I believe you failed statistics. Or statistics failed you. Clearly the meaning of 'random' in your eyes means 'non-random'.
People who were selected for DV 2012 (IMPORTANT)
- Thread starter keona
- Start date
I believe you failed statistics. Or statistics failed you. Clearly the meaning of 'random' in your eyes means 'non-random'.
CraigToomy
Banned
Why people who applied on 15th deserve less chances to be picked than you who applied on 5th? What's so special about you?
They are special because they were up all night on October 4th to apply the moment the website started taking applications.
CraigToomy
Banned
Lol, it doesn't make them special in any way. More desperate maybe.
It is true that those who won did nothing wrong, but if the results of the lottery are allowed to stand, it would mean that those who won would be allowed to benefit from a minstake. Yes, it was not their mistake, but it was a mistake. Taking advantage of a mistake is not fairness.
If a cashier at a supermarket mistakenly gives me twice the the amound of change she should have, it would be unfair for me to take the money and justify it by saying, "well, she made a mistake, not me, therefore I am entitled to this extra money."
The U.S. government did not promise anyone anyting in relation with this lettery other than that all entrants will have an equal chance to win. If as a result of a mistake/error/glitch entrants did not have an equal chance to win, then that is the only U.S. government promise I see broken here. And they need to correct that broken promise. And corrent it they did.
whataboutno
Banned
it's rasism. they pretend i'm sort of hitler. but sill dont understand they wanna limit rights of people who applied in 8th, 24th, 30th, etc. they're like stalin! against democracy and civil rights. middle age!
I do read carefully, apparently you do not. Let me clarify my comment for you:
When the selection is being made, you have a pool with all of the submitted, valid applications. The software randomly choses 100 000 entries from this pool.
If the selection of these 90 % was made while ALL APPLICANTS were in the pool, that would be indeed, random (although very unlikely and very impossible from statistic's perspective).
However, if the selection was made while the pool was created ONLY by applicants from OCT/5 and OCT/6 this is not random and not fair.
Were all applicants included in the pool or only the ones from 5th and 6th? I do not know, you do not know, NOBODY knows. "Computer error" may refer to anything, really and I do not see the department of state rushing to share the details.
Their final decision was to cancel the results.
The only thing you receive by winning is hope and the only thing taken away - I hope temporarily - is again, hope. Everything else that you have or have not done based on "winning" is a result of your own actions and good judgment and KCC cannot be held responsible for it.
And to those who were referring to "hate" between those who were selected and those who were not:
I do not hate anyone. I do feel the pain of the people who lost their hopes, but I have accepted the fact that nothing can be done about it so it's time for everyone to grow up and and move on.
Please note that if the results were not canceled, I would stand a better chance - I submitted my application on 5th and never checked results.
My problem is: There are already a lot of people against DV in the government. If this problem really escalates we are facing DV cancellation. And this is something that, I believe, nobody here would like.
P.S. This is the second time within this thread that I would ask you to please mind your language. I see you do not agree with my comments - you do not need to refer to them as "stupid". Thank you and good luck.
MS801,
I can tell you trying to make a genuine analogy with the super market. But it is a jarring comparison. Because whenever there is a seller and a buyer or sale, the law of contract governs that sale or transaction. As a result either the buyer or the seller can not void the contract at any point. It all depends on the facts and circumstances whether it can voided. So the question of fairness does not apply to your super market analogy. It will all depend on the facts and circumstance: whether it was a unilateral mistake, mutual mistake, and either the buyer or seller detrimentally relied on that mistake etc.
But here, it is a lottery and the the law of contract does not govern the lottery. Thats why DOS can void the lottery at anytime and can decide to cancel it at their own discretion without any consequence. And that is exactly what they hvae done.
Read the instructions very well, and you will notice that there few promises though not explicit. For example, they said entrants should come online to check their status, there is no guarantee that a selectee will be granted visa etc. So even when you win, you know that it does not necessarily mean that you will be granted the visa.
Although, the instuctions expressly state that, every entrant will be given a fair and the same chance of winning as any other applicant, no where in the instruction did it say that, if the selection is not fair, or random because of an error, the already-selectees results will be voided or cancelled. So clearly what is happening now is unprecendented. Thats why there is a need to find a solution that wont hurt or disappoint anyone.
It was an error but the DOS can regardless make it a harmless error where no one would be affected including the DOS itself. It is mandated the 50,000 visas be granted, however it not required that selectees must be 100,000. So to make it a harmless error, I think the DOS can add the already selectees to their usual 100,000 making 122,000, even though they are not obligated to do that. Its a petition that people are making and not demanding any right to proceed with further processing.
As much I want a common ground to be found, I think that those who did not win simply want 22,000 selectees result voided. But the selectees are only appealing that their results should not voided regardless whether entire redraw or just additional draw. But those who did not win disagree but only want redraw. There is wisdom in what the selectees are saying because regardless of the two options, those who did not win still have the chance to be selected. But the selectee have everything to lose if just one of the option (entire redraw) is taken because some of them might lose or possibly all of them could win again.
In my honest opinion, think they should be allowed to proceed knowing very well that, this is a unprecendted problem in the history of the lotter, while a draw be done for 100,000 so that DOS can winnow the entire selectees to the 50,000 visas mandated by the law.
NuvF
Member
I think those who are disappointed that their winnings were 'snatched' has ALL the basic rights to seek redress one way or the other.
