to accuse individuals.
That sort of thing will always happen, and we'll just live with it.
However, blemt, re statistical impact: I did at one point look at the upper 20's photos in a random challenge, and swapped 10 low votes for 10's - it made a huge difference in placing. Often the gap from one position to the next is so minimal, it doesn't take much at all to get from 18th to ribbon.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:46:09 PM · #393 |
| What's unfortunate is that when there's an undercurrent of suspicion about things like "boy's clubs," and then something like this happens, it only serves to strengthen and grow that suspicion, thereby tainting the work of honest ribbon winners in many people's minds. I'd like to continue on with the assumption that this was a unique case and that we still remain overwhelmingly a community of integrity, but I have to admit, the number of claims of "no harm, no foul" don't do much to support that. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:46:28 PM · #394 |
| Making vague accusations does nothing but undermine the integrity of the site and every participant. If you have specific information, please report it. Otherwise, claiming something exists without presenting any evidence for it is not helpful. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:48:22 PM · #395 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
I have no concrete proof, and therefore wouldn't possibly want to accuse individuals.
That sort of thing will always happen, and we'll just live with it.
However, blemt, re statistical impact: I did at one point look at the upper 20's photos in a random challenge, and swapped 10 low votes for 10's - it made a huge difference in placing. Often the gap from one position to the next is so minimal, it doesn't take much at all to get from 18th to ribbon. |
Pawdrix didn't have any concrete proof that Rikki was up to something. Just suspicion. You gotta wonder what changes if he'd reported the concern to SC when he originally had it.
Again, you don't need "proof". A reasonable suspicion is not going to start a witch hunt. Rather than make vauge allegations I encourage you to pass along SPECIFIC concerns. Often users may catch something that SC and the Admins have missed on a first pass. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:51:13 PM · #396 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Making vague accusations does nothing but undermine the integrity of the site and every participant. If you have specific information, please report it. Otherwise, claiming something exists without presenting any evidence for it is not helpful. |
I agree. Now I feel like eyes are roaming the room and the torches and pitchforks are being gathered. If there is a "boys club" (as Beetle has unflatteringly assumed its boys), I am unaware of one.
Swapping 10 low votes with 10 high votes will indeed make a big difference, but that's based on the fallacious idea that the 10 high votes would have been low instead. If we are talking about ribbon shots, the average is close to 7. Swapping 10 10's with 10 7's doesn't make nearly as much of a difference. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:52:44 PM · #397 |
Originally posted by patrinus:
I'm shocked, I think this is something that could happen to mostly anybody on this site (whoever has friends and is eager to tell about DPC). Rikki is a great guy and I think his intention wasn't unfair but things happen.
I hope we can see Rikki back here and continue learning from him.
Good luck Rikki, keep the good work up!, don't stop improving on your photo skills. |
So the consensus is that Rikki is the victim of his co workers and SC have unfairly banned him? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:53:53 PM · #398 |
Originally posted by Beetle:
That sort of thing will always happen, and we'll just live with it. |
Hang on there! You need look no further than this thread to know that we take any sort of fraud seriously, and it doesn't matter who you are or how popular. If there IS another abuser like this (which I highly doubt), it's just a matter of time before it's discovered. The vast majority knows that winning means nothing unless it's completely fair, and it's in everyone's best interest to ensure that. I'm betting that if you asked 98% of the members on this site to do what you suggest, they'd report you- friends or not. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:58:45 PM · #399 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Beetle:
That sort of thing will always happen, and we'll just live with it. |
Hang on there! You need look no further than this thread to know that we take any sort of fraud seriously, and it doesn't matter who you are or how popular. If there IS another abuser like this (which I highly doubt), it's just a matter of time before it's discovered. The vast majority knows that winning means nothing unless it's completely fair, and it's in everyone's best interest to ensure that. I'm betting that if you asked 98% of the members on this site to do what you suggest, they'd report you- friends or not. |
Well put, Shannon.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 12:58:58 PM · #400 |
Originally posted by amber:
...Rikki is the victim of his co workers and SC have unfairly banned him? |
I don't get that sense at all. More like, "He lost sight of what's really important and hurt his friends when he would have been just fine on his own. We might welcome him back, but he'll have a tough reputation to live down." |
|
