Student’s app violates policy

U Could Finish creator receives punishment

By Sarah Aslam

News Editor

Published: Sunday, July 29, 2012

Updated: Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Tim Arnold, a UCF marketing student who created a website called “U Could Finish” designed to ping students the moment a spot in a class opened up, has been found in violation of university policy and placed on academic probation until the end of the 2013 spring semester.

He is being punished for two counts of violation of the UCF Golden Rule Handbook under Section 14 “Misuse of Computing and Telecommunications Resources.” The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities is also sanctioning a hold on his academic record. He must write a five- to eight-page paper on what he would do if he were placed in the role of a UCF administrator and had to update the system, take a $15 coaching session and write another five to eight pages about the outcome of the coaching session. He was also terminated from his treasurer position for the Society for Marketing Professionals through spring 2013.

Click here to see a PDF of the documents from Arnold's student conduct file.

The hearing took place Tuesday and was closed access. Two students and two faculty members were at the hearing. Student Government Association President Cortez Whatley served as Arnold’s witness at the hearing. Joel Hartman, vice provost for Information Technologies & Resources, brought the case against Arnold.

Chad Binette, associate director for UCF News & Information, said UCF staff and faculty cannot comment on a student conduct hearing. 

Arnold said he didn’t seek permission to make the U Could Finish app because he felt the administration was out of touch with the needs of the students and wouldn’t understand. He had tried once before to go through appropriate channels with a different app that showed students where available parking spaces were on campus and had been frustrated with the resistance he faced. 

“I went through all the appropriate channels, SGA was on board and we approached Parking Services, and they thought students wouldn’t use it,” Arnold said about his parking app design.

Arnold surveyed 172 people and said that 90 percent of the students would use the parking app.

“I put in a lot of time trying to work with the different departments to make it work, and it ended up being a huge waste of time,” Arnold said. 

Arnold said he was just trying to give back to the university that had made him a better person by creating the U Could Finish app.

Arnold said he did charge a fee, but had he been trying to make a for-profit company, it would have been the worst ever. 

“I put in $1,000 and made $8,” Arnold said. 

The app cost 99 cents, but he gave away free promotional codes. At the time the app was shut down, 46 classes were being monitored, two of which were $3.99-paid monitors. The app came with a slider bar that allowed a student to increase or decrease the frequency of a server check. It cost 99 cents for every 4 hours and $9 to check every minute with a spectrum in between. 

According to an email in Arnold’s student conduct file, which Arnold provided, a student began a similar service called “Knight Tracker,” which logged into myUCF every six minutes and ran searches. This student, whose name was redacted from the letter, received a request to cease and desist operation of his service. Arnold said he never received such a letter and did not have the opportunity to stop his service before a conduct hearing was scheduled. 

Arnold said he essentially gave the program away for free and with the exception of not seeking written permission from the Provost and Executive Vice President or his or her designee as written in section B(3) of Use of Information Technologies and Resources, didn’t do anything wrong. 

“I found a student that was paid $150 to drop their class,” Arnold said. “People are already doing this monetary exchange; it’s just crazy how bad students want some of these classes.”

Arnold said the app was designed to mitigate the cost of a student not getting the class they needed. 

He said in light of the recent outpouring of support from the UCF community, he will likely appeal the sanctions. One of the ways he can do that is by discovery of new and significant evidence that could affect the outcome of the hearing.

“I am very certain there is new evidence out there that has come up during the hearing. The same people that have the information I need are the ones punishing me, so I can’t get it easily,” Arnold said. 

Courtney Gilmartin, communications coordinator for UCF News & Information, said UCF’s schedule search page was accessed 220,000 times as often as every 60 seconds between mid-December and June. Arnold doesn’t agree.

“I think it’s completely made up,” Arnold said.

Arnold has seven days from the date of the sanction letter to appeal.

“I disagree with their numbers,” Arnold said. “Even the people on the panel said that I didn’t do anything wrong — I was just in violation of university policy.” 

