[ironchest]

it is kind of irrelevant, because we don't know anything about the process that led to GitHub being included on the list. Could be lack of technical knowledge as you pointed out, but could as easily be an admin problem, or any other operational problems with clearing submissions, or something else.

[richbell]

> it is kind of irrelevant, because we don't know anything about the process that led to GitHub being included on the list.

The inclusion of GitHub, as written, is clearly either a mistake or the product of ignorance.

The students revealed that they spoke to the person who'd judged their submission, and that the judge doubled-double that they thought GitHub was a solely a temptation engine.

> We were finally able to talk to our school's CTE(Career and Technology) director and explain our situation. I told her about our website and how we were accused of cheating, even though we provided a public GitHub repo containing the history of the project. She then revealed that she had actually judged our project and explained that it was disqualified for using "GitHub, the templating engine"(Yes, she called GitHub a templating engine). She then pointed me to this rule: ...

https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/119j8o4/part_2_disq...

[Dalewyn]

The inclusion of Github is not a mistake, because Github[1] cites Jekyll[2] (another named example) as a feature and provides features (web hosting and design tools) similar to another example named: Webs[3].

Would it be more prudent to list "Github Pages" as the named example instead of Github? Possibly, being more specific is never a bad thing. However, the organizers deemed it appropriate to just prohibit all of Github for one reason or another, perhaps for sake of brevity since they only have so much time to judge all the entries.

Whatever the reasoning, the question is ultimately irrelevant. This is a contest, with rules to simulate an artificial environment under which the contestants agree to compete. If the organizers say "no Github", then no Github it shall be; if you don't like it you don't have to enter and compete.

[1]: https://pages.github.com/

[2]: https://youtu.be/2MsN8gpT6jY

[3]: https://www.webs.com/

[richbell]

> The inclusion of Github is not a mistake, because Github[1] cites Jekyll[2] (another named example) as a feature and provides features (web hosting and design tools) similar to another example named: Webs[3].

> Would it be more prudent to list "Github Pages" as the named example instead of Github?

It is a mistake because GitHub is first and foremost a platform for hosting code and collaborating. Jekyll is an optional feature in a tiny portion of GitHub's product catalog. Even if they specifically said "GitHub Pages" (which they didn't, so your argument is moot), that would still ignore the fact that Pages <> template generation. The page you link even references that you can use a generator but do not have to:

) Ready to get started? Build your own site from scratch or generate one for your project.

So better written rules would say "template generators like Wix or GitHub Pages using Jekyll are NOT permitted" Do you acknowledge how significantly that changes the interpretation of the rules and how poorly written they are in their current form?

‐--------

Edit: not to mention that the rule is explicitly in the context of template generation. Nowhere do they say "no GitHub (the VCS platform)" as you keep falsely claiming, the rules say "no GitHub (the temptation site)" which is a very different thing.

) 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.

[bena]

It's broader than you think. It's "sites that generate HTML from text, markdown, or script files".

Which GitHub does. Hell, even their project right now does it. Because README.md gets translated by GitHub.

But that's cool, because that's just the readme. It won't be on the site site. So GitHub only if you use the repository part. No GitHub pages. Well, no GitHub pages, or if you do, .nojekyll, and README.md is ok, but only if it's not actually part of the site site.

The question is do you start carving out all of these exceptions for GitHub or do you just cut it out entirely. I don't want to deal with that for every single fucking entry. No. This is a high school design competition, I'm not dedicating that kind of time to it. No hosting on GitHub, end of story.