Rule about third-party code is changing (satire)

Revision en1, by ChaosAngel, 2022-09-25 20:43:11

Hello Sir. I got the following message: "Attention! Your solution 3242387453 for the problem 1679B significantly coincides with solutions notacheater1/12341324, notacheater2/2343546. Such a coincidence is a clear rules violation and will result in your immediate arrest and prosecution according to the Codeforces No-Bob-and-Alice law. Note that unintentional leakage is also a violation and carries the same prison sentence."

I am not a cheater and I swear on my rating I would never cheat. I was just running a telegram group with 150 people in the contest, and we were trading solutions with each other on condition that we change the variable names. Sometimes I even replaced the while loops with for loops to make sure the code was inventive. And sometimes I didn't because I thought the systests would find it funny if there were 100 identical solutions. Please it was not on purpose I did not know this was not allowed, the terms and conditions that ARE PRESENT AT EVERY REGISTRATION are too long to read so I thought contests are like e-bay, solution goes to the highest bidder. Also, me and my team of 150 notcheaters only managed to solve AB together, so please give us back our ratings otherwise some of us will end up with negative rating and go to codeforces jail.


This post isn't attacking everyone on that blog, only the knowing cheaters who have the audacity to top it off with ludicrous lies and excuses. Some people are truly innocent, others own up to their mistakes.

But for real, the excuses are utterly ridiculous. That blog should be closed for commenting; it keeps showing up in my feed and it makes my blood boil to see the amount of lying and cheating that goes on there. It is an affront to the community.

Let's end this with a small stat: there are over 1400 posts on that blog, and the word "admit" is used 25 times.

History

 
 
 
 
Revisions
 
 
  Rev. Lang. By When Δ Comment
en1 English ChaosAngel 2022-09-25 20:43:11 1936 Initial revision (published)