| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/31/2006 04:20:41 PM · #476 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
I think it should come down to if he knew his friends were voting. If he knew (and I find it hard to believe that 30 people would keep their participation a secret) perhaps he is getting off too easy. If he really did not know and only thought he was sharing his passion then a year is long enough. |
Ghost voters who didn't have otherwise strange voting patterns and were not regulars here (so probably didn't read the forum discussions about trolls) would probably have had to receive coaching on how to vote in a way that would not arouse suspicion. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:23:21 PM · #477 |
This is still the hot topic here ? I might as well put in my two cents,
The Guy Cheated, He got punished, Now let this thread die so I can get that ugly green line off my Home Page.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 16:26:34.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:23:38 PM · #478 |
I think that's exactly right. And here's something else to chew on: to a large measure, Rikki's "status" on the site was due to his astonishing ribbon run. I know he was a very friendly, helpful member, but we've seen over and over again that those who win a LOT of ribbons quickly attract a following and gain a lot of status in this little world, and their opinions are really listened to. It's only human nature.
So, to some extent, Rikki's popularity, his connections to people, seems to have been founded on a lie. I think this is where the "betrayal" comes in; if he'd been someone less looked up to, this wouldn't sting so bad.
I understand Rikki was looked up to. But do people only think advice is worthwhile when it's from a ribbon winner? Is the advice and time he put into helping others no longer valid?
I think people need to take advice from a person over the internet with a grain of salt. If you are investing yourself emotionally in someone you don't really know, you are probably going to be let down. It seems the people who are feeling "most betrayed" are the people who put a lot more time into dpchallenge than most, and they are the most susceptible to feeling betrayed. Perhaps this is a good wake up call for those who are opening themselves up a little bit too much online.
Just my thoughts. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:26:09 PM · #479 |
I don't want to see this but but out of morbid curiosity I'm wondering how those 30 ghosts voted.
Did they troll? Rikki's many 10's are a given but what did they do to the rest of us?
Again, morbid curiosity...probably best to be left alone? |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:27:20 PM · #480 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I don't want to see this but but out of morbid curiosity I'm wondering how those 30 ghosts voted.
Did they troll? Rikki's many 10's are a given but what did they do to the rest of us?
Again, morbid curiosity...probably best to be left alone? |
It was said earlier that with the exception of his votes, they voted "normally" which is why their votes weren't tossed. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:27:57 PM · #481 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I don't want to see this but but out of morbid curiosity I'm wondering how those 30 ghosts voted.
Did they troll? Rikki's many 10's are a given but what did they do to the rest of us?
Again, morbid curiosity...probably best to be left alone? |
It has been stated earlier that other then Rikki they had normal voting patterns.
edit: too slow
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 16:28:31.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:28:00 PM · #482 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
I don't want to see this but but out of morbid curiosity I'm wondering how those 30 ghosts voted.
Did they troll? Rikki's many 10's are a given but what did they do to the rest of us?
Again, morbid curiosity...probably best to be left alone? |
As has been noted a few times, their other votes followed a normal DPC distribution curve, which is one reason they were not all completely discarded. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:29:11 PM · #483 |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:30:23 PM · #484 |
Originally posted by Megatherian:
Originally posted by blemt:
Originally posted by Faye Pekas:
Originally posted by ggbudge:
Originally posted by colyla:
Especially when you look in past (Ghost Account) threads |
|
That thread proves he knew what he was doing was wrong and was beginning to worry that there might be a way to trace the ghost accounts. |
Actually my understanding from reading is that the ghost accounts started AFTER that thread. SC, please correct me if I'm wrong. |
Or he was doing "research" beforehand. It's impossible to say what the real situation was. |
That's how I see it. As hard as it is to take in, it seems he was "testing the waters" so to speak, to find out if he could get away with it or not. I hate to think that he was being blatantly dishonest but that's the way that thread is making him look.
And the fact is, even if it started out as an honest mistake where he had no intention of swaying his votes, he could not have stayed in the dark for an entire year. There was a recognition of the mistake at some point, I'm sure, where he had to conciously decide to continue the practice. It's too bad that he didn't come forward on his own, earlier, before getting caught.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:36:03 PM · #485 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
If he really did not know and only thought he was sharing his passion then a year is long enough. |
I don't understand this. If in the intrest of encouraging intrest in photograpy, he showed his freinds his shots before a challenge, and he did not encourage them to vote, then a year ban is "long enough"? Am I missing something? If that was the case why would he be punished at all?
