The rule is "Template engine websites, tools, and sites that generate HTML from text, markdown, or script files ... are NOT permitted." and goes on to mention an inexhaustive list of examples which names Github among others.
That is abundantly clear you cannot use Github.
If you didn't read the rules, that's ignorance. If you read the rules and knowingly violate them, that's arrogance. If you unintentionally violate the rules but rebuff fair judgments as stupid, that's also arrogance. If you argue pedantics to try and find loopholes, you're an asshole.
It boggles the mind why "no Github" is such a controversial point.
> The rule is "Template engine websites, tools, and sites that generate HTML from text, markdown, or script files ... are NOT permitted." and goes on to mention an inexhaustive list of examples which names Github among others.
> That is abundantly clear you cannot use Github.
This would be like calling someone ignorant and arrogant because they were browsing hackernews at school and a clueless administrator thought it was a criminal website.
> This would be like calling someone ignorant and arrogant because they were browsing hackernews at school and a clueless administrator thought it was a criminal website.
Well if the school specifically forbid Hackernews, and mentioned it by name in the list of forbidden sites ....
"Sorry, the rules clearly state that you can't browse websites that promote hacking or other criminal behaviour, like hackernews. It doesn't matter that HN isn't actually a criminal website, we must always unquestioningly follow rules."
> "Sorry, the rules clearly state that you can't browse websites that promote hacking or other criminal behaviour, like hackernews. It doesn't matter that HN isn't actually a criminal website, we must always unquestioningly follow rules."
It's childish and immature, in a competition, to question the rules only after you have been caught breaking them.
I never said rules should not be questioned, I said that you should question them before agreeing to them, not after you have been caught.
> It's childish and immature, in a competition, to question the rules only after you have been caught breaking them.
How is it childish and immature? They were clearly following the spirit of the competition.
Furthermore there is no indication anywhere, unless I missed it, that they were cognizant of that specific rule prior to the competition. Perhaps they saw "no template generators" and didn't pay attention to the examples. Even if they specifically knew that GitHub was mentioned, they could have reasonably assumed that the rule specifically referred to its tenplating features and that they were fine.
> Even if they specifically knew that GitHub was mentioned, they could have reasonably assumed that the rule specifically referred to its tenplating features and that they were fine.
You cannot claim it's a reasonable interpretation when no other competitor, nor the person who wrote that rule, nor the person who adjudicated that rule ... thought that.
Sure, to you and me, we know what the intent must have been, but you cannot change the rules after the competition has ended because that is unfair to all the other competitors who abided by the rules.
> You cannot claim it's a reasonable interpretation when no other competitor, nor the person who wrote that rule, nor the person who adjudicated that rule ... thought that.
You're just throwing around blind speculation. The students didn't even know they were disqualified until they reached out to the regional coordinator, how would you (an uninvolved third party) know if anyone else was disqualified or the thoughts of any of the staff?
Edit: we also don't know what the person who wrote the rule meant because the students were only allowed to talk to the person who graded their submission and made the mistake in the first place. It's possible the person who wrote the rules meant "template generation features on GitHub" but just wrote it poorly. The rule in question is within the context of template generation, not VCS or anything else.
) H. Framework systems, such as Drupal, Joomla,
Wordpress, Bootstrap, or other current technologies
may be used; however, pre-built templates and
themes for these sites are not permissible. If a
framework system is used, a statement affirming
that the template or theme used on the framework
was built by the team must be posted on an “About”
section or page.
) I. Template engine websites, tools, and sites that
generate HTML from text, markdown, or script files,
such as Webs, Wix, Weebly, GitHub, Jekyll, and Replit,
are NOT permitted.
I'm more than okay with a little unfairness if it means stupid garbage rules like that can be removed, even retroactively. If I had to suffer through emailing source code back and forth with my collaborators because version control was banned, I would be beyond caring. Taking a competition so seriously that you prioritize "unfairness" over such blatant stupidity is far more childish than anything in the article.
> It boggles the mind why "no Github" is such a controversial point.
The rule gives a list of examples that are not allowed because they generate HTML.
It seems clear to me that you shouldn’t use these tools for HTML generation.
This is the spirit of the rule, if not the letter.
No reasonable person would interpret this to mean that you cannot use Github to host your source, because it has no bearing on the competition whatsoever.
That is abundantly clear you cannot use Github.
If you didn't read the rules, that's ignorance. If you read the rules and knowingly violate them, that's arrogance. If you unintentionally violate the rules but rebuff fair judgments as stupid, that's also arrogance. If you argue pedantics to try and find loopholes, you're an asshole.
It boggles the mind why "no Github" is such a controversial point.