DV Lottery 2012 results CANCEL
- Thread starter iren
- Start date
Please, do not evaluate my way of thinking and my psychological state. It's not your business.
If you really want to know why I am angry, tell you, only because I spent one hundred dollars for DHL, that's only reason. I treated this lottery for fun. And I really regret those people from all other countries, with unstable economical and political situation. They and they poor families deserved the green cards THOUSAND times MUCH MORE then me.
And stop repeating like broken plate "they were not randomly selected ...it is against the regulations". For God's sake, Who broke the law? Me? 22000 selecetees? Not, Mr Donahue's team! Who is aggrieved? Mr Donahue's team? No, WE ARE!
The point is see the rights of ordinary people vs. state regulations. The weaker part are the people. That is why the US constitution gave them certain right to eliminate a little bit the complete lack of balance between people and the state. In the same way there are certain state institution in democratic countries which act in opposition to each other. The State can not hurt ordinary people without any consequences. If you can not see this I feel really sorry" for you and the people like Mr Donahue.
What can we do? NOTHING. We are scum for those officials, we are not American citizens, we do NOT have ANY rights. Even if we receive the green card we'll still be outsiders and being naughty may result in voiding our green card. That's why thousands of green card holders are joining the US army to go to extra quick path to citizenship......and they die in Iraq or Afghanistan....and this is really SAD.
Good luck all Bureaucratic pseudo-psychologists with your "sorry for inconveniences". Say this to thousands (but no to me), who are in big trouble, psychological or real, and especially this girl who allegedly committed the suicide.
jh
I READ THIS BEFORE IN THE U.S. Department of State: Consular Affairs FACEBOOK
I dunno if it is true or false they said the victim was Italian !!!
please people Dv lottery is nothing to make you suicide
WE 22000 ARE VICTIMS NOT CHEATERS
It is a very disappointing and sad situation. Especially, after making one think they have been chosen and getting a chance at your “dream”.
I believe that supporting the process for the declared “winners” and choosing a second batch of winners could have been a better move. It seems that proceeding this way would be more suiting of the USA as we imagine the USA to be. Standing behind their word even if it could cost.
I have been pondering on the voiding of the DV2012 Lottery results. I am an Electronics Engineer and my occupation is Software Consultancy.
I understand from the explanation given on the web site that, due to an “error” in the software used for the selection process, the selection has not been “random” and selectee determination was biased towards the early applicants. I would kindly ask you to review and let me know your thoughts on the following 3 points:
1- As the problem stems from a software “error”, it was unintentional. Being unintentional, no one had prior knowledge of the selection algorithm’s detail workings. Consequently, nobody could have benefited from this situation. For all intents and purposes the selection is still Random. Hence there is no need for cancelation.
The software could easily well have chosen the applicants who applied on the last 3 days Or on odd/even numbered days Or on Saturday/Sundays. Or the system could have even directly selected the very last 100,000 applicants Or have choosen all selectees from amongst applicants who applied on a specific date.
As this was an “error” and was not known to anyone before the selection; the Randomness of the selection is not affected.
As an applicant I had no way of manipulating the system to favour my application to be chosen. For any applicant, this is the case. For anybody, the selection software is a “black box”. This is true for the software whether there is an “error” in the code or not (incidentally, even the random() function used in software programming is not “truely random” itself). As the selection process is only done once, the content of this “black box” is irrelevant.
Hence the Randomness is preserved and cancelation is actually Not required.
2- In ANY case, I would have expected that, once declared by the USA, the “winners” would have been supported and kept in the “review for a greencard” process. Especially, those selectees who filled out their necessary forms and applied as was expected. If desired, a second batch of random “winners” could be selected (without – so traumatically – affecting the declared “winners”) as an additional group.
3- Does having been declared a “winner” and consequently having sent in the necessary forms to KCC before the declaration of the voiding of the DV2012 Lottery results, entitle a declared “winner” to the right of being “reviewed for a greencard”?
I just wanted to share with you a very simple logic someone put on the internet.
1- There is a train with 10 wagons. Each wagon can hold 100 balls.
2- I tell you to put one ball in any one of 10 wagons of this train.
3- When everyone has placed their ball in the train, I will choose 100 balls.
4- The probability of any ONE ball to be chosen is 100/1000 = 1/10.
5- It does not matter if I choose all balls from 1 wagon or 10 from each or 20 from 5 wagons.
6- Each ball still has a 1/10 chance to be chosen.
7- As all this was an “error”; nobody knew which wagons would be chosen from, so noone had any unfair advantage. Consequently, the selection is a fair and random selection.
(wagons correspond to “application dates” & balls are the “individual applications”)
I believe that supporting the process for the declared “winners” and choosing a second batch of winners could have been a better move. It seems that proceeding this way would be more suiting of the USA as we imagine the USA to be. Standing behind their word even if it could cost.
I have been pondering on the voiding of the DV2012 Lottery results. I am an Electronics Engineer and my occupation is Software Consultancy.
I understand from the explanation given on the web site that, due to an “error” in the software used for the selection process, the selection has not been “random” and selectee determination was biased towards the early applicants. I would kindly ask you to review and let me know your thoughts on the following 3 points:
1- As the problem stems from a software “error”, it was unintentional. Being unintentional, no one had prior knowledge of the selection algorithm’s detail workings. Consequently, nobody could have benefited from this situation. For all intents and purposes the selection is still Random. Hence there is no need for cancelation.
The software could easily well have chosen the applicants who applied on the last 3 days Or on odd/even numbered days Or on Saturday/Sundays. Or the system could have even directly selected the very last 100,000 applicants Or have choosen all selectees from amongst applicants who applied on a specific date.
As this was an “error” and was not known to anyone before the selection; the Randomness of the selection is not affected.
As an applicant I had no way of manipulating the system to favour my application to be chosen. For any applicant, this is the case. For anybody, the selection software is a “black box”. This is true for the software whether there is an “error” in the code or not (incidentally, even the random() function used in software programming is not “truely random” itself). As the selection process is only done once, the content of this “black box” is irrelevant.
Hence the Randomness is preserved and cancelation is actually Not required.
2- In ANY case, I would have expected that, once declared by the USA, the “winners” would have been supported and kept in the “review for a greencard” process. Especially, those selectees who filled out their necessary forms and applied as was expected. If desired, a second batch of random “winners” could be selected (without – so traumatically – affecting the declared “winners”) as an additional group.
3- Does having been declared a “winner” and consequently having sent in the necessary forms to KCC before the declaration of the voiding of the DV2012 Lottery results, entitle a declared “winner” to the right of being “reviewed for a greencard”?
I just wanted to share with you a very simple logic someone put on the internet.
1- There is a train with 10 wagons. Each wagon can hold 100 balls.
2- I tell you to put one ball in any one of 10 wagons of this train.
3- When everyone has placed their ball in the train, I will choose 100 balls.
4- The probability of any ONE ball to be chosen is 100/1000 = 1/10.
5- It does not matter if I choose all balls from 1 wagon or 10 from each or 20 from 5 wagons.
6- Each ball still has a 1/10 chance to be chosen.
7- As all this was an “error”; nobody knew which wagons would be chosen from, so noone had any unfair advantage. Consequently, the selection is a fair and random selection.
(wagons correspond to “application dates” & balls are the “individual applications”)
..well they just postponed arrival of the new "class" of immigrants for about a year ...and because of the shortage of time further distortions would occurre for sure .;so all in all they bought the time and probably eliminate some more of applicants in due time ...BTW "bright guy" I have some great business opportunity for you ...I have a toilet which needs cleaning .;since you have such a stupid nick I think this job would fit you 100%..
vercingetorix
Registered Users (C)
You did not read what I said and you are not answering my post. You are only commenting what you like as a person who doesn't not want to face the reality. If Donahue or someone else is fired is that going to make you happy? Is that going to change things for you? It was a moral injustice and the people who are responsible have to pay somehow but that's an internal problem of the immigration department it will not change things and you will not get a visa obtained in an illegal selection. If you want to be on a personal crusade just because you received a free lunch (the lottery for which you did not work hard in order to get it) and it was taken from you, you may just do that. There is so much injustice in the world, children dieing in Africa, etc. that your statement about people who "deserved" the Lottery makes me laugh. You all have the preconceived notion that coming to the USA will suddenly make you rich and happy; instead most of the DV winners come here with very little English, with studies not accepted by the US education system, qualifications that will not get you a job very soon etc. Next thing you know you end up washing dishes in a fast-food restaurant. Instead of being pathetic on the forums try to educate yourself a little and see the implications, at the macro scale, meaning that a few persons might already have connections in the USA, some are already living here with no Green Card however, but the bulk of the selectees are persons who come to the US like they did 100 years ago on the Ellis Island thinking that NY streets are paved with gold, because that's what they've heard.
Conclusions:
1. you did not win the lottery as a true winner for the reasons already stated
2. 22,000 did not have their "lives ruined", "dreams crushed", "hearts broken", it is way too pathetic. The person whose only hope in life is to win a Lottery where chances of winning are around 0.5% should really rethink his/her priorities..
Conclusions:
1. you did not win the lottery as a true winner for the reasons already stated
2. 22,000 did not have their "lives ruined", "dreams crushed", "hearts broken", it is way too pathetic. The person whose only hope in life is to win a Lottery where chances of winning are around 0.5% should really rethink his/her priorities..
Last edited by a moderator:
vercingetorix
Registered Users (C)
I completely disagree. The issue is the statistical chance of winning when more than 90% of this year's applicants did not stand a fair chance of winning. In statistical terms it is impossible to have 30 pools (days of registration) do a random drawing and end up with more than 90% of winners from the first 2 pools. In addition the solution I keep hearing of adding the 22,000 to the 55,000 in July makes no sense.
Aside from the fact that these 22,000 would benefit from a computer error that gave them high statistical chances of winning in the first place, it would be totally unfair to the other 33,000 winners who had not checked their status (but were still selectees nonetheless). What is the criteria here? Emotional shock? Who cries more on forums and youtube? Either you validate all 55,000 or none. The selection was correctly voided in my opinion.
You did not receive too much education did you? At least google the name before making a fool of yourself in public. My advise to you is start working hard in your country and leave aside silly speculations and world-conspiracies.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think if anyone decide to stop his life because of a lottery he will be completely wrong ,the life is bigger than a lottery,,
But the shocking news are really hard to be tolerated by the ex winners and the disappointment is big. i hope any body understand this , "winning a lottery and losing it because of an error , is not easy ,, i know the decision to redraw the results is a fair one , but at least leave the ex winners talk and express what they feel.
we all know that the decision was taken and the end of the story is what ever your disappointment and the rare chances to win a lottery for twice ..you must accept the facts and wait to 15 July.
so please do not post any comment make the ex winner more angry or disappointment and make them like cheaters or worms
In fact they are VICTIMS NOT CHEATERS OR WORMS
vercingetorix
Registered Users (C)
Yes they are the victims of a system playing with their emotions. However, this is a public forum and we can express our opinions. These people did not lose family like so many in Japan recently, and we're not talking about the victims of the Holocaust here. They just suffered a disappointment and nothing more. Please let's not blow things out of proportion. I'll say this again: the lottery is not something you work for, it is a free gift and any of the millions of applicants is "entitled" to receive it. Get over it and try again in July.
I guess you are one of the loosers. 
I believe all "winners" should be treated the same.
"Random" means that you do not know the outcome of the event before it happens. This is what happened here. Random does not mean that all appicants should be uniformly distributed over the 30 days of application. Maybe much more people did really apply on the first 2 days. All "winners" won in an honest drawing. None of us knew that the inital days would have a higher probability of winning. It could have been that all winners came from Wednesday afternoons and Sunday mornings. Probably nobody would even notice this.
As an applicant I had no way of manipulating the system to favour my application to be chosen. For any applicant, this is the case. For anybody, the selection software is a “black box”. This is true for the software whether there is an “error” in the code or not (incidentally, even the random() function used in software programming is not “truely random” itself). As the selection process is only done once, the content of this “black box” is irrelevant.
Hence the Randomness is preserved and cancelation is actually Not required.
I believe all "winners" should be treated the same.
"Random" means that you do not know the outcome of the event before it happens. This is what happened here. Random does not mean that all appicants should be uniformly distributed over the 30 days of application. Maybe much more people did really apply on the first 2 days. All "winners" won in an honest drawing. None of us knew that the inital days would have a higher probability of winning. It could have been that all winners came from Wednesday afternoons and Sunday mornings. Probably nobody would even notice this.
As an applicant I had no way of manipulating the system to favour my application to be chosen. For any applicant, this is the case. For anybody, the selection software is a “black box”. This is true for the software whether there is an “error” in the code or not (incidentally, even the random() function used in software programming is not “truely random” itself). As the selection process is only done once, the content of this “black box” is irrelevant.
Hence the Randomness is preserved and cancelation is actually Not required.
vercingetorix
Registered Users (C)
I guess you are one of the loosers.
I believe all "winners" should be treated the same.
"Random" means that you do not know the outcome of the event before it happens. This is what happened here. Random does not mean that all appicants should be uniformly distributed over the 30 days of application. Maybe much more people did really apply on the first 2 days. All "winners" won in an honest drawing. None of us knew that the inital days would have a higher probability of winning. It could have been that all winners came from Wednesday afternoons and Sunday mornings. Probably nobody would even notice this.
As an applicant I had no way of manipulating the system to favour my application to be chosen. For any applicant, this is the case. For anybody, the selection software is a “black box”. This is true for the software whether there is an “error” in the code or not (incidentally, even the random() function used in software programming is not “truely random” itself). As the selection process is only done once, the content of this “black box” is irrelevant.
Hence the Randomness is preserved and cancelation is actually Not required.
