Re: [gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-13 Thread Stanislav Zholnin
samarth3692 and HARSH94 have identical B-small solutions (ranks 981, 984). For those who want to know end of story, I am saving some time: samarth3692 moved to 4679 with 0 points HARSH94 moved to 4679 with 0 points. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: [gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-13 Thread Vexorian
On Saturday, May 4, 2013 11:48:17 PM UTC-4, CoderBaba wrote: Well contrary to what Bartholomew Furrow said I think the violators should have been disqualified from Qualification round. In that case these emails would not have come in one after another. At the end though, there are no limited

Re: [gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-05 Thread bigonion
On Sunday, May 5, 2013 6:48:17 AM UTC+3, CoderBaba wrote: Well contrary to what Bartholomew Furrow said I think the violators should have been disqualified from Qualification round. In that case these emails would not have come in one after another. In the qualification round it's not

[gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-05 Thread Erwin Ried
On Saturday, May 4, 2013 3:07:37 PM UTC-4, ICY wrote: samarth3692 and HARSH94 have identical B-small solutions (ranks 981, 984). prakhar120793 (rank 950) had a wrong code attached to B-small solution. I am sure Google have better ways to detect cheaters... like a problem with a very big input

Re: [gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-05 Thread Ishan Chattopadhyaya
Wow, this is all over the blogosphere! https://twitter.com/ichattopadhyaya/status/331173658879983616 (yes, that's my twitter) On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:06 AM, bigonion haibren...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday, May 5, 2013 6:48:17 AM UTC+3, CoderBaba wrote: Well contrary to what Bartholomew

[gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-04 Thread porker2008
Good job. How do you detect or what tools did you use to find out those cheaters? :) Parker On Sunday, May 5, 2013 3:07:37 AM UTC+8, ICY wrote: samarth3692 and HARSH94 have identical B-small solutions (ranks 981, 984). prakhar120793 (rank 950) had a wrong code attached to B-small solution.

[gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-04 Thread porker2008
also romeo (ranks 987) They have the same B small with samarth3692 and HARSH94 On Sunday, May 5, 2013 3:07:37 AM UTC+8, ICY wrote: samarth3692 and HARSH94 have identical B-small solutions (ranks 981, 984). prakhar120793 (rank 950) had a wrong code attached to B-small solution. -- You

[gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-04 Thread porker2008
also Jasraj (rank 955). Same B Small On Sunday, May 5, 2013 3:07:37 AM UTC+8, ICY wrote: samarth3692 and HARSH94 have identical B-small solutions (ranks 981, 984). prakhar120793 (rank 950) had a wrong code attached to B-small solution. -- You received this message because you are subscribed

[gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-04 Thread MuCho
On Saturday, May 4, 2013 1:53:56 PM UTC-7, porker2008 wrote: also Jasraj (rank 955). Same B Small On Sunday, May 5, 2013 3:07:37 AM UTC+8, ICY wrote: samarth3692 and HARSH94 have identical B-small solutions (ranks 981, 984). prakhar120793 (rank 950) had a wrong code attached to B-small

[gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-04 Thread bigonion
Also the ones in ranks 955, 987 should be checked. ICY, good job, but it might be the case that your script only compares programs with the same extension. You should compare any two files no matter what the extension is. I actually don't have such program of my own, just looked at sources from

[gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-04 Thread bigonion
Also, wrong code for B by Kiwiluver75 (rank 959) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Code Jam group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to google-code+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this

Re: [gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-04 Thread Radin Ahmed Ehsan
Well contrary to what Bartholomew Furrow said I think the violators should have been disqualified from Qualification round. In that case these emails would not have come in one after another. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:47 AM, bigonion haibren...@gmail.com wrote: Also the ones in ranks 955, 987

Re: [gcj] Re: Violations observed

2013-05-04 Thread Jugesh Sundram
Damn! How lame ! Better not selected than being Disqualified ! On 4 May 2013 23:48, Radin Ahmed Ehsan radin.ahmed.eh...@gmail.com wrote: Well contrary to what Bartholomew Furrow said I think the violators should have been disqualified from Qualification round. In that case these emails would