3 ms·
Absolutely. The rule and enforcement of the rule are entirely stupid, but the rule does explicitly mention Github, and that does make this disqualification stri
by mcv 4y ago
Absolutely. The rule and enforcement of the rule are entirely stupid, but the rule does explicitly mention Github, and that does make this disqualification strictly according to the letter of the law, despite the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever. It's busibody bureaucrats exerting power over something they don't understand.
- brk 4y agoI disagree. It bans templating engines and gives some examples of sites but I do not believe those are 100% inclusive examples. Microsoft also has some web template code. Should that disqualify all use of any Microsoft product?
- mcv 4y ago"Microsoft" is not listed as banned, "Github" is. Like I said, it's stupid, it's unreasonable, it's unfair, it makes no sense, but Github is listed as banned. Clearly by someone who doesn't understand it, and the judge who didn't understand it either just blindly disqualified them for explicitly using Github. I'm not saying any of this is good; it obviously isn't. But the stupid ruling is entirely justifiable by the letter of the stupid rules. Github was explicitly listed as banned. Stupid, but that's the way it is.
- kevviiinn 4y agoSo theoretically they could have used Microsoft templating?