I don't quite understand what you suggest. That in fact the people at the Immigration Office are stupid and there is no error and you are smart and you can prove that the selection was actually fair? LMAO
Your definition of "random" is totally superficial. Even in a non-random selection your definition still stands "you do not know the outcome of the event before it happens"; for example you have 30% chances and I have 70%; I just have higher chances (predictability), nonetheless you might still be the winner and not me, so you cannot know the outcome beforehand. Please learn some basic statistics before posting here. Random means that everyone has an equal chance and only luck determines the outcome (lack of predictability). The computer program was biased towards the first two days of application (predictability). You did not manipulate the selection yourself, the software did that and by doing that it increased your chances of winning if you were one of the people who applied in the first two days (again predictability). 55,000 people may indeed be taken from one afternoon although the chances of that happening are lower than winning the big prize at the $$$ Lottery (one in millions), but in this case it was a computer error that triggered this result, not a rare statistical occurrence. The fact that you did not play a part in this computer error does not suddenly make you a fair winner. The selection was biased, unfair, non-random and was legally voided. Sorry for the reality check.
Last edited by a moderator:
received the official email as well as a bill from my attorney for $500 as he said that he started my file and is not responsible for the cancelation. If I'm selected again (yea right) he will carry on the process and not charge the fees already paid.
Thanx to KCC
Thanx to KCC
Making such a mistake is not very smart?
Neverheless, I believe by the below it did not warrant cancellation either.
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 application is given a certain number and then those number are ranked (as described in the law above) the application date and time seem actually important in determining the results. Furthermore, I believe it is normal that much more people applied on the first couple of days.
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.
Neverheless, I believe by the below it did not warrant cancellation either.
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 application is given a certain number and then those number are ranked (as described in the law above) the application date and time seem actually important in determining the results. Furthermore, I believe it is normal that much more people applied on the first couple of days.
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
vercingetorix
Registered Users (C)
Dude, this is not a question whether the "winners" did anything wrong; they were not being penalized for doing something wrong; this is not the reason why the selection was voided. The fact that applicants were not aware of the error in the software does not change things. We are not talking of "moral issues" here, we are talking about a malfunctioning software that selected people on a non-random, biased procedure. End of story.
The reason for the randomness is to ensure that every applicant gets a fair chance.
Please tell me how any applicant could have affected the outcome in favour of himself/herself.
They could Not have done it.
As a result everyone did have the same chance. The software could have chosen people who applied on "even hours" (like beween 2-3 and 4-5 etc.) of the day.
The people chosen would be more evenly distributed.
Do you know that the random() function in software programming runs with a "seed". So
random(1) always produces the same results. so does random(2). So if some applicant knew which "seed" was run by the seelction algorithm and if the same person could ensure that he applies at the correct time, he/she could make sure that they are chosen.
I hear you shouting: "how could they have known which "seed" was used and what time they should apply so that they receive the winning ranking."
This is exaclt what I am saying.
They could NOT HAVE KNOWN.
The same goes for the current selection: "NOBODY KNEW!" of the selection process so nobody could do anything to gain an unfair advantage.
Please tell me how any applicant could have affected the outcome in favour of himself/herself.
They could Not have done it.
As a result everyone did have the same chance. The software could have chosen people who applied on "even hours" (like beween 2-3 and 4-5 etc.) of the day.
The people chosen would be more evenly distributed.
Do you know that the random() function in software programming runs with a "seed". So
random(1) always produces the same results. so does random(2). So if some applicant knew which "seed" was run by the seelction algorithm and if the same person could ensure that he applies at the correct time, he/she could make sure that they are chosen.
I hear you shouting: "how could they have known which "seed" was used and what time they should apply so that they receive the winning ranking."
This is exaclt what I am saying.
They could NOT HAVE KNOWN.
The same goes for the current selection: "NOBODY KNEW!" of the selection process so nobody could do anything to gain an unfair advantage.
Last edited by a moderator:
vercingetorix
Registered Users (C)
Dude, do you even read my posts? I have already explained that to you very clearly.
I will ask again: do you read my posts? Did you hear the official announcement? There was an error in the software, an error biased in favor of early applicants. Get it?
The fact that applicants did not do anything themselves to gain an advantage does not mean they did not get an advantage anyway. The advantage was offered by the error in the software. If I steal 1000$ and I give it to you as a gift the police will not charge you for stealing the 1000$ because it is not your fault, you just got the money from me without knowing anything. Still, the police will take that money from you and give it back to the owner, because this is fair and legal. It is the same thing with the situation with the lottery. You received a gift without knowing that a major error was made, then the gift was rightfully taken away. I hope I made myself clear and you will stop with this nonsense.
Last edited by a moderator: