| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2006 01:37:26 PM · #426 |
| Rules only work for those who abide by them. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 01:43:29 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I think many people are just plain ticked off that this level of cheating was able to go on undetected for so long. |
This seems to imply that people are ticked off that Admin/SC didn't discover it sooner or that they were lax in some way for not having done so.
I have to take issue with this. SC are volunteers. Volunteers who often give as many hours as some of us to do in our paid jobs to this site every single week. For nothing more than a year's free membership! Hardly what one could call a reasonably salary! Admin aren't exactly making a packet from this site either if anything at all. They all do the best they can and actually it's bloody good, in my opinion. It IS horrible to consider how long this cheating went on for but I don't blame SC for not detecting it earlier. I thank them for detecting, and more importantly, dealing with it now.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 01:44:33 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
...my faith in our community's ability to root out the cheaters would be bolstered even further if a few more of the bad apples among us were to fall. |
There's an inherent assumption in this statement that may not be true. We have far more examples of honesty than dishonesty, and there's always hope that the tree is far healthier than you might imagine from one branch. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 01:51:15 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I think many people are just plain ticked off that this level of cheating was able to go on undetected for so long. |
This seems to imply that people are ticked off that Admin/SC didn't discover it sooner or that they were lax in some way for not having done so. ... |
Nope. Not implied at all, they're (SC) only human. Scratch "undetected" if it makes my statement clearer for you. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 01:55:58 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by ergo:
when's this thread gonna be locked, i wonder?
when's enough enough? |
I see it being locked soon, once again another war has started here
but I feel on Rikki, he has made the mistake or has meant to do it (as others have stated here), but again the SC here has dealt with it and he is serving his time. Ok lets move on, its going to suck more when he comes back and his profile has all his DQ's listed. He is still kind of serving time then for what was done, lets just move on.
If I had entered the challenge and came in 4th then I saw this thread it would not bother me that much its just a ribbon you get and a ribbon listing on your profile.... ooooooweee a ribbon...
I just let it go not bother me so much Rikki did the crime here now he is serving the time and as to deal with it... kind of forever if he ever comes back here. So I hold nothing against Rikki his work is awesome and from all of his post I have read since I have been here he seem like a decent guy who just made a mistake (or however you may take it)
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 01:59:54 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
...he made a conscious decision to break the rule about keeping entries anonymous. |
I'm not so sure that's technically a RULE. It might be a pervading concept, but I don't see it in the challenge rules, and search of the Terms of Service for "anonymous" doesn't return any results.
Let's don't claim something is a rule that actually isn't. It leads to further confusion. Rikki was charged with vote manipulation. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:00:32 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Kavey:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I think many people are just plain ticked off that this level of cheating was able to go on undetected for so long. |
This seems to imply that people are ticked off that Admin/SC didn't discover it sooner or that they were lax in some way for not having done so. ... |
Nope. Not implied at all, they're (SC) only human. Scratch "undetected" if it makes my statement clearer for you. |
Glad I was mistaken in my reading. :o)
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:00:39 PM · #433 |
I was not going to say anything, but saw a few comments in other threads that some folks here want rikki back. cheaters are cheaters and are screwing it up for those of us that honest and play bu the rules.
this was not a one time thing, but a long term coordinated and determined effort to undermine this site, and flip us off and get over on the rest of us.
He has made a joke of DPC for how long now? How dare anyone try and defend that, or him at this point.
I'm glad he was outed and thrown out - I am now considering whether I want to remain here, expecially after the remarks of some folks that seem to think it's OK for him to have done this.
Message edited by muckpond - removed attack. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:02:01 PM · #434 |
Originally posted by seenosun:
Is it possible for SC to Post a list of the challenges with "tainted" results? |
That's coming once everything is figured out -- it might still take a day or two. We will probably also do something about giving any new ribbon-winners some front-page time. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:02:54 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by muckpond:
... also, the recalculations that occurred last night appear to be the result of SOME votes being tossed out because the user's DQs made it so the "ghost" accounts voted on less than 20% of the remaining images in the challenges. this is a flaw in the programming of the site that is currently being dealt with, as it has obviously given us some pause for consideration. |
I don't see this as anything unusual, and don't see any need to change it. Why do you consider it a flaw in the system? |
because sometimes honest voters (i.e. me) vote to 20% and stop due to time constraints or what have you. perhaps an example is better:
challenge has 100 entries. i vote on 20 entries. therefore, my votes all count.
