Nobody knew that the first 2 days were favoured. Everyone applied without any prior knowledge of this. Therefore everyone DID have an equal chance at winning. You are looking at the selection process after you have the knoledge that the program chooses from the first couple of days. However, noone knew this.
Class Action Lawsuit vs Department of State
- Thread starter chamele0n
- Start date
It does not matter...the LAW states that everyone should have an equal chance of winning within their geographical location. The date of application should never have been a factor in the selection.
You would lose the bet.
dv2012x, I get your point. It is true that if nobody knew of the bug and how it would affect the results, then the process could be called random.
However, the randomness is given only by the day when people entered the lottery.
The law requires that the selection is random from all applications received during the entry period. The entry day should not predetermine the results. That was the problem.
No, that is not the only proof. The problem would be that the program would again select a majority of entries from the first two days, even if the sets of selected entries are not perfectly equal. That would still make the results non-random because the time of entry predetermines the likelihood of an entry being selected.
I have seen this repeated a few times. Where did you get your numbers that last year most entries were selected from the last few days? I have been on this forum for the past year and I have not read anything like this.
In fact, there was a poll in May-June last year trying to determine the distribution of selectees based on the entry date. The problem is that very few people voted in that poll, maybe less than 10.
The only statistics I heard about last year's selection were from Fox, that guy with the Ukrainian company. He posted in the deleted "DV was a scam" thread that last year his winning entries were uniformly distributed over all days, while this year most of his winning entries were from Oct 6th (he did not enter anything on the 5th). And he entered 220K entries last year over many days of the entry period. That's a significant number of entries for a statistic.
I mentioned this several times before, the bug last year was with the online status check. However, winners were notified by mail as in the previous years. Online status check served only as a backup in case the mail was lost. I guess it was supposed for them to also verify that the system was working correctly because they were planning to make it exclusively online the next year (DV 2012). While people reported the problems with the online status check, I do not think that those reports made it past the representatives answering the phones.
Paulzorn we are exactly in the same situation and you couldn't have summed up my feelings any better. For one second I thought there was light at the end of the tunnel but nooooo, of course not. Back to the line and to heck with it all!
I still believe the below is true baobab (I don't know if you read it):
Assume that there are 1000 tiny balls in a toy train which has 10 seperate wagons.
Each wagon has 100 balls in it.
Someone tells you to randomly choose 100 balls.
It is not necessary for you to choose 10 balls from each seperate wagon.
You can randomly choose 50 from some wagons and 5 from others. You only need to make sure you choose 100 balls.
Or you might just randomly pick up a whole wagon...
And you still have chosen 100 random balls.
Nobody new that you would choose this particular wagon.
Noone had any unfair advantage.
The selection has taken into account ALL Wagons and ALL Balls and it is still RANDOM.
In our case the balls are the applications and the wagons correspond to the Application Dates.
Unless you can prove that any one applicant had any chance to manipulate the outcome of he system and gain any unfair advantage, I can not agree to the fact that this selection was not random.
In any case this discussion is probably nothing but a mind game
Assume that there are 1000 tiny balls in a toy train which has 10 seperate wagons.
Each wagon has 100 balls in it.
Someone tells you to randomly choose 100 balls.
It is not necessary for you to choose 10 balls from each seperate wagon.
You can randomly choose 50 from some wagons and 5 from others. You only need to make sure you choose 100 balls.
Or you might just randomly pick up a whole wagon...
And you still have chosen 100 random balls.
Nobody new that you would choose this particular wagon.
Noone had any unfair advantage.
The selection has taken into account ALL Wagons and ALL Balls and it is still RANDOM.
In our case the balls are the applications and the wagons correspond to the Application Dates.
Unless you can prove that any one applicant had any chance to manipulate the outcome of he system and gain any unfair advantage, I can not agree to the fact that this selection was not random.