Comments

29 comments
Anonymous
Tue Aug 7 2012 16:44
I like you never said I was wrong. You are just upset how I stated it my opinion based solely on the facts provided by Tim and UCF.

Feel free to cite me where I am wrong if you have any kind of counter argument or point you would like to bring up. :)

Hmph
Tue Aug 7 2012 16:09
Gawd, another rant. Must be nice to have all the answers. Thanks for sharing your OPINION that the student was a copy-cat, money-grubbing, evil, incarnation of an evil cracker spawn. Thanks also (sarcastic eye roll) for the reminder that UCF CS&T is protecting truth, justice and the American way. Bah, how egocentric are you to dump on the character, morales & intellect of someone just to support your position?
Anonymous
Tue Aug 7 2012 14:50
"One of the university's innovative, talented students achieved something amazing here"Let's clarify something. He took an idea from other universities, heard someone was willing to pay money to get into classes, and decided UCF needed a service. He did not program it, and from all the other services he has pointed out, he really didn't come up with the idea either. He simply thought there was a need, and took someone else's idea and wanted implement it here. I am pretty sure he realized that he would not get paid for mentioning it to UCF, and why would they for saying "yeah, thanks for telling us what other universities do". Anyways.. he wasn't innovative or talented from what I can tell. He has commented his did modify the program that he paid someone else to make, but has never said to what extent."UCF appears more concerned with policy"They should be. Why have rules if you let everyone break them?"This absolute policy strengthens the argument that the system is closed to alternative ideas or improvements."How does that show the system is closed? They are simply stating his service was unauthorized. That was the point, and only they can determine whether his service was using their system as intended or not. They deemed it was not."The school needs to weigh protecting its IT system with an openness to student suggestions on how to maximize that system to meet their users' needs."Again, Tim chose NOT to approach UCF. He has stated in this article. Let's read again: "Arnold said he didn't seek permission to make the U Could Finish app because he felt the administration was out of touch with the needs of the students and wouldn't understand."Tim decided on his own UCF wouldn't get it. So he moved forward without authorization or input from UCF officials. This was his decision, and clearly a wrong one. That is what the panel I believe is punishing him for in the end. That instead of taking the appropriate steps to get something implemented that is available at other universities, he decided to go around them and do it himself."Perhaps not as a first option, but why not do so after they blocked access?"It appears they did not need to reach out. Read Tim's timeline. It shows there wasn't any real delay. They blocked it, and immediately handed it off to student conduct. Tim reached out before they had a chance to contact him, and he was told to talk to student conduct. This is a legal issue from my understanding, since it was a question of misuse none of the staff could discuss it with Tim, and all questions and concerns were to be relayed through student conduct. I could be wrong, but that seems to be the logical reason."The continued description of the service as "attacking" is inflammatory language. Obviously the intent was not to damage or disrupt,"Again, his intent might have been good, but he did attack the system. UCF said in a more recent article from the Orlando Sentinel, that Tim's information requests were "increasing frequency up to nearly 30,000 times a day".That is an attack. No single student would access the system 30,000 times a day. While it's intent might have been for good, it did damage the service the UCF system provided by slowing it down for the average user. You could argue it was a significant slowdown, but who decides what is acceptable or not? According to UCF policy, they do. Which makes sense to me."Many would cheer the student's effort & ingenuity" what did he do besides take other universities ideas, and try to charge UCF students for it here? I should cheer him for being money hungry?"if only the school & he could have pursued this in a collaborative way"I think the school reacted the way it did again based on his attitude. It was summed up well by CFF... "he felt the administration was out of touch with the needs of the students and wouldn't understand". He didn't feel it was worth working with UCF to make this happen. UCF is punishing him for breaking their policies. I feel like they would have had a different attitude if he had approached them first. Lastly, UCF has stated the wait list system is going into place in the future. If he had approached them he would have realized they already had a solution, and that his effort would have been a waste, now they are still a waste and he is on academic probation."I hope University officials have a better understanding of this student's value & are far less callous."Tell me his values.. Ignoring policy? Ignoring people that point out policies he is breaking? Trying to make money on an unoriginal idea? Disrupting service for the rest of the student body so he can profit? I wouldn't want those "values" in any of my friends.The marketing bit was simply to point out, he is doing a good job playing a victim already. I am sure he won't have an issue acting like he was taken advantage of in an interview. I don't know the university's opinion on this, but again, a panel consisting of faculty, staff, and students decided his punishment. Who...
Goldenegg
Tue Aug 7 2012 08:51
It can only be hoped that UCF's faculty and administration show a greater understanding of the ramifications of this case then expressed in the last post. One of the university's innovative, talented students achieved something amazing here, but UCF appears more concerned with policy, procedure, punishment & the status quo.

"UCF has also stated only they can decide what is "normal, authorized" operation." This absolute policy strengthens the argument that the system is closed to alternative ideas or improvements. The school needs to weigh protecting its IT system with an openness to student suggestions on how to maximize that system to meet their users' needs.

"Why would they try to contact the person whose service is attacking their system as the first option?" Perhaps not as a first option, but why not do so after they blocked access? It looks like every effort was focused on punishing the student, rather than evaluating what was behind the "misuse". The continued description of the service as "attacking" is inflammatory language. Obviously the intent was not to damage or disrupt, but to repackage publicly accessible class information into a much desired wait list notification system. Many would cheer the student's effort & ingenuity, if only the school & he could have pursued this in a collaborative way.

As far as outcome of the hearing, there were obviously many agendas at play. A student in such situations is often treated as guilty & must proof otherwise. Level of punishment is open to discretion. There are consequences and in this case an involved, passionate, creative student is barred from leadership & honors opportunities. "This wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't in a leadership role, he wouldn't have lost anything. This just happened to be the fall out." I hope University officials have a better understanding of this student's value & are far less callous.

"As as pointed out, Tim can easily explain to any job why he has the mark on his record. I am sure with his marketing degree he will be able to market himself just fine." If this is the official view, the University needs to reevaluate its reason for existence. UCF may want to consider what else this student will take away from the experience & feel inclined "to market".

Goldenegg
Mon Aug 6 2012 22:09
Perhaps another perspective would be helpful. This article from Enterprise Efficiency provides an interesting, thoughtful review of both the student's actions & the University's response, albeit as viewed from a distance: http://www.enterpriseefficiency.com/author.asp?section_id=1129&doc_id=248690
Anonymous
Mon Aug 6 2012 13:52
Goldenegg did you go back and read the reports, as was pointed out below?

"Saying Arnold's service "attacked" the system is strong language for something that is open to speculation as no actual data or evidence of damage was provided by his accusers."

Tim has provided no counter evidence, and has stated he doesn't know how UCF's internal system works. So he can not be sure what kind of burden he put on UCF, just that the bandwidth requirement was low. UCF has never stated the bandwidth was an issue. UCF has also stated only they can decide what is "normal, authorized" operation.

"..it is surprising they went that route without first contacting & discussing their concerns with the student."

Why would they try to contact the person whose service is attacking their system as the first option? Tim might not have meant for it to appear as an attack, but clearly that is why they blocked it when an unusually high request count came from his server. UCF is put in a position of blocking the attack, or emailing and hoping whoever was behind it would cooperate with their request. They chose the most logical decision, end the attack, and then deal with the person behind it.

"They sanctioned him (a permanent mark of dishonor on his records) and took away leadership positions, both of which damage his prospects for acceptance or participation in future academic or honors programs."

They did not take away his leaderships roles. The ruling by the panel was that he go on academic probation. The result of that ruling cost him his leadership positions. This is SGA's policy, I believe, that students can not hold leadership positions while on academic probation. This wouldn't be an issue if he wasn't in a leadership role, he wouldn't have lost anything. This just happened to be the fall out. They didn't particularly target him, or his role, again just the side effect of the decision.

Again, this was in front of a panel. He didn't convince them. This wasn't one guy that was angry, this was a group of students, staff, and faculty that felt he was in violation of the policies and punished him accordingly to what they thought was fair as a group. The punishment is pretty light, he has to write two essays, and pay 15 dollars to take a one day course. It is a lot cheaper than a UCF parking ticket.

As as pointed out, Tim can easily explain to any job why he has the mark on his record. I am sure with his marketing degree he will be able to market himself just fine.

"Just as they accuse him of blindly pursuing a goal, the same certainly can be said of them."

What did they do "blindly"? UCF took action to protect its system, and handed the matter off to student conduct to see if the student was at fault. A panel found him to be in violation of the policies. Where was the misstep on UCF's part there? Are you going to tell me they shouldn't have blocked his service until they got into contact with him, so that the whole system would run slow for everyone else while the matter was straightened out? Come on now.

Goldenegg
Mon Aug 6 2012 12:02
A Thinker's comments seem reasonable. Anonymous "doth protest too much". Your close-minded ad hominem causes one to wonder if you're affiliated with UCF's IT Dept. or conduct court.

Saying Arnold's service "attacked" the system is strong language for something that is open to speculation as no actual data or evidence of damage was provided by his accusers. That said, UCF has the power & right to end access & protect its computers. They also have the right to hold a conduct hearing, but it is surprising they went that route without first contacting & discussing their concerns with the student.

AND, the panel did much more than tell him to "sit down & consider his actions". They sanctioned him (a permanent mark of dishonor on his records) and took away leadership positions, both of which damage his prospects for acceptance or participation in future academic or honors programs. Just as they accuse him of blindly pursuing a goal, the same certainly can be said of them.

Anonymous
Mon Aug 6 2012 10:24
"University could have reached out to him & handled the situation in a much more educational, meaningful way."

His service attacked their system. They shut him down, and handled it off to student conduct to review. In front of a panel he wasn't able to prove that his intentions were good/noble or whatever he might claim. The panel decided he should sit down and consider his actions.

"Has the University explored the same with it's own response?"

What exactly did they do wrong? They stopped his service from negatively impacting the student body as a whole. Then gave him a chance to explain himself and his actions, which it appears he did, but obviously they thought his decisions were poor, hence the essays and class about decision making.

A Thinker
Mon Aug 6 2012 09:15
That last post by Anonymous makes me laugh. Just for giggles let's expand his viewpoint. Why bother with hearings and courts at all? Students should know the rules. Any offense? Off with their heads!

Come on. Innovators often push the limits, & universities are hopefully inspiring innovators. Cases like this one are not clear cut for either side. Not only should the student be asked to review how he could have handled his project differently, but UCF needs to examine it's actions as well. While the student should have tried to follow established channels of communication to seek approval, the University could have reached out to him & handled the situation in a much more educational, meaningful way. It has been said that the student's punishment was greater because he did not acknowledge the magnatude of his actions. Has the University explored the same with it's own response?

Anonymous
Sat Aug 4 2012 21:40
"I believe Tim Arnold was not given sufficient warning to cease his action nor adequate explanation as to why he should, and request his name be cleared of all wrongdoing."

ROFL. He broke policy, he has admitted in this article that he broke it, but maintains he never knew. What part of knowing the Golden Rule is confusing to you? As a student you should know the rules. I can't drink and drive and say "well I didn't know, we should let this one slide". You make me laugh.

Anonymous
Sat Aug 4 2012 18:34
If you are annoyed and disgusted by this case against Tim, please e-mail Dr. Maribeth Erhasz who is overseeing his appeal @ Maribeth.Ehasz@ucf.edu Feel free to copy and paste and tweak the following message:

"Dear Dr. Ehasz,

I value the entrepreneurial spirit students like Tim Arnold bring to the University of Central Florida and believe this spirit should be cultivated by our institution. I believe Tim Arnold was not given sufficient warning to cease his action nor adequate explanation as to why he should, and request his name be cleared of all wrongdoing. Tim has been a loyal and highly respected member of the UCF Community, and I am strongly disappointed in the Office of Student Conduct's finding and handling in this case.

Sincerely, "

Anonymous
Sat Aug 4 2012 16:58
Goldenegg did you read the first report Central Florida Future did:

" However, Gilmartin's statement did recognize a myUCF issue and said that UCF is working on making changes to the website. "UCF is in the process of creating a function that would automatically enroll students in selected classes in which space becomes available," Gilmartin said. "Discussions are in the early stages, and no timeframe for implementation has been set." "

In short they are describing a wait list system, filling a seat with the next person in line.

"Anon is incensed that a business major would hire a 3rd party to help develop something outside his area of knowledge"

My point was he didn't know how the program worked entirely. He has recently posted that he modified it some, and did some improvements himself, but that doesn't show he knows exactly how it worked. In his position, since he doesn't know how the UCF system works, he can't truly understand the load it put on UCF. He is trying to simplify his argument and how computers work without really understanding it himself. I have no issue he outsourced it, but he hasn't supplied a single piece of documentation showing that the numbers UCF supplied were wrong.

"recoup costs" I have no issue with him recouping costs. Read the article "Arnold said he essentially gave the program away for free". He is marketing that he wasn't making money. Of course not, he was still recouping the costs, but his long term goal was to make money. It wasn't profitable yet, but again tell me who would put a thousand dollars into a service if they didn't expect to get that money back and to make some off of it?

"unofficial comments posted anonymously on a forum site" Not sure what your point is here. Whether the comments were anonymous or not, they cited UCF policy. Tim Arnold as a UCF student has to follow UCF policy, no matter who cites it. This wasn't hearsay or rumor, or suggestions, it was "look at this rule, you are breaking this rule, you should verify with UCF to make sure you don't get in trouble". Tim's only action was to say the rules were vague. His opinion on the clarity of the rules, does not change the policies intent.

"It sounds like a major concern was that demand for the app would run so high that it would slow UCF's servers, although that is based on conjecture at this point." UCF has stated it impacted their system. We can't exactly quantify how much, since that information was not released. Tim has stated only 50~60 students were using it when it was shutdown. So if 50~60 put a noticeable burden on the system, I don't think it is conjecture to think that more students would put even a greater load on UCF's system.

"The true question is why are so many students unable to get into required classes & desperately seeking apps, bribes or other means to secure a seat?" The demand is high for courses. Everyone wants to decide their own schedule. An example would be a student wanting to take say Calculus in the Fall. There might be plenty of seats in Spring, but the students might want to get the course out of the way early, or they might be taking other difficult courses in the Spring and doesn't want to take them all together. Either way, there are plenty of personal reasons people fight to get into classes, it doesn't mean there aren't enough courses or seats, it just means it doesn't fit everyone's personal agenda.

Goldenegg
Thu Aug 2 2012 13:26
"You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing." - Thomas Sowell

UCF could have made Tim Arnold's app go the way of the buggy whip by 1) offering the wait list option themselves, something Anonymous says they are "rising to handle" or 2) removing all doubt about the legitimacy of the app by giving the Arnold an official order or request to halt the activity (cease) and not to take it up again later (desist) or else face legal action. Anon is incensed that a business major would hire a 3rd party to help develop something outside his area of knowledge, that said business major would try to recoup costs by charging for the app's use and that the business major did not stop the project based on unofficial comments posted anonymously on a forum site. It sounds like a major concern was that demand for the app would run so high that it would slow UCF's servers, although that is based on conjecture at this point.

All this leads me to believe that UCF has a hell of a bigger problem than Tim Arnold's app. The true question is why are so many students unable to get into required classes & desperately seeking apps, bribes or other means to secure a seat?

Anonymous
Thu Aug 2 2012 08:40
Interesting arguments. It does appears Mr. Arnold's app used a publicly accessible guest account. Just out of curiosity, what would UCF's response & course of action have been if Arnold was not a student?
Anonymous
Thu Aug 2 2012 00:46
That was an incredibly long rant but it was spot on. Brilliant work there.
Hmph
Wed Aug 1 2012 18:06
Gawd, what a rant. Here's the bullet point version:
*UCF says no to student's entrepreneurial effort.
*They drag him to Student Conduct, instead of asking him to stop, because he should know better.
*They punish his butt & will make him an example.
*Point made. Creativity, selling a service, pushing the limits & going up against bureaucrat are a waste of time & bad things WILL happen.
Anonymous
Wed Aug 1 2012 15:41
(Part 2, not sure why formatting was stripped in part 1, sorry for the wall of text)To try to discuss/answer your questions:1) I think the problem you have there is the information is provided by UCF, and you are a UCF student. UCF's policy states you cannot make a financial gain off information they supply. The other side of this is, I do not believe they have to make that information as easily accessible as they have. Your entire system relies on them giving you the results in real time. They have no legal requirement to supply them at that speed. They could simply remove it, and then force you to make a request for it. If you have to manually request it each time, I am sure it will take a lot longer than 15 minutes for you to get the results.2) Your argument comes from a generalized overview. I do not believe they should provide you a line by line summary of how things operate on their side, as it could jeopardize the security of the system. I do agree they could supply more information.Here is the problem with your logic though; you think 220,000 requests isn't much. You keep restating how small your download was from their site. I do not believe they ever said bandwidth (transferring the data) was an issue. Every time they bring up the issue, it is about slowing down the system.In a database there are typically multiple tables, depending on the information displayed on that page, each of those tables could be accessed. You could have tables for each course, each professor, which professor is teaching each course section, credit hours for a course, building location, room, the hour the course takes place, days of the week the course is held, and so on. It all depends how it is designed. Point is there could be tens or hundreds of tables that have to be accessed.At minimum it is clearly counting how many students are in the course section, and how many seats are available each time you request the information. The point is, one request through their webpage could easily be over 100 different calls internally to generate the information you see and get as a result. 220,000 requests can become more like 220,000,000 million calls for that data. Each of those is multiple instructions and so on. In short, there could literally be millions of actions going on behind the scenes to get you the information you requested. This is what causes the slowdown, not transmitting the few kilobytes of information to your PC, but all the processing the server has to do to generate that little bit of data.Now, you next argument could be that UCF doesn't have the proper equipment or it is their fault not be able to handle the demand. I don't know if they do, I would assume so though. The problem with any large enterprise environment though is that you typically end up using third party software to handle everything. This would be PeopleSoft I believe, it is what they discuss in your documentation. I cannot attest to the speed of PeopleSoft or related software used to generate the web results, but from what I have seen myUCF is very slow. It could just be how it handles or processes the data. I don't know, and to be honest that might be information UCF does not have, as it was all programmed by a third party.A good example would be arguing how long Microsoft Word takes to start. While it might take 30 seconds to open, you might argue it should be faster since the document you are opening only has one sentence. While it is true the information itself is not large, the program still has to generate the user interface, has to load all the other features whether you use them or not, before it opens the document and displays it. Part of that is figuring out what kind of document it is, and the contents. Similar to how the database and site probably works, it has to find all the content before it can display it, which is why it takes a few seconds, and this is what can cause it to slow down."Dr. Hartman himself said he could not prove that my system was attributable to any slowdowns of their servers or myUCF." That is great your site didn't cause any issues up until they blocked it. As I discussed way above, your system is not managed by UCF, and could have possibly taken down the site during peak usage. Again, why would they let that happen, or wait for it to happen? It makes sense to stop your service before it causes an issue, which is why he commented he had no examples to show of it causing an issue, because they didn't let one happen. Part of why there were not any issues was due to the timing of your release and limited audience. You did it during summer, myUCF as far as I can tell doesn't slow down much during summer, and I think you said you had about 50 people using the service. In fall, myUCF starts to experience some slowdowns due to the number of people using it I assume; I could see your service being an issue then when typical usage slows it down.Lastly you stated "if my service functioned like a DDoS attack, why was...
Anonymous
Wed Aug 1 2012 15:39
(Part 1)Hey Tim,Looking at your timeline, it appears you paid someone to do the programming aspect of your work. You paid for a web server. You posted to Facebook, and your friends liked the idea. No one really said anything too concrete, but one commented he thought "All schools could use this". Schools without a wait list system could benefit from it. UCF is implementing the wait list function as was mentioned in the documentation you provided. So UCF is rising to handle the issue, and your system doesn't appear to be needed in the long run.Next it appears you offered it to someone on reddit to test. Okay, don't see anything interesting about that, or any feedback, but cool. All the Facebook/reddit posts have no mention of the impact to UCF and its systems.Asking students if they want a system that will help them without explaining the details is like asking if they want a hundred dollar bill for free. Now if you say... "I will give you a hundred dollars for free, but every other students is going to end up paying for that", how do you think the majority would feel? Since you didn't go into the costs and implications your system would have against the typical student using myUCF, they didn't know any better and of course would tell you they thought it was a good idea. When you did discuss your idea with reddit, you were shot down by multiple people. I noticed you haven't posted there again, because you don't want anyone to rain on your party with facts and realistic views.Your next entry even shows you were warned by Central Florida Future, the editor in chief here knew there was "gray" area for profiting off a UCF site. They told you that in the very first contact that you show in your timeline. Yet you went into your meeting trying to hold strong you didn't know you did anything wrong?It looks like a CS&T member reached out through reddit, where they probably first saw your post, and even said your program could end up working like a DDOS attack. So there was concern for your service shutting down myUCF from overloading it with external requests. Whether this person is from CS&T or not is a good question, but if someone brings up it could be a concern, I would have looked into it, or made a formal communication attempt with CS&T to alleviate their concerns.Okay, so Joel Hartman emailed Student Conduct to take the case. Student Conduct should have handle it, since you are a student. As was stated by the potential CS&T employee on reddit, your service could act like a DDOS. Of course they want any potential threat to their academic portal shutdown. Why would they wait for it to become an issue?Then you discovered the site was down. You contacted UCF, and by the end of the day they were all in line with the Service Desk telling you to talk to Student Conduct. It sounds like Student Conduct had not informed their front desk about the issue, so there might have been a delay at that point. They kind of covered themselves by saying to call later, so they could find out what was going on.From the email you posted for June 8th at 5:00pm, you can see again, as my previous comments have stated, they were concerned about two things, you were charging students so only students the paid a premium gained an advantage, and that your service ran independently and was therefore an unmanageable load to their system.Your next entry is that you refunded the user(s). You said you refunded one. I hope you can clarify this. You claimed 2 people used the $3.99 service, but on another site I think it was stated $7 dollars was donated to you. So you made a net profit of $15 dollars before it was shut down, but then refunded roughly $4 dollars of that?Well played with the marketing angle on your next entry. The entry is about "3 days have passed without confirmation or acknowledgement". Two of those days were during the weekend, and those unfortunately are not business days, UCF I believe is entirely closed to business operations on the weekends. You then at the recommendation from an O-Team member were told to contact someone named Chris. It appears they advised you wrong, and you already had a point of contact, the Student Conduct office. Once a situation has been passed to Student Conduct, from my understanding, everything has to be handled through them legally; you can't skip around Student Conduct by going to who you believe reported the incident. They will not respond to you, as that goes against how the situation has to be handled.Your next entry appears to clear some things up. It would appear on late Friday, June 8th, your case was handed to Student Conduct. From June 11th, till probably the 14th they reviewed the case. I noticed you failed to mention ever trying to contact the Student Conduct office again. This is kind of absurd, since you claim you were trying to get a response, why would you not contact the group you were told to communicate through again after they said they would have to check what was going on?...
Anonymous
Wed Aug 1 2012 13:33
UCF's CS&T group are a bunch of overpaid ego-centric idiots!
Techy
Wed Aug 1 2012 12:38
If 220,000 hits over a 6 month period is like a DDoS attack then I'd say you need a faster hamster! And up to 1 hit a minute... The university must be running IBM XTs if that slowed down their system.
View full site