one image in challenge gets DQ'd. it just so HAPPENS that it's one of the entries i voted on. now instead of 20/100 (20%) i've only got 19/99 (19.x%) of my votes in. therefore ALL 19 of my votes get thrown out when the photo disqualification script runs.
not only does that invalidate my votes unnecessarily, it affects the scores of every other photo i voted on. suppose i had given a 10 to the blue ribbon winner that was then invalidated. that score could drop enough that the user's placing could drop.
how would you feel if your blue ribbon turned to a red ribbon (or worse) on, like thursday just because someone else cheated and someone was voting honestly? i don't like the possibility that placings can change downward after rollover. people should only move up, and only when a photo above them is disqualified, imho.
it's not everyday that this happens, but the bulk of calculations that took place last night forced at least 2 ribbons to be changed (not including those directly impacted by rikki's DQs).
and that's why it's a flaw in the system.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 14:03:36. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:04:49 PM · #436 |
never mind
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 14:05:49.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:05:51 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by amber:
Originally posted by levyj413:
Whoah ...
What you may be referring to is speculation by Dr. Achoo, myself, and others, that what started out as a single mistake in judgement evolved into a major problem, even without a conscious attempt attempt to steal ribbons. But we don't really know, and that's been stated repeatedly.
|
At some point he seems to have continued to inform others about which image was his. After the initial, single mistake in judgement he had an opportunity to put a stop to it, otherwise after that it was conscious. 40 odd times conscious. If that's not the case, he was totally unaware what these voters were doing, and they either got his weekly challenge images by stealth, or he continued to declare them in spite of his initial single mistake in judgement, therefore why should he be held accountable? I'm confused.
I like rikki, I enjoyed his posts and images. But if this was maestro for example, I don't think many people would be reacting the same way. |
I disagree that if it were someone else, the reaction would be any different.
But moving beyond that mionor point ...
I made the mistake of assuming everyone had read everything in this thread up to this point and kept track of what everyone had said previously. I mean that; I'm not being sarcastic. There's no way anyone could keep track of all that!
Maybe this overall summary of all of my thoughts will help clarify not only my posts but also those of people on various sides, all of which I agree with.
On the question of "mistake" vs. "deliberate"
I think this was most likely an initial mistake followed by many repeats of the initial mistake PLUS an amazing lack of introspection. It's also very possible he eventually knew what he was doing was wrong, but rationalized it somehow. That's a powerful impulse, and it can take tremendous courage to own up to a serious mistake.
But that's just what I'm guessing happened. It could've been deliberate all along. I don't have enough information to decide for sure. But I do take into account the posts by people who seem to know Rikki in real life.
On whether this "could've happened to anyone" or whether "everyone" makes mistakes like this
Absolutely not. Society would fail, and quickly, if that were the case. Whether people repeatedly didn't examine their actions closely enough or deliberately tried to defraud others.
Yes, I make mistakes. But I assiduously try my best to play fair, do my job, and examine my actions to apply corrections when needed. And I think most do the same.
On what I think of Rikki's apology
I initially thought it rang hollow. Now, thinking more about how this MIGHT have happened, I realize it's irrelevant. How he behaves the rest of his life is what matters. I hope for his sake he demonstrates he truly has learned what a terrible series of events he set off. The best way to do that is by being a better person.
Whether he will or not, I have no idea. Only time will tell.
On whether he should be punished
Absolutely. Hands down. Harshly.
So let's review:
His ribbons are gone.
His reputation as a person is shot, at least as a person. I'm guessing his photos will still inspire others.
Within the confines of the site, there's only one more thing that can be done: banning him.
On whether the punishment was appropriate
Nope. If this doesn't result in a lifetime ban, I don't know what does.
My feeling on this has more to do with the damage done to the community than it does with the illegal accolades Rikki enjoyed. Just look at the insinuations in this thread. Some folks are now going to wonder even more just why that photo they hated got so many high votes.
Others, who haven't scored well for a variety of reasons, will find it easier to write off voters than try to understand how to improve.
Others, who don't happen to have met and made friends here, are going to feel left out even more.
Some folks who aren't on teams are going to be even more suspicious of those who are, damaging their own enjoyment of the site. And if they voice those opinions, they could damage the reputations of team members.
The upshot for me is that IF it happened as I suspect it did, I think letting him come back and contribute is fine. A year, two years, whatever the SC likes. But because we don't really know, anything less than a lifetime ban tells others who might very deliberately try it that it's okay, and you'll be let back in.
On what I think will be Rikki's fate
IF my speculation about how this happened is correct, then I hope Rikki looks inside himself, is honest enough to agree that he made a colossal, repeated error, and is a better person for the rest of his life because of it. I do believe people can learn and be better for having been caught in errors.
But it's up to his own character.
On the impact on the site
Short-term, it'll make us all stop and think.
Long-term (say, a year from now), I think we'll all think "oh, right. Rikki. What a jerk/sad-sack case/self-centered cheating scumbag." And then the 5 seconds will end and we'll go about our business.
And if nothing else, the SC, the admins, and the site's integrity overall has been shown to be excellent. A terrible scam was uncovered and dealt with. Confirms my faith in all of the decision makers here.
Edited in various ways to clarify things.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 15:00:53. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:06:05 PM · #438 |
| i think the point is that revealing your entry isn't technically against the rules (it's against the FORUM rules, but that's another matter). however, revealing your entry for the purposes of skewing another user's vote IS against the rules. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:06:12 PM · #439 |
This is the frist time I have seen this thread, and probably would have remained ignorant of it, if there hadn't been so much puzzelment as to why Rikky missed the recent Bay Area GTG, and event he was largely responsible for making happen.
I try not to care about ribbons or scores; to see this site as a chance to learn and share with people who approach photography with passion and an open heart. Rikky is certainly a fine example of the sort of person who makes the site attractive to me. I concider Rikky to be a freind of mine, and the fact that he sems to have become so concerned with his scores that he would damage the site, makes me worry more about him and his state of mind than the health of the site.
I am glad the SC caught him, but mostly for his sake. If he made this sort of lapse of judgment on his taxes, of with a client billing, the punishment would have been much stiffer. I hope he returns when he is allowed, and I hope he shows up at the next GTG. He is a good man, and a good photographer, who got too caught up in the quest for something as trivial as a virtual ribbon. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:08:55 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
Very well said - and it mirros exactly my own thoughts on the situation (only I think you said it better than I ever could).
I know that I have shown my images to friends (a couple of whom also happen to be DPCers). And I suspect I might have reaped an extra vote or two. I can't prove it. And none of my scores are high enough for anyone to care about. Still... it has probably happened and I certainly don't feel like a "criminal" just because they might have voted an image of mine to a slightly higher average than it would have had. (I didn't tell them how to vote - or even to vote at all, but I suspect that they did)
So ... I can see the scenario. It starts out innocently enough. At what point in the process does it become "criminal"? After there is more than one or two "friends"? (if so, how many?) At the point at which a ribbon is won? Or just until you make it to the top 10?
It's a slipperly slope for sure.
I'm glad I'm not the judge and jury.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:11:19 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
At what point in the process does it become "criminal"? |
technically it's criminal after one time. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:12:46 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by astropilot:
Originally posted by patrinus:
I don't see why everybody has to jump at Rikki's neck and flame him.
1) There was a clear mistake
|
Mistake!! What mistake, getting caught?? He cheated, personally I liken the whole afair to theft. He stole from each and everyone of us through his actions.. |
Go look up the definition of mistake. The very first return starts with the following:
1) An error or fault resulting from defective judgment,...
I would say this qualifies as a mistake but I suspect some are looking for a stronger word (which I agree that mistake probably isn't that strong). |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:19:23 PM · #443 |
Personally, I think everyone needs to relax. Did anyone really think this kind of thing never has happened before? People are acting like a nuclear bomb went off.
"People have been affected by this, and the thread provides an outlet to work out their anger and sense of betrayal."
I mean really, sense of betrayal? You people take this too seriously, and instead of dwelling on it, trust that SC will do their jobs and handle this now and also in the future.
If you have suggestions about cheating, open a new thread.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 14:20:01. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:22:09 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by dleach:
Originally posted by astropilot:
Originally posted by patrinus:
I don't see why everybody has to jump at Rikki's neck and flame him.
1) There was a clear mistake
|
Mistake!! What mistake, getting caught?? He cheated, personally I liken the whole afair to theft. He stole from each and everyone of us through his actions.. |
Go look up the definition of mistake. The very first return starts with the following:
1) An error or fault resulting from defective judgment,...
I would say this qualifies as a mistake but I suspect some are looking for a stronger word (which I agree that mistake probably isn't that strong). |
I don't want to get into a shouting match here, but IMHO it was not a mistake. There was no defective judjment at play here. It was a calculated attempt to improve his scores, and degrade the the rest of us.
Mistake, I think not.
Cheat. You bet. He got what he deserves, and everyone on this site should be glad he's gone.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 14:22:47.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:23:06 PM · #445 |
I have to say that I suspected there was something wrong going on after the Rhythm challenge because I didn't find the picture worth of 3rd place and noticed the voting pattern was suspicious e.g. 30 x 10's and a lot less 9's.
The picture is ok, but not a ribbon and if you calculate backwards if those 10's were not, this would have been 13'th place.
I have been looking at my votes for Rikki's pictures and I usually vote very high on his photos.
Will there only be recalculating on the ribbon shots? What about 4th place?
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:25:01 PM · #446 |
"Defective judgement" is not the same as "accident."
People use good judgement to do the right thing. And bad (defective) judgement to do the wrong thing.
And for goodness sake, of COURSE some people are going to feel betrayed. Some people have invested a lot of emotional energy in this site and community. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:26:44 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I say that because the following is speculation. Wouldn't it make more sense... |
Maybe, but like every other point of speculation from everyone else in this situation, it remains speculation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
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. |
Have to take exception to this. Whereas I agree that most of us have character attributes that we'd like to change for the better, I don't believe everyone, without exception as you seem to suggest, intentionally defrauds others for personal gain, if I understand this situation correctly. Nobody lives life without room for improvement, but not everyone can be said to have the same protracted sense of dishonesty about them. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:29:47 PM · #448 |
Guys, we need to respect that this is a diverse community. As such people will have a wide range of opinions and feelings on the matter.
Respect the right of your fellow users to feel the way they feel. There's no wrong or right way to feel about this. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:31:55 PM · #449 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I guess I'm opposed to a lfetime ban for a first offense, even of this magnitude ...
It seems somewhat cynical to declare publicly that someone is flawed beyond redemption. |
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 02:32:28 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
because sometimes honest voters (i.e. me) vote to 20% and stop due to time constraints or what have you. perhaps an example is better:
challenge has 100 entries. i vote on 20 entries. therefore, my votes all count.
one image in challenge gets DQ'd. it just so HAPPENS that it's one of the entries i voted on. now instead of 20/100 (20%) i've only got 19/99 (19.x%) of my votes in. therefore ALL 19 of my votes get thrown out when the photo disqualification script runs.
not only does that invalidate my votes unnecessarily, it affects the scores of every other photo i voted on. suppose i had given a 10 to the blue ribbon winner that was then invalidated. that score could drop enough that the user's placing could drop.
how would you feel if your blue ribbon turned to a red ribbon (or worse) on, like thursday just because someone else cheated and someone was voting honestly? i don't like the possibility that placings can change downward after rollover. people should only move up, and only when a photo above them is disqualified, imho.
it's not everyday that this happens, but the bulk of calculations that took place last night forced at least 2 ribbons to be changed (not including those directly impacted by rikki's DQs).
and that's why it's a flaw in the system. |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the way the system has always worked? If one of the votes that is counted toward a voter achieving 20% is dropped out of the count because the image it was cast upon is DQ'ed, and that voter's count drops below 20%, then all of his/her votes are kicked out automatically. It's been discussed in the forums before, many times, and the answer has always been to vote slightly beyond the 20% minimum to make sure your votes don't get tossed out. I see no reason to change it now. If the goal is accuracy in the results, the desirability of a correction in final placings should not be based upon whether entries move downwards instead of upwards. In essence what you are saying is "we'll correct the standings when it makes people have better results, but we won't bother about the results being accurate if it causes an entry to move downwards".
I see notinhg in the current situation that would point to a need to change the system in this regard.
|
|