And they also should know that as any other contentious issue, there are and will be an opposing faction/s to your cause, something you need to realize as a fact of life, and go ahead with whatever redress you seek in spite of that, than asking ppl who oppose to just stay low or shut up ! (vise versa is equally true)
Having said that,
My main advise to the lot is you will get nowhere if you do not follow the basic route of legal redress. That will be the only way, 'cos if any of your 'requests' to US gov is granted, they will inevitably prone to legal challenge. The basic idea should be to get the DoS to defend any and all their actions on this in a court of law. Had the DoS not invalidated the original results, there would have been no doubt many a legal challenge. It was inevitable, and their lawyers realized it I am sure.
But be prepared, THE OUTCOME MAY VERY WELL BE THE TOTAL INVALIDATION OF THIS YEARS DVL BY THE COURTS !! (I really really suspect there was insider fraud and TOTAL DoS ineptness, and it might come into light in a court of law. Mark my word, I am counting my fingers to that day we get to know all the details) You need to realize that in the US history many a 'hopeless' situation was given a second chance in the courts of law. Yours may not be any different. So, rather than shouting out loud or marking a presence on the 'farcebook' get a law firm to take up your cause and see how it goes. IT CAN BE DONE !
No need to present here all the fanciful 'statistical' scenarios, keep them for your day in the courts. But ultimately you may just find that a guy there had just tried to run a simple script fraudulently aimed at selecting a cpl of thousand applicants and screwed up the whole thing!! INSIDER FRAUD WAS FOUND TO BE THERE WHEN THE DV WAS PAPER BASED, AND INEVITABLY NOW MAY BE eDV TOO. High time the DoS OIG and Congress take action and clean the house.
SAVE THE DV, LET MIT RUN THE SELECTION SCRIPT (sic) !!
Last edited by a moderator:
I do see your point (very well argued btw - kudos on that), however - I do see a problem with it.
The DV 2012 results of May were voided due to a bill / law (I am not that familiar) that states the selectees must be randomly chosen in a fair draw.
KCC's plea was that the ones selected were NOT selected in a random and fair draw.
These are the mere facts.
Say that they go with the option you suggested.
I am going to ask you (and everyone else) a couple of questions I have already asked, unfortunately they got no answer:
- If these 22 000 selectees are granted a permission to proceed the application based on May's result, this will be against the very same law the results were voided in a first place. Isn't this a catch-22? If they agree to this now, this will be a ground to re-instate the entire May result.
- Why do you suppose these 22 000 deserve a shot in the proceedings as opposed to the 68 000 applicants who were selected in the first draw but never saw their result?
If this is about fairness and randomness, you should be vouching to keep the entire result. If you are vouching for these 22 000 applicants only it gets about whose feelings are hurt and whose were not yet hurt.
whataboutno
Banned
Random, but computer program broke american law! here's the point. if you dont care about law - i'm sorry for you. possible that's why you live in nigers or ruskies country.
BengsBengs
Registered Users (C)
is anyone taking care ofthis forum or do we have admins here or not???? I mean how can someone talk like this!!!! I am tired of seeing this in this forum and many other people. I guess in this forum there are no admins and everyone can say just about everything... never saw this before...
There is no problem with what I suggested because of the following reasons:
1. No bill has a binding legal authority unless it is passed into law; the DOS did not void the result because it violate a bill.
2. The Dv rules and intent of the legislature was to select applicants fairly and randomly; no rules explain or suggest when Dv results may void results. The rules only set out how entrants must be selected.
3. A possible lawsuit which could arise from DOS decision is a class action. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,one of the requirements of class action is that, a class member must be identified or logical. So here, it is only the 22,000 who can be identified because they accessed and were notified with an official U.S government letter to further proceed. The 68,000 you are referring to can not be identified in anywhere-- requirement can not be met. But at the very least some of 22,000 can be identified and official letter can be produced from these selectees.
4. Adding the 22,000 does not violate any law. Congress only mandates that 55,000 visa be issued annually through the diversity visa program. So Dv can not issue more or less than that. It is only Congress which has the power to add or reduce the number of visas issued through the DV program.
5. It is important to note that laws are changed or amended based on peculiar facts and circumstances-- usually unprecedented-- that face a court. Maybe this is time for Dv to modify the rules of the game because of this error.
Note: my explanation is not a legal advise but it is based on my knowledge in law school here. Besides, I offered to explain to you because you said you are struggling to get answers to your question. You can google : FRCP 23 (class action);Section 203(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Section 131 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-649)
Thank you.
read nigger
Keno scandal
In April 1994, Daniel Corriveau managed to win $600,000 CAD playing the Casino de Montréal keno. He was able to pick 19 of the 20 winning numbers three times in a row. Corriveau claims he used a computer and Chaos Theory to discern a pattern in the sequence of numbers. However, it was later found that the sequence was easy to predict because the Casino was using an inadequate electronic pseudorandom number generator. In fact, the electronic keno machine was reset every morning with the same seed number, producing the same sequence of numbers every second. Corriveau received his winnings after investigators cleared him of any wrongdoing
Keno scandal
In April 1994, Daniel Corriveau managed to win $600,000 CAD playing the Casino de Montréal keno. He was able to pick 19 of the 20 winning numbers three times in a row. Corriveau claims he used a computer and Chaos Theory to discern a pattern in the sequence of numbers. However, it was later found that the sequence was easy to predict because the Casino was using an inadequate electronic pseudorandom number generator. In fact, the electronic keno machine was reset every morning with the same seed number, producing the same sequence of numbers every second. Corriveau received his winnings after investigators cleared him of any wrongdoing
