It's official - 2012 invalidated.. redraw

[dv2012x]

The main point here is that: with or without a computer error, the selection is still RANDOM.

As this situation is an "error", nobody knew about it. As a result, nobody could gain from it. Nobody knew that applying on the earlier dates would increase your chance. As a result the whole process is still RANDOM.

The selection process is a blackbox. The internal coding is NOT known. As a result people applied at any random time within the given time limits. The code could have selected applicants from any application time period.

This "error" has just ADDED to the RANDOMNESS.

Think of it like this: Assume that each application is a 1 penny coin dropped in a big jar. Also, assume the coins are made of iron. The selection is to be done by opening a hole at the bottom of the jar and let some random coins fall out. The coins falling out are the selected ones.

By "error" there is also a magnet in the jar as well. When the small hole is opened at the bottom of the jar it opens just below the magnet; the few coins (selectees) start falling through the hole. The magnet with all the coins stuck to it also falls through. Nobody knew that there was a magnet ("error") in the jar. So nobody tried to throw their coin next to the magnet.

The process is STILL COMPLETELY RANDOM.

Noone has been favoured.

There is no reason for the voiding.


Please let me know if you disagree.

 

[peacemakerMYL]

.

 

[baobab]

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.

I understood perfectly your theory and the two step selection process. You just do not like the term I used to describe it. I used "biased" because the distribution of the winning entries would be time biased/skewed. Do not dwell on one word when it is not the main point of the discussion.

I am not going to go over all points again. You just wanted to know why I call your theory a conspiracy theory and I answered that. I do not have either the time or the motivation to try and convince you. You live in a different reality than me.

I will address only a couple of your answers because the rest have been discussed ad nauseam before.

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.

They could employ heuristics to identify the largest companies. And if they wanted to, they could make it explicitly clear in the instructions that entries submitted by such companies would be invalidated. They can word the rules differently if they wanted to fight fraud. But it is not their obligation to protect everybody in the world. Instructions already mention that people should submit the entries themselves, or if they use an intermediary to make sure that they get the confirmation number.
But you cannot legislate away stupidity or fraud. In the end people must rely on themselves to not be scammed.

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.

Neither this year nor in the past few years did they mention before hand (in the instructions) how many entries they were going to select. But they mention a number in the notification letters. This year, just like in the past years, the number that was mentioned was 100K. So they did mention a number and it was still 100K just like before. Your argument fails again.

 

[raevsky]

They could employ heuristics to identify the largest companies. And if they wanted to, they could make it explicitly clear in the instructions that entries submitted by such companies would be invalidated. They can word the rules differently if they wanted to fight fraud.

Yes, we have different realities. I am saying they cannot violate the law, and you are saying they just need to issue a different version of instructions, those that violate the law, and they could do that after that.
The law grants equal chances to all entries, submitted by small companies or by large ones. They have to follow the law. That is why they cannot do what you suggest.

But it is not their obligation to protect everybody in the world. Instructions already mention that people should submit the entries themselves, or if they use an intermediary to make sure that they get the confirmation number.
But you cannot legislate away stupidity or fraud. In the end people must rely on themselves to not be scammed.

The law sees thing differently than you are. An entry has an equal chance to be selected, whether submitted by an individual, by a small company, or by a large one. That is why knowing whether the company is large or small would not have much effect on the matter. Of course, consul could consider that and should do that. But the interview still has to be conducted.

Neither this year nor in the past few years did they mention before hand (in the instructions) how many entries they were going to select. But they mention a number in the notification letters. This year, just like in the past years, the number that was mentioned was 100K.

I do not see a big problem if they forgot to update the wording in nofification latters. It is much more important to know how many wins they actually had (and we do not know that), than the wording of notification

So they did mention a number and it was still 100K just like before. Your argument fails again.

Being mistanken like that in notification letter does not look like a problem to me. They had things like that before - discrepancies between electronic form and instructions. Nobody paid any attention.

So, I would say, your proposal is "intentionally ignore the law proposal", or "policy brutality proposal".

 

[baobab]

I do not see a big problem if they forgot to update the wording in nofification latters. It is much more important to know how many wins they actually had (and we do not know that), than the wording of notification

Being mistanken like that in notification letter does not look like a problem to me. They had things like that before - discrepancies between electronic form and instructions. Nobody paid any attention.

Ok, so if something does not align with your fantasy, then it is a lie, or they forgot, or just no problem.
That's exactly the definition of a conspiracy theory. Your theory is based on zero evidence.

Yes, we have different realities. I am saying they cannot violate the law, and you are saying they just need to issue a different version of instructions, those that violate the law, and they could do that after that.
The law grants equal chances to all entries, submitted by small companies or by large ones. They have to follow the law. That is why they cannot do what you suggest.

The law sees thing differently than you are. An entry has an equal chance to be selected, whether submitted by an individual, by a small company, or by a large one. That is why knowing whether the company is large or small would not have much effect on the matter. Of course, consul could consider that and should do that. But the interview still has to be conducted.

So, I would say, your proposal is "intentionally ignore the law proposal", or "policy brutality proposal".

I guess you are right. I believe that DOS/KCC may change the language of the instructions if they wanted to. Not in the middle of a selection, but when the instructions for a new year are published.

I am sure you will have no trouble pinpointing that law which forbids DOS to modify the wording of the instructions. To give you a head start, here is Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act which mandates the Visa Lottery.

But maybe you know about another law which requires DOS to conduct the lottery in a specific manner, like not changing the requirements for photographs, or how the entries are submitted, or how the selectees are notified, or other wording in the instructions.

 

[raevsky]

But maybe you know about another law which requires DOS to conduct the lottery in a specific manner, like not changing the requirements for photographs, or how the entries are submitted, or how the selectees are notified, or other wording in the instructions

Yes, sure. 22 CFR 42.33 - that is the law that would be violated by your measures. Very specific things that contradict your proposals and still allow the changes DOS implemented throughout several years..

Ok, so if something does not align with your fantasy, then it is a lie, or they forgot, or just no problem.
That's exactly the definition of a conspiracy theory. Your theory is based on zero evidence.

Does it mean you are questioning those discrepancies? Do you want me to show you several ones? I beleive you are proud of your ignorance. So, it is "ignorance based policy brutality proposal".

 

[rinomanfroni]

I am sure the people who won the DV-2012 now understand how it feels like to first obtain a right and then this is taken away in a matter of a few days.

This same thing happened for the gay bi-national couples. The Department of Immigration allowed a stay from deporting same-sex married couples in March, only to re-institute the deportation one week later. I am one of them, and my hope was to at least win the DV lottery so I could keep living in the US with my partner. I was not selected on May 1st, but now I can hope to be redrawn in July.

Fingers crossed.

 

[rinomanfroni]

That is not an error. That is called a bias, which is worse. A magnet in a jar of coins is a bias and it does not result in a random selection. I'll give you another example. Assume you are an auditor and you are in a company's accounting office and you have to test some of their invoices. In their drawer, there are some invoices in red folders, and others in green folders. Even though the company owner does not know how you are going to make the selection, if you only randomly picked red folders, you automatically made a biased selection, based on whatever you wanted to choose, and that does not result in a right statistical sample. A selection is random if it is independent and unbiased. The malfunctioning computer was a bias.

I am an accounting major, and I know for certain that if you select invoices with such a bias, you can be sure you're not going to work for that accounting company for long, because your supervisor would revise your selection and he/she would find out how poorly you selected your sample.

Some people in this forum should take a Statistics class before stating that the DV-2012 in May was an independent and unbiased random selection.

 

[dv2012x]

By assigning red and green folder colors you are assigning a secondary meaning to the invoices in the folders. If the 2 folders were the same color and I told you that the invoices were stacked into the folders randomly, then choosing from only one folder would not seen biased to you anymore....

Furthermore, assume that each application date corresponds to such a folder. In that case you have 60 folders filled randomly and you can easily pick a couple of these folders as your selection. None of the properties of the applicants (like age, sex, country etc.) will be biased against.

As an accountant you are biased to think that the business owner might be hiding some invoices. So your aim is to find out such hidden invoices. In this selection the only important point is to ensure that all applcants had the same chance to be chosen. And this is definitely so.

The only way anyone had an advantage would be if they new about the "error". Then it would not be an "error". But Fraud. But is is declared to be only an "error".

 

[baobab]

Yes, sure. 22 CFR 42.33 - that is the law that would be violated by your measures. Very specific things that contradict your proposals and still allow the changes DOS implemented throughout several years..

Federal regulations are not written by Congress. They are regulations written by the government agencies tasked with enforcing those laws. In this case the law voted by Congress is INA, and DV is covered by section 203(c).
22 CFR is adopted by DOS and they could as well revise it if they wanted. It would not require a vote in Congress.

Does it mean you are questioning those discrepancies? Do you want me to show you several ones? I beleive you are proud of your ignorance. So, it is "ignorance based policy brutality proposal".

I prefer my ignorance over your craziness.

 

[raevsky]

22 CFR is adopted by DOS and they could as well revise it if they wanted. It would not require a vote in Congress.

The courts would treat CFR as a law provided it is a reasonable interpretation of the law. The clause about equal chance is the main idea of DV lottery. And that is what you are proposing to eliminate.

I prefer my ignorance over your craziness.

That would be nice to see that clause in your signature

 

[Bahama Boy]

Fair would be, to proceed the 22,000 case further and select 50,000 new out of the remaining pool.

Were the 22,000 selected fair? Sigh!!!
This is a catch 22 no matter how you look at it?

 

[rinomanfroni]

dv2012x I'm sorry, but 22,000 selections from the first two days BECAUSE the computer program was defective is 1000000000000000% biased and don't come to me to convince me that it was a random selection when it is so blatant it was not. Don't come to me to tell me that hundreds of couples have been chosen BOTH by the system RANDOMLY from entries in the first two days. Com'on don't be silly and save yourself a reputation. We are millions who participated to this lottery, and we all want fairness for all the participants, not for only the 22,000 who were wrongly chosen.

From your words I can tell you are from a country that does not understand the value of fairness, equal protection, and most of all ethical values. I am sorry for you and I hope you will be selected in July so you will understand how it is to be treated equally in a free country.

 

[dv2012x]

thanks rinomanfroni. good luck to you as well.