|
|
#31
08-05-2006, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Cheaters and UB and Phil...oh my!
[ QUOTE ]
Granny, I do remember that, vaguely. That was back in the day when there was hardly any spam on RGP and poker was just starting to get it's mainstream feet wet. I'd really love to know if UB employed the same marketing agency back then that is with them today. I tried posting this on RGP too, but it was quickly drowned out by all the spam and had only 1 comment with someone telling me I should have cheated too and that Phil was a "Douchebucket" anyways. I really wish this could get to that many "people in the know" like it could back then. I'd love to hear what they thought, although this is on a very lower scale. Alas, i'm probably thought of as just some peon that can be replaced by 20 new players that saw poker on TV and wanted to try online and that maybe if they ignore this it will go away. I'm still hoping that maybe they do the right thing here...and not just by me that would have won with the next highest votes, but by the other 2 as well. They didn't deserve to get the shaft in a dishonest contest either. [/ QUOTE ] llama, i would doubt it is the same marketing firm. however, the marketing firms have always been under the direct control of UB and its operators. the names may have changed, but the integrity issue is no different. UB needs to stand by the 'one vote per pc' rule, even if it meant sending ALL of you to play with phil as a gesture of trying to repair what went wrong. my point in bringing that disaster back into the foreground is that it speaks to the standards and pactices of UB. standards and practices that clearly have not changed since the previous debacle. 
|
|
#33
08-06-2006, 08:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cheaters and UB and Phil...oh my!
Sorry to hear about this! As usuall UB comes through again!
I knew you were screwed when I read this in your post. [ QUOTE ] I tried contacting someone involved with this promotion through UB support [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#34
08-06-2006, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cheaters and UB and Phil...oh my!
I think they got it right. The best video won anyway.
|
|
#37
08-07-2006, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cheaters and UB and Phil...oh my!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The question I would ask is why weren't the 2 cheaters just outright disqualified? What's this nonsense of removing votes within 10 seconds? That's crap. You cheat you get disqualified. End of story. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Account closed and funds seized would also be nice too. After all this is a valuable prize package illegitimately won, as detailed by OP. Regards, Carl
|
|
#38
08-07-2006, 10:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cheaters and UB and Phil...oh my!
Hi All (mostly LLAMA),
I am the un-named marketing guy who put the whole Bill vs. Phil thing together. It seems like this thread is blown way out of proportion and I wanted to address a few things to clear it up. First off the video submission contest had a flaw in the script which I didn't see when testing within the network. I had the script working via IP address and writing it to the database, but by human error an older version of the script that checked IPs in the database but did not write new ones went up, and alas testing different computers within the network provided successful results. I then got a message from LLAMA in my YouTube inbox which alerted me to the problem. I instantly called him after I did indeed verify that there was a problem. After the call which LLAMA stated he contacted UB support, I let them know that I had control of the issue and to move on to the next person as to not tie up valuable resources. Once the script was repaired to only allow one person per IP, I ran a script accross all the videos that provided consistant results for voting gaps. I did this to a) filter out possible scripts that were voting like crazy and b) so that each persons video would take a voting hit as required. Because of the length of time between contest completion and the actual trip to Vegas it was the way to go to provide some fairness given the situation. Why were they not disqualified? Because if that was the reason then no one would've won. Every single person voted for themself multiple times after they saw they could, so in the spirit of actualy having a winner, I thought it would be best to run a script to kill the multiple votes. I do appreciate LLAMA's entry and it was good as were the others. Cheers, Endo
|
|
#39
08-07-2006, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cheaters and UB and Phil...oh my!
[ QUOTE ]
Why were they not disqualified? Because if that was the reason then no one would've won. Every single person voted for themself multiple times after they saw they could, so in the spirit of actualy having a winner, I thought it would be best to run a script to kill the multiple votes. [/ QUOTE ] "This led me to start investigating on how to bypass the 1 vote per PC that was supposed to be in place, as there was no way that many votes could have happened that quick by individual PCs. Finally, after a series of testing, I figured out that you could block the cookie from being placed and just keep hitting refresh and it would rack up the vote count very quickly. Obviously, that's what these guys had been doing." This is the only time I voted for myself multiple times and I told you about it in my email. I wasn't about to contact support without doing the testing and knowing exactly what I was talking about. My exact quote was "I tested this out and was able to rack up around 30 votes in around 10 seconds." I even gave dates and times supporting everything I did and saw. The only other time I intentionally voted for myself in duplicate was when you asked me to during our phone conversation so you could see if the script was then working and also get my IP address. I did so and also emailed you the time I did it and my IP address. Also, if the other 2 below me had voted for themselves multiple times, then why did the one guy barely have over 100 votes and the guy beneath him around 60? I would think if they knew how to duplicate their votes that they would have made a greater effort then that when the other guys were clicking themselves into the 2000 mark. Also, the first couple days of voting, you could not even tell if the vote was going through. There was no confirmation and the vote button kept coming back. I had to contact you through YouTube and let you know that as well. After that you coded in a confirmation message and you could see the vote counts. I just don't understand why this wasn't all in place before the voting even began. None of any of this could have happened if the promotion was run correctly in the first place. "in the spirit of actualy having a winner" you say? When 2 guys had close to 3000 duplicate votes between them and the other 3 had maybe 40-60 duplicates(most coming by my admitted testing, with date and times to verify), then I think the right thing would have been to eliminate the blatant cheaters.
|
|
#40
08-08-2006, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Cheaters and UB and Phil...oh my!
Wow .. I can't believe there's this much conversation about this. There's more conversation here than legitimate votes.
I also produced a video which is available on You Tube I tried to post this response to your comment there .. but so far, there's a server error. "Interesting ... sorry to hear that ... I sort of thought that something like that would be possible. Indeed ... it seems the website that hosts my most popular video of "The World's Ugliest Dog Contest" had a similar problem ... more than once. As it says in this forum ... easy. Ah well ... If it were possible one can wish that UB would decide, what the heck, let's get these guys up to Vegas and show them a good time. They do that kind of thing, you know?" SoCô¿ôL Bob WinAMillionPlayingPokerDotCom 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