How would the site be served by banning anyone for more than a year? |
The fact that the challenges are having to be recalculated and "real" ribbon winners did not have their "moment" hurt the site. There should be some punishment for that. Punishment for a mistake should be less severe than for cheating (IMO). It is too bad Rikki cannot/will not tell us the facts and his reasoning so we would not have to speculate and guess. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:40:13 PM · #486 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
If he really did not know and only thought he was sharing his passion then a year is long enough. |
I don't understand this. If in the intrest of encouraging intrest in photograpy, he showed his freinds his shots before a challenge, and he did not encourage them to vote, then a year ban is "long enough"? Am I missing something? If that was the case why would he be punished at all?
How would the site be served by banning anyone for more than a year? |
Yup. Why wouldn't he just send his friends a link to his profile page and be done with it? This way they could've viewed his photos after the challenge was over. Why would he feel the need to show them every picture he was going to enter in a challenge? Out of respect for the rest of us, he could've easily allowed his images to place before emailing them to his friends. I've tried to read each post with an open mind but no one here has convinced me that this went on for a year and he didn't know what they were doing. There is just no strong argument yet to prove otherwise.
If they were good enough friends that he would ask them for input as to whether the image was worthy or not, then they were good enough friends for them to come into work on Wednesday morning and tell him, "I saw your image on DPC last night and gave it a 10". He knew they were giving him high votes and never offered up an apology until he was caught. However, I do understand that friends can be biased towards your images. This is why they are best kept under your hat until after the voting stage. Who knows, he may very well be innocent in the part of not asking them to vote him up but he sure isn't innocent in the part of making them stop. If he really didn't want them to do it he wouldn't show them the images prior to voting would he?
As I have said, I liked a lot of Rikki's photos and overall I liked the person that I thought was Rikki. I'm just not so sure about the latter anymore. This is truly a shame and frankly I don't think this many people would be defending the guilty party as much if it was another individual that wasn't so liked. True, that makes it tough but it still doesn't make it okay.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:42:33 PM · #487 |
Originally posted by greatandsmall:
May I use this an the reason no one listens to me?;) |
hey Roxanne - I listen to you! Loud and clear, all the time! |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:47:49 PM · #488 |
Originally posted by chaimelle:
... It is too bad Rikki cannot/will not tell us the facts and his reasoning so we would not have to speculate and guess. |
Viewed from this man's perspective, I get the very distinct impression that a large segment of the readers would NOT believe anything the man said, and as such he would be wasting his time.
On a personal note, I do hope to see him back... but then I am prone to forgiveness.
Ray
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:52:46 PM · #489 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by chaimelle:
If he really did not know and only thought he was sharing his passion then a year is long enough. |
I don't understand this. If in the intrest of encouraging intrest in photograpy, he showed his freinds his shots before a challenge, and he did not encourage them to vote, then a year ban is "long enough"? Am I missing something? If that was the case why would he be punished at all?
How would the site be served by banning anyone for more than a year? |
Yup. Why wouldn't he just send his friends a link to his profile page and be done with it? This way they could've viewed his photos after the challenge was over. Why would he feel the need to show them every picture he was going to enter in a challenge? Out of respect for the rest of us, he could've easily allowed his images to place before emailing them to his friends. I've tried to read each post with an open mind but no one here has convinced me that this went on for a year and he didn't know what they were doing. There is just no strong argument yet to prove otherwise.
If they were good enough friends that he would ask them for input as to whether the image was worthy or not, then they were good enough friends for them to come into work on Wednesday morning and tell him, "I saw your image on DPC last night and gave it a 10". He knew they were giving him high votes and never offered up an apology until he was caught. However, I do understand that friends can be biased towards your images. This is why they are best kept under your hat until after the voting stage. Who knows, he may very well be innocent in the part of not asking them to vote him up but he sure isn't innocent in the part of making them stop. If he really didn't want them to do it he wouldn't show them the images prior to voting would he?