In any case this discussion is probably nothing but a mind game
I still believe the below is true baobab (I don't know if you read it):
Assume that there are 1000 tiny balls in a toy train which has 10 seperate wagons.
Each wagon has 100 balls in it.
Someone tells you to randomly choose 100 balls.
It is not necessary for you to choose 10 balls from each seperate wagon.
You can randomly choose 50 from some wagons and 5 from others. You only need to make sure you choose 100 balls.
Or you might just randomly pick up a whole wagon...
And you still have chosen 100 random balls.
Nobody new that you would choose this particular wagon.
Noone had any unfair advantage.
The selection has taken into account ALL Wagons and ALL Balls and it is still RANDOM.
In our case the balls are the applications and the wagons correspond to the Application Dates.
Unless you can prove that any one applicant had any chance to manipulate the outcome of he system and gain any unfair advantage, I can not agree to the fact that this selection was not random.
In any case this discussion is probably nothing but a mind game
In your example, the selection has taken into account all wagons and all balls, but the DV selection process did not take into account all the entries submitted from the first day to the last day! your example does not correctly reflect what happened. Sorry! I said it before, and am gonna say it again; however much you whine and petition, or whatever you call it, the DoS will stick to its decision. You know why, because they are on the right side of the law! the selection process did not take into account all the 16million or so applicants! As for them not being able to sleep well at night because they disillusioned 22,000 non-Americans, I have a feeling they don't care that much. And anyway the thought of doing the right thing for the 16million people who were not considered the first time round will be enough to make them sleep like babies every night. The fate of the 22,000 non-Americans is just not important: not to politicians (it wont get them votes nor money for campaign); its not important to the American people! The majority of Americans even haven't heard about the DV programme! In your desperation to get a share of the American dream, you've forgotten that being issued with a visa is not your right; that getting selected for further processing it is not a guarantee for visa issuance. As far as the DV is concerned, the buck stops with the government! that's why on this website, a big chunk of the legal advise dispensed by the immigration lawyers of Rajiv Khanna Office are on the other ways of getting a greencard (family sponsored, employment based etc). At the end of the day, making so much noise is not good for you and its not good for the rest of the people around the world who still harbour hopes of living in the US! Some of the 22,000 people will again be amongst the 100,000 selected come 15th July. Some politicians have been pushing for the DV programme to be scrapped! when they do it, will you also whine? to whom?
Last edited by a moderator:
whataboutno
Banned
true. how does it feel? did you send forms to kentucky?In any case this discussion is probably nothing but a mind game
No. All entries are taken into account. But there are differences in probability
Please see
http://j.mp/m4UkQT
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there is even no difference in the probabilities.
I tell you to put one ball in any one of the wagons. There will be 1000 balls in all 10 wagons.
I will choose 100 balls.
The probability of any ONE ball to be chosen is 100/1000 = 1/10.
It does not matter is I choose all balls from 1 wagon or 10 from each or 20 from 5 wagons.
Each ball still has a 1/10 chance to be chosen.
I tell you to put one ball in any one of the wagons. There will be 1000 balls in all 10 wagons.
I will choose 100 balls.
The probability of any ONE ball to be chosen is 100/1000 = 1/10.
It does not matter is I choose all balls from 1 wagon or 10 from each or 20 from 5 wagons.
Each ball still has a 1/10 chance to be chosen.
I think the only problem would be if someone new which "wagon" was going to be chosen.
But this would not be an "error". It would be "fraud" or "hacking". And the declaration is very clear on the point that it was an "error".
So noone intended it and as a result nobody knew of it.
Therefore, I believe the selection is RANDOM:
I tell you to put one ball in any one of 10 wagons of a train. There will be 1000 balls in all 10 wagons.
I will choose 100 balls once all 1000 balls have been placed in the wagons.
The probability of any ONE ball to be chosen is 100/1000 = 1/10.
It does not matter is I choose all balls from 1 wagon or 10 from each or 20 from 5 wagons.
Each ball still has a 1/10 chance to be chosen.
(wagons correspond to application dates and balls are the individual applications)
But this would not be an "error". It would be "fraud" or "hacking". And the declaration is very clear on the point that it was an "error".
So noone intended it and as a result nobody knew of it.
Therefore, I believe the selection is RANDOM:
I tell you to put one ball in any one of 10 wagons of a train. There will be 1000 balls in all 10 wagons.
I will choose 100 balls once all 1000 balls have been placed in the wagons.
The probability of any ONE ball to be chosen is 100/1000 = 1/10.
It does not matter is I choose all balls from 1 wagon or 10 from each or 20 from 5 wagons.
Each ball still has a 1/10 chance to be chosen.
(wagons correspond to application dates and balls are the individual applications)
Do you not read..the wagon in your example is prohibited by the law to be a factor in the randomness of the procedure.
Randomness is not enough...randomness should only be influenced by the factors allowed by the law.
dv2012x, I've read your post, otherwise I could not have replied to it. Let's try again.
You have a process consisting of placing balls into wagons and then selecting balls from wagons.
You say that placing the balls in wagons is random and I agree with that.
Next, even if the selection from wagons is not random (though you do not know how it is done), the balls that you select in the end are still not known from the start.
That is true, however, the randomness is given by the process of placing the balls in wagons, not by the selection process.
However, DV regulations require that once all applications have been entered into the system, the computer will randomly select applications for each region.
It does not matter if the applicants did not know when they were supposed to enter. Nobody argues that you have done anything wrong or illegal. But the selection process must be random among all valid entries.
Consider this as a test. Your ball selection program always selects balls from the first wagon. Sure, you did not know that before, but if you repeat the process several times, it will always select balls from the first wagon. The way you placed the balls in the wagons predetermined the likelihood of which balls will be selected.
You have a process consisting of placing balls into wagons and then selecting balls from wagons.
You say that placing the balls in wagons is random and I agree with that.
Next, even if the selection from wagons is not random (though you do not know how it is done), the balls that you select in the end are still not known from the start.
That is true, however, the randomness is given by the process of placing the balls in wagons, not by the selection process.
However, DV regulations require that once all applications have been entered into the system, the computer will randomly select applications for each region.
It does not matter if the applicants did not know when they were supposed to enter. Nobody argues that you have done anything wrong or illegal. But the selection process must be random among all valid entries.
Consider this as a test. Your ball selection program always selects balls from the first wagon. Sure, you did not know that before, but if you repeat the process several times, it will always select balls from the first wagon. The way you placed the balls in the wagons predetermined the likelihood of which balls will be selected.
I still believe the below is true baobab (I don't know if you read it):
Assume that there are 1000 tiny balls in a toy train which has 10 seperate wagons.
Each wagon has 100 balls in it.
Someone tells you to randomly choose 100 balls.
It is not necessary for you to choose 10 balls from each seperate wagon.
You can randomly choose 50 from some wagons and 5 from others. You only need to make sure you choose 100 balls.
Or you might just randomly pick up a whole wagon...
And you still have chosen 100 random balls.
Nobody new that you would choose this particular wagon.
Noone had any unfair advantage.
The selection has taken into account ALL Wagons and ALL Balls and it is still RANDOM.
In our case the balls are the applications and the wagons correspond to the Application Dates.
Unless you can prove that any one applicant had any chance to manipulate the outcome of he system and gain any unfair advantage, I can not agree to the fact that this selection was not random.
In any case this discussion is probably nothing but a mind game
Nice explanation Baobab. But the RANOM() function itself used in programming creates random numbers based on a value called a "seed". For example Random(1) will create a certain set of numbers. Random(2) will create a different set of numbers.
But Random(1) will Always create the same set of random numbers.
SO if you rerun Random(1) you will always get the same Random Number set.
Just like the choosing all balls from Wagon 1.
However, the selection process is ONLY RUN ONCE.
So be it that you take Wagon 1 as a whole OR you use Random(1) to create a choice; there is NO difference.
But Random(1) will Always create the same set of random numbers.
SO if you rerun Random(1) you will always get the same Random Number set.
Just like the choosing all balls from Wagon 1.
However, the selection process is ONLY RUN ONCE.
So be it that you take Wagon 1 as a whole OR you use Random(1) to create a choice; there is NO difference.
In my experiment you can use a different seed for each drawing, let's say based on the time of drawing.
It is not a problem that the selected entries did not look random enough. Even with a random drawing you can get skewed distributions once in a blue moon. The problem is that they found the bug in the code and they could confirm that the selection was not random due to that bug.
It is not a problem that the selected entries did not look random enough. Even with a random drawing you can get skewed distributions once in a blue moon. The problem is that they found the bug in the code and they could confirm that the selection was not random due to that bug.
But Baobab, if as you say selection is based on a random factor such as the application date (random in the sense that any application could have any application date) the end result is still random.
GNH will probably say now that application date should Not be a factor at all.
But even the Random function you mention is based maybe on the "time of drawing" or some other "seed" value. You do not protest to the "time of drawing" to be used as a parameter because you think it is random. But the application date is not much different.
As long as the BUG was unknown and as you say applicants applied Randomly, the selection was fair.
Anyway, I don't think anyone, but us is reading these notes. So nothing will change
GNH will probably say now that application date should Not be a factor at all.
But even the Random function you mention is based maybe on the "time of drawing" or some other "seed" value. You do not protest to the "time of drawing" to be used as a parameter because you think it is random. But the application date is not much different.
As long as the BUG was unknown and as you say applicants applied Randomly, the selection was fair.
Anyway, I don't think anyone, but us is reading these notes. So nothing will change
very very well said!!!
GNH, I think I have found the relevant law:
"c) Processing of petitions. Entries received during the petition submission period established for the fiscal year in question and meeting all of the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section will be assigned a number in a separate numerical sequence established for each regional area specified in INA 203(c)(1)(F). Upon completion of the numbering of all petitions, all numbers assigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by a computer using standard computer software for that purpose. The Department will then select in the rank orders determined by the computer program a quantity of petitions for each region estimated to be sufficient to ensure, to the extent possible, usage of all immigrant visas authorized under INA 203(c) for the fiscal year in question. The Department will consider petitions selected in this manner to have been approved for the purposes of this section."
It looks like all depends on a "rank ordering at random"
So what does Random exactly mean?
Random: "chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected "
Because nobody knew of this "glitch", nobody could do any action for getting chosen so every applicant had "an equal chance of being selected "
I can hear you saying, but not all numbers were ranked. Actually, I think they were. The only point is that the numbers of 2 application dates were ranked first. Otherwise, why would only 90% be chosen from these 2 days and not 100%.
The definition of Random does not imply that an equal number of applicants have to be chosen from each day.
Also, as each applicaiton is given a certain number and then those number are ranked (as described in the law above) the appication date and time seem actually important in determining the results.
For example, if you want to be even more sophisticated, you could want the system to first assign a "random" number to each application and then have second random number generator rank these randomly.
I personally do believe it is a good think to make one more drawing on the 15th of July.
But I also believe that the current "winners" should be given a right to be processed.
A number of 22,000 is mentioned. I am not sure what this exactly is. I am also one of these 22,000.
Many of us would probably be eliminated for some reason or other.
I am not saying this is a right we gained.
Only a lottery was drawn, we did not do anything valuable do obtain this right.
I am also not whining about this situation. Such things happen about even more serious things in life, unfortunately..
What I am saying is that the "winners" did everything right and were actually selected randomly because noone had any prior knowledge of this glitch.
Consequently, they should be allowed to pursue their process.
Good luck to all "winners" and "loosers".
"c) Processing of petitions. Entries received during the petition submission period established for the fiscal year in question and meeting all of the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section will be assigned a number in a separate numerical sequence established for each regional area specified in INA 203(c)(1)(F). Upon completion of the numbering of all petitions, all numbers assigned for each region will be separately rank-ordered at random by a computer using standard computer software for that purpose. The Department will then select in the rank orders determined by the computer program a quantity of petitions for each region estimated to be sufficient to ensure, to the extent possible, usage of all immigrant visas authorized under INA 203(c) for the fiscal year in question. The Department will consider petitions selected in this manner to have been approved for the purposes of this section."
It looks like all depends on a "rank ordering at random"
So what does Random exactly mean?
Random: "chosen without regard to any characteristics of the individual members of the population so that each has an equal chance of being selected "
Because nobody knew of this "glitch", nobody could do any action for getting chosen so every applicant had "an equal chance of being selected "
I can hear you saying, but not all numbers were ranked.
Actually, I think they were. The only point is that the numbers of 2 application dates were ranked first. Otherwise, why would only 90% be chosen from these 2 days and not 100%.The definition of Random does not imply that an equal number of applicants have to be chosen from each day.
Also, as each applicaiton is given a certain number and then those number are ranked (as described in the law above) the appication date and time seem actually important in determining the results.
For example, if you want to be even more sophisticated, you could want the system to first assign a "random" number to each application and then have second random number generator rank these randomly.
I personally do believe it is a good think to make one more drawing on the 15th of July.
But I also believe that the current "winners" should be given a right to be processed.
A number of 22,000 is mentioned. I am not sure what this exactly is. I am also one of these 22,000.
Many of us would probably be eliminated for some reason or other.
I am not saying this is a right we gained.
Only a lottery was drawn, we did not do anything valuable do obtain this right.
I am also not whining about this situation. Such things happen about even more serious things in life, unfortunately..
What I am saying is that the "winners" did everything right and were actually selected randomly because noone had any prior knowledge of this glitch.
Consequently, they should be allowed to pursue their process.
Good luck to all "winners" and "loosers".
Last edited by a moderator:
NuvF
Member
In the eyes of the DoS and the US law, ALL who WON (may be appx. 105k like previous yrs) the DV12 on the 1st round has EQUAL RIGHTS.
Law needs to be and has to to be EQUAL to them all. At one point in time DoS had them in their data base CERTIFIED as winners. So for them all needs to be equal.
Just because only a 22k or so were 'revealed' from that data base do not give them any more or less rights above the rest who were in that data base.
If any 'preferential' action is done by DoS, they are legally obliged to reveal ALL who were original winners.
Those who lament about 'fairness to us 22k' just conveniently forget about this hard truth.
That my friends is just plain pathetic!!
@DV2012x.....the legal buck stops at the 'glitch'. It is irrelevant what ppl knew or not (reminds me the type of ppl who so 'eloquently' talked about the 'known unknowns'!!)
And would you fight a hard fight for ALL 105k ppl? if not, why not? 'cos the 22k only had REAL feelings? (you know very well INA do not give a crap to ppl's feelings. Go read the FB and EB forums and see for yourself)
Law needs to be and has to to be EQUAL to them all. At one point in time DoS had them in their data base CERTIFIED as winners. So for them all needs to be equal.
Just because only a 22k or so were 'revealed' from that data base do not give them any more or less rights above the rest who were in that data base.
If any 'preferential' action is done by DoS, they are legally obliged to reveal ALL who were original winners.
Those who lament about 'fairness to us 22k' just conveniently forget about this hard truth.
That my friends is just plain pathetic!!
@DV2012x.....the legal buck stops at the 'glitch'. It is irrelevant what ppl knew or not (reminds me the type of ppl who so 'eloquently' talked about the 'known unknowns'!!)
And would you fight a hard fight for ALL 105k ppl? if not, why not? 'cos the 22k only had REAL feelings? (you know very well INA do not give a crap to ppl's feelings. Go read the FB and EB forums and see for yourself)
Last edited by a moderator: