CraigToomy
Banned
Exactly. I keep thinking about people from underdeveloped countries who spared rice for a week to save $80 for DHL letter. And another week for photos.
It's official - 2012 invalidated.. redraw
- Thread starter lordmuggins
- Start date
I dont agree. They could have easily said, we have technical issues, please wait until the website is up and running.
You just proved who you really are. A sad, foul-mouthed idiot.
And don't try to pretend to be somebody else.
He was not right because he claimed the biased results were on purpose, that it was a scam.
DVwasScam said:
Again, how was the OP right?
Who was right there? DVwasScam with his "government wants to cut the number of immigrants" & terrorists theory, or raevsky with his "bankrupt the companies covert operation" conspiracy theory, or Fox claiming that it definitely cannot be a bug.
All along I've said that a bug is the most likely cause. This is in the face of all conspiracy theorists out there. Hey raevsky, where are you?
It is honorable for KCC to admit to the mistake and do a redraw. I did not expect that they will do this.
CraigToomy
Banned
I won't, I promise!
King David
Registered Users (C)
OMG!!!!!, I was notified that I have been selected for further processing. Anyway, everything is possible not excluding mistakes. I still have a fair chance of as the rest of the entire entrants to be selected again. I'm just hoping for the best and hope you guys do the same.... Hope is the best therapy we can give ourselves. Remember a lottery is a 50-50 chance.
Previously people could make multiple entries for the lottery, which was not fair. I wonder if they would consider letting the 22,000 keep their 'wins' due to their error and still pick another 78,000 randomly? 
I get the feeling it will be a whole new draw though! Although I would love to keep my win!
I get the feeling it will be a whole new draw though! Although I would love to keep my win!
midasfolks
New Member
No one is expected to send the $480 visa fee along with the forms. Visa fees are paid at the consular office where your interview is scheduled.
I'm very sad with this devastating news. how could they do that! its unfair to the selectees. i'm already informing friends and plannning
I'm very sad with this devastating news. how could they do that! its unfair to the selectees. i'm already informing friends and plannning
CraigToomy
Banned
People who are doing AOS should pay $440 to St. Louis before they're current.
CP don't pay anything until interview.
His logic was actually circulating as you figured out.
His "theory" was eventually kicked out of this topic by my post in the other thread (#60, 100,000 people who win DV2012 think algorithm = FAIR BUT...) , where I provided simple evidence revealing his fantasy world, then he stopped distributing his strong belief.
Shut up looser.
whataboutno
Banned
I'm proud. US was born to be great. And justice for all.
threw out the confirmation numbers
Yeah, my wife did that, threw out the confirmation number papers after we saw that we were not selected without even telling me. I am so mad at her now. I hope they come up with some alternative way for checking the status at July 15. Wonder if there is a way to contact someone to get those numbers ?
Yeah, my wife did that, threw out the confirmation number papers after we saw that we were not selected without even telling me. I am so mad at her now.
I hope they come up with some alternative way for checking the status at July 15. Wonder if there is a way to contact someone to get those numbers ?Yeah, my wife did that, threw out the confirmation number papers after we saw that we were not selected without even telling me. I am so mad at her now.
Even though they said no letters this year, I foresee letters/emails being used to notify people this year. It's the only way to correct this situation which is unfortunate but completely understandable (don't be mad at your wife).
well, that's where the problems start, the dv 2012 will be for ever remembered for its mess... injustice to thoses who sent the pictures, the kcc need to remember one thing "THEY told people to keep sending the form until may 12, many peoples had to go to internet cafe, pay the internet connection, pay the printing, pay the pictures & pay the mail shipping... Just by concidering that, if the kcc is brought to justice, they will be in trouble because they would have to refund everyone that shipped their docs
Yeah, my wife did that, threw out the confirmation number papers after we saw that we were not selected without even telling me. I am so mad at her now.
Hm...
Yes, I am here. I still beleive there is a possibility there was no bug. BTW, why do you think my theory is a conspiracy theory? Also, I do not see anything hidden in it. Just works like that, even the source code of the program is in fact available to the fraudulent companies. Just "bankrupt the companies operation", not covert at all, and not a conspiracy at all
Another portion of this theory is the following.
In some countries they entered unmarried people without their consent as married. To get more money in case of a win. This algorithm provided schema, under what if a husband wins, a wife would win as well (because she applied at about the same moment). That way the fake marriage could be avoided by using immigration without benefits to a spouse. Just if both entries won, US law is OK if the marriage is not genuine as long as the marriage is not used for immigration of the other spouse. Nice solution tool. Definitely, those two anti-fraud measures would work well.
DOS could have been frightened enough not to be understood with date-dependent algorithm in court. Also, they could have been frightened the court would make an injunction and when finally convinced there was no problems, time would be up and the lottery would not occur at all. The wave of public non-understanding of the idea of the algorithm might have influenced DOS to admit a non-existing bug. Every program has a bug, and admitting a bug does not mean it was definitely the cause of what has happened.
On the other hand, it is really suspiciouse not only in Europe, but in at least 2 other regions (Africa and Asia) the dates were the same. Donahue admitted more than 90% of winners submitted entries on 5th or 6th, worldwide. We did not have enough statistics beyond Europe with our tiny data. That is really suspicious. It could really be that the initial interval was not chosen randomly. But that piece of knowledge was beyond our abilities to know. And you did not base your conslusions on that as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am relieved to find out that the black helicopters did not get to you yet
. It sounds like a conspiracy theory because it is not based on any facts and despite that, you keep believing in it. Sure, it is possible that everything is a lie and that you cannot trust anything the government tells you, but that is not a theory that I embrace.