As I have said, I liked a lot of Rikki's photos and overall I liked the person that I thought was Rikki. I'm just not so sure about the latter anymore. This is truly a shame and frankly I don't think this many people would be defending the guilty party as much if it was another individual that wasn't so liked. True, that makes it tough but it still doesn't make it okay. |
I just mention the possibility that he is innocent because only Rikki knows all the facts, and while it is a remote possibility, there is a slight chance it could be true. Until I hear differently, I will personally believe that he knew (at some point if not at the beginning) that his friends were helping his score. It is always a shame that in most of these cases the total truth never comes out. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:55:50 PM · #490 |
I'm gutted, I'm annoyed, but can we please get this thread locked?
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:56:03 PM · #491 |
Originally posted by mk:
It was said earlier that with the exception of his votes, they voted "normally" which is why their votes weren't tossed. |
I'm confused. If we are to believe the only reason these people registered at DPC was to vote Rikki's entries high then it stands to reason they just shot through the rest of the entries just to get to the 20% minimum requirement, which apparently is the most they voted on. Unless you consider this "shotgun" approach of voting to be normal at DPC I don't understand why you would come to this conclusion. It's seems more logical to me that they made a concious effort not to raise suspicion by handing out troll votes, which may have benefited or hurt some photos who never should have received those votes in the first place.
ETA: However, I certainly understand not changing the results due to the work involved and the overall disruption. I just think those votes weren't normal let alone fair to those that did receive them.
ETA2: In your quote you didn't say you actually believe that but I'm going on the premise that you do. If not disregard this whole post. :)
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 17:00:38. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 04:59:51 PM · #492 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
... And here's something else to chew on: to a large measure, Rikki's "status" on the site was due to his astonishing ribbon run. I know he was a very friendly, helpful member, but we've seen over and over again that those who win a LOT of ribbons quickly attract a following and gain a lot of status in this little world, and their opinions are really listened to. It's only human nature.
So, to some extent, Rikki's popularity, his connections to people, seems to have been founded on a lie. I think this is where the "betrayal" comes in; if he'd been someone less looked up to, this wouldn't sting so bad.
R. |
I agree, and my gut instinct tells me that Rikki put a lot of thought and effort into cultivating his "status", and his "following". Judging by the reactions of many in this thread, his efforts were quite successful.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 05:03:02 PM · #493 |
| Well, i'll say this. My scores may suck, but at least they're come by honestly. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 05:03:59 PM · #494 |
Originally posted by shamrock:
Well, i'll say this. My scores may suck, but at least they're come by honestly. |
lol
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 05:05:50 PM · #495 |
It's been said a couple times earlier but I'll repeat it. Based on the statistical anyalisis that Langdon and team did those votes, excluding the votes to Rikki fell into a normal "bell curve" the way the majority of votes on the site do.
Based on that data, SC decided to leave those votes in place. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 05:50:10 PM · #496 |
I think that's exactly right. And here's something else to chew on: to a large measure, Rikki's "status" on the site was due to his astonishing ribbon run. I know he was a very friendly, helpful member, but we've seen over and over again that those who win a LOT of ribbons quickly attract a following and gain a lot of status in this little world, and their opinions are really listened to. It's only human nature.
So, to some extent, Rikki's popularity, his connections to people, seems to have been founded on a lie. I think this is where the "betrayal" comes in; if he'd been someone less looked up to, this wouldn't sting so bad.
R.
After reading all of the posts and spending some time digesting what's been said, I think Bear Music has ONCE AGAIN proven to be the real voice of wisdom.
What strikes me most is the constant assumption that trust is guaranteed or at least assumed when dealing with others.
I'm not that easy to give my trust... hell half the time I can hardly trust myself to do what's right so I am not as disappointed as many of you here appear to be. We live in the real world and in the real world we all stumble and some of us fall and occassionally we fall very hard. Rikki has fallen harder than most but he is not alone. I have no doubt, based on what I've read that his actions were premeditated and the outcome a bit unexpected on his part. Of course he's gone... I'd run like the wind as well and I do believe anyone with any shred of dignity would do the same. I've never had any real contact with him, but it was obvious to me that he is a very driven soul who craves a certain amount of attention and acceptance for his efforts.
He has a weakness... we all do and all of our weaknessess manifest themselves in unusual and often potentially harmfull ways. So maybe we should do two things. Take this as a valuable life lesson and not just consider this a DPC growing pain and... remember but forgive. |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 06:02:12 PM · #497 |
In the words of Nicholas Cage:
"I only trust two people in this world, one is my father and you are not the other"
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 06:02:16 PM · #498 |
|
|
|
07/31/2006 06:05:57 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I think that's exactly right. And here's something else to chew on: to a large measure, Rikki's "status" on the site was due to his astonishing ribbon run. I know he was a very friendly, helpful member, but we've seen over and over again that those who win a LOT of ribbons quickly attract a following and gain a lot of status in this little world, and their opinions are really listened to. It's only human nature.
So, to some extent, Rikki's popularity, his connections to people, seems to have been founded on a lie. I think this is where the "betrayal" comes in; if he'd been someone less looked up to, this wouldn't sting so bad.
R. |
Originally posted by Qart:
After reading all of the posts and spending some time digesting what's been said, I think Bear Music has ONCE AGAIN proven to be the real voice of wisdom.
What strikes me most is the constant assumption that trust is guaranteed or at least assumed when dealing with others.
I'm not that easy to give my trust... hell half the time I can hardly trust myself to do what's right so I am not as disappointed as many of you here appear to be. We live in the real world and in the real world we all stumble and some of us fall and occassionally we fall very hard. Rikki has fallen harder than most but he is not alone. I have no doubt, based on what I've read that his actions were premeditated and the outcome a bit unexpected on his part. Of course he's gone... I'd run like the wind as well and I do believe anyone with any shred of dignity would do the same. I've never had any real contact with him, but it was obvious to me that he is a very driven soul who craves a certain amount of attention and acceptance for his efforts.
He has a weakness... we all do and all of our weaknessess manifest themselves in unusual and often potentially harmfull ways. So maybe we should do two things. Take this as a valuable life lesson and not just consider this a DPC growing pain and... remember but forgive. |
Originally posted by coolhar:
I agree, and my gut instinct tells me that Rikki put a lot of thought and effort into cultivating his "status", and his "following". Judging by the reactions of many in this thread, his efforts were quite successful. |
Harvey and Qart,
Yes, that's basically my point. The picture I'm seeing here is someone who needed attention and approval so much it got in the way of his basic sense of fair play. And that's very human. Rikki needed to be accepted by us, and I imagine most of us can relate to that at one level or another. None of that changes the fact that he has caused a lot of damage, though. Even so, Qart makes a good point; this episode can teach a lot of us something about ourselves, if we look deep enough.
As I said much earlier, "forgiveness" is not a problem for me, but it doesn't undo the damage that has been caused. Only time can do that.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-07-31 18:06:26.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2006 06:08:02 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by Qart:
After reading all of the posts and spending some time digesting what's been said, I think Bear Music has ONCE AGAIN proven to be the real voice of wisdom.
What strikes me most is the constant assumption that trust is guaranteed or at least assumed when dealing with others.
I'm not that easy to give my trust... hell half the time I can hardly trust myself to do what's right so I am not as disappointed as many of you here appear to be. We live in the real world and in the real world we all stumble and some of us fall and occassionally we fall very hard. Rikki has fallen harder than most but he is not alone. I have no doubt, based on what I've read that his actions were premeditated and the outcome a bit unexpected on his part. Of course he's gone... I'd run like the wind as well and I do believe anyone with any shred of dignity would do the same. I've never had any real contact with him, but it was obvious to me that he is a very driven soul who craves a certain amount of attention and acceptance for his efforts.
He has a weakness... we all do and all of our weaknessess manifest themselves in unusual and often potentially harmfull ways. So maybe we should do two things. Take this as a valuable life lesson and not just consider this a DPC growing pain and... remember but forgive. |
These actions speak to the character of the man, and therefor I cannot judge these actions as an isolated mistake but rather actions driven by poor character. He's an adult, and he made a decision which was highly unethical. Doing this on one or two or even a handful of challenges, that, yes, I could probably forgive. But to this extent, spanning so many challenges, that should give you an indication of the kind of man we're talking about here.
Just my take of course, but I'm not at all inclined to give a pass to any person that so grossly demonstrates poor character. |
|
