[grayhatter]

> but he never said he was willing to lie, he was offering a hypothetical.

I disagree with your assessment.

> First of all, I could’ve hidden the fact of LLM usage, and yet decided to declare it explicitly. By being truthful I already lost my footing. This alone makes the policy stupid. If admittance is punished it’s better to push submissions without admitting. It punishes integrity, not usage per se.

The author values getting what he wants over interacting fairly and honestly with others. Literally saying "it’s better to push submissions without admitting [the truth]".

I think your predictions are inaccurate, but will gladly acknowledge the facts do show the author decided not lie this time (perhaps because it was too late he already admitted and would have lied if he knew about the policy. Which does seem more inline with the recommendations in post). Unfortunately he was still willing to advocate and argue that honesty was the root cause reason his patch was rejected. I think generally speaking, you wouldn't willingly encourage others to lie if you weren't willing to lie yourself, would you?

[TurdF3rguson]

I don't think it's worth it in this case, it's certainly not clear to me who is in the wrong here. Lying is obviously problematic, but like I said, he didn't lie - it was purely hypothetical.