What you say is that a biased drawing will bankrupt these "pay after win" companies. We already established that their costs per entry are very small, fraction of a cent for electricity and that a uniform distribution of their entries over the entire period will hedge against any big loses. Moreover, sometime they can also win more. They could even charge more for a win if they found to be at a loss, but that would not be necessary. Despite all this, you still believe that this is such a smart tactic that some genius at DOS has created.
Second, there are better, more direct ways for KCC to invalidate entries if they are fraudulent and if they really wanted to. You will argue that the law requires all entries to have an equal chance, but the actual wording is "A qualified electronic entry submitted directly by an applicant has an equal chance of being randomly selected by the computer at the KCC, as does a qualified electronic entry received from an outside intermediary on behalf of the applicant."
An entry submitted by a company without the consent of the applicant cannot be said to be on behalf of the applicant. Thus KCC could choose to invalidate them without breaking any rules.
Making a concerted decision to select both partners of a married couple would indeed affect this type of fraud. However, this has the effect that for the same number of selectees (let's say 100K), there is a smaller pool of possible applicants for visas. You know that the 50K visas include dependents as well. If you selected 100K principal applicants and each applicant has on average 0.5 dependents, there will be 150K total applicants for those 50K visas. By selecting both members of a couple, they reduce the average number of dependents and they would have to select more than 100K people.
Anyway, I agree that this could be a valid tactic to reduce one type of fraud.
But a better explanation for why both husband and wife were selected this year is because they entered their applications around the same time and the selection was not random. So all applications entered during a specific time frame were identified as selected by the online status check. Show me an example where the husband and wife submitted entries on different dates and they both got selected, and then you might have a leg to stand on. The selection algorithm does not check if two of the selected applications correspond to married couples or not. With a random drawing, the odds of that happening are small. With the bogus algorithm there were multiple instances reported in this forum alone.
Or it may have been a bug, as the online status check has been bugged since last year. It does not surprises me at all that they did not catch the bug before because I have some insight into how government agencies operate and the lack of communication between the entry level people answering the phones and those making the decisions. You only need to look at how the phone operators give wrong answers about what documents people doing AOS need to submit to KCC.
Now, if we consider your theory, is not DOS afraid that the cancellation of results also results in some lawsuits and they would not be able to prove the existence of any bug? Then they would be in even more trouble. I do not want to go deeper into this topic. When you do not believe any facts or any evidence that we have, even if it is mostly circumstantial, you can make up any theory that you want. But it becomes a conspiracy theory in that case.
Wait, are you saying that you have some doubts about your theory? Come on, do not give up so easily. Think about it, DOS foresaw that if they chose different days for different regions, then the biased results could not be blamed on a bug in case of an uproar from the public (which they have foreseen as well).
@tmfl, I have seen your post in the other thread. I was about make the same observation that you made, but then I noticed that you already replied.
direstra1ts
Registered Users (C)
@CraigToomy : You are an as*hole
It looks like you do not understand what I was saying. It is not biased drawing. It is just another way to do an unbiased one. However, this way gives a much higher variance than the previous one.
No, we have not. Even though Fox25 said that, he might not have known all detais. They hire people on the streets that try to get personal data for new people. Fox25 is just paid for writing scripts (and running them) for entering all entries into DOS system and then checking the results. He does not know all additional costs. I am positive, they are not small.
After they are at a loss one particular year, they would think twice before investing more into it. Also, if all entries which use the same photos as in DV-2011 are disqualified, they will just through all those away.
I have some doubts, because of new facts - other regions. That is what I did not know before.
correct
KCC is not able to distinguish that one on the stage of drawing. That could only be done at the consulate. But the drawing is done before, and the equal chances have to happen on the stage of drawing.
No, they cannot.
Correct. And the official instructions do not mention 100,000. They just say "more than 50,000". Absolutely true, they would select about 150,000 this year.
Good.
No. This is not a better explanation. This is the new way of drawing - based on time of submission. Truly random, however. In order to combat this type of fraud they changed the drawing. That is it.
It looks like there is some kind of miscommunication. What you are proposing is illegal. What they did - based on time, is not illegal. However, being based on time, it would automatically do with family applications what actually happened with them. They did a truly random drawing, just based on time of submittal. And that would automatically lead to combatting this type of fraud.
Of course, because it is illegal. That would contradict equal chance requirement.
No, it is not bogus. It is correct.
Come on, I have never led a big software project, but I led a few small ones, working for private companies. To me it is clear that statistical tests should have been satisfied, and I know perfectly well which tests to satisfy. I am sure they would hire a person not worse as myself to do the job.
If I were in charge of the project, I would create proof of running those statistical tests beforehands, and logs for each random number selected. That would be a proof for the court.
The thing is that the word random has a number of meanings. The one defined in 22 cfr 42.33 is more or less useless.
Because it does not allow to figure out whether it is in fact random or not. So, the law does not actually define it well. What is random from the point of view of math (and would work in casino) might not be understood by general public.
What I am saying is that logically the drawings for different regions have to be independent. That is why truly random drawing worldwide based on the submittal date (what is truly random) would most likely select different winning dates for different regions. However, 90% winners worldwide came on two days. That is really suspicious. Three largest regions (Africa, Europe, Asia) - all on the same date. The probability is 1/36. Not really very small, but not very large as well. Enough to suspect there could be a bug with selecting first interval instead of a random one. Random interval would not contradict the law. But it is unlikely all 3 regions would have the same random interval.
Right. here you are correct. If those dates would be different for different regions, I would not have doubts. And they would not have a valid argument to cancel this selection.
Last edited by a moderator: