kostka's blog

IOI response to the conflict in Gaza
By kostka, 3 months ago, In English

Please don't shoot the messenger.

https://ioinformatics.org/news/ioi-response-to-the-conflict-in-gaza/52

  • Vote: I like it
  • +598
  • Vote: I do not like it

»
3 months ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +312 Vote: I do not like it

Finally no more double standards

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +645 Vote: I do not like it

ban usa when?

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +637 Vote: I do not like it

    Nooooo USA fights for freedom and democracy and actually is trying to cool down the fighting if you say such thing again about USA we're going to send 50000000 explosive Bald Eagles to destroy your country and make it a true democracy

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +90 Vote: I do not like it

      a true management democracy :skull:

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +9 Vote: I do not like it

      lol。

      The Freedom in Democratic Party means a monster dance on the table?Means more and more politically corrects filled with our lives？Means Sweet Baby?

      → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -59 Vote: I do not like it

    what..?

    → Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -7 Vote: I do not like it

Cool

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it -61 Vote: I do not like it

If Russian and Israeli participants are not representing a country, does that mean that those countries can technically send more than 4 "independent" participants each, since this limitation only applies to official delegations of countries? If yes, then decision like this is actually beneficial for them.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -21 Vote: I do not like it

    What

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +16 Vote: I do not like it

    No

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    You should reread stuff. Try ctrl+f "four" or "4" to find the relevant parts.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it -57 Vote: I do not like it

      It doesn't say that more than four contestants can't come and rules specifically say that one to four limit is for official national delegations only, not for those who are participating under IOI flag. So since there's no official Israel delegation they are not limited by this rule.

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +49 Vote: I do not like it

        "Specifically, the action means that beginning in 2025, Israel will not be recognized as a participating delegation at IOI, but four contestants from Israel may still participate under the IOI flag."

        Which part is unclear?

        → Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -104 Vote: I do not like it

Looks like biggest coping ever after IOI-24 results of Israel team. Just saying.

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +143 Vote: I do not like it

what's the point?

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +126 Vote: I do not like it

    Yeah I think it's meaningless to ban countries from using their names in competitions but anyway if it happened to Russia and Belarus it would be bad to not do it to Israel too

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it -32 Vote: I do not like it

      We don't want to see bad countries' names and flags. That's it.

      → Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +83 Vote: I do not like it

Please don't shoot the messenger.

lol.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +37 Vote: I do not like it

    lol. Ironically, through history they've always killed the messenger XD

    → Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +219 Vote: I do not like it

The official IOI website shows a map of Egypt where Israel has been removed https://www.ioi2024.eg/about-egypt . The entire area is marked as Palestine.

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Am I dreaming ?

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +15 Vote: I do not like it

up

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +285 Vote: I do not like it

Back in 2022 when Russia and Belarus were banned from IOI, I didn't have any specific opinion on it, and I didn't know whether it was a right or a wrong decision. The ban on Belarus felt completely unfair and arbitrary to me (and still feels this way now), and about the ban on Russia I had heard a lot of good points for and against the decision, and I couldn't really see which decision is right.

Fast-forward to 2024, I still don't have a cemented opinion on the matter. However, I saw that the participants from these countries were coming to the competition, gaining their medals, so in my mind, it just wasn't a big deal. However, now I understand that it is a peculiar precedent. It opened this possibility in the minds of the organizers, participants, and viewers. "If you already have banned country X, why don't you ban country Y?". And slowly it gets into this messy non-rigorous territory. Who decides whom we ban and whom we don't? On what grounds do we decide that? Now this new ban also becomes a precedent. It says to the public: "No, it was not a one-time thing, we may decide to ban some other countries in the future too". And this will lead to more and more countries wanting to ban other countries. Especially in a conflict like this, which is far less black-and-white than the Russia-Ukraine war.

I feel like there are some triggers for a ban that can be observed. I will specify two of these triggers, and both of them are about attention.

Firstly, to be banned, the thing that a country is involved in should be seen by a big portion of the world. If country A is doing genocide in a neighboring country B, but nobody knows anything about either country A or country B, nobody will ban country A. Because nobody cares, and thus nobody will take the time to think about it. Furthermore, it will be too hard to make two thirds of the delegations decide on a thing they know nothing about.

Secondly, to be banned, your country should be somewhere near the top of the ranking. If your country's team on average gets zero medals at IOI, again, nobody will care enough to ban you.

Coincidentally, most other conflicts (or other potential reasons for bans) fall into neither of these categories. The conflict is not highlighted by the international news, and the country's results are average. In this case, you will probably not get banned. Conversely, the three bans that we have witnessed over the past three years, fall into both of these criteria and thus had a big chance of actually being implemented. However, what puzzles me is a potential situation in which only one of the two criteria is met. The following example will probably be the reason I get a lot of downvotes but I would say that for me it is a non-trivial assumption that only one of the two sides of the Israel-Palestine war gets a ban. Sure, Gaza != Palestine, and it is a complicated topic, but does it mean we should ban Palestine or at least Gaza contestants from participating in IOI? For me, the answer is definitely not. We should not ban Palestine. But if the answer is not to this question, in my mind, it becomes much harder to explain the reasoning behind the ban on Israel too. Why Palestine shouldn't be banned? Because Hamas does not equal Palestine. Because people do not equal government. Because participants have nothing to do with this. But the same can be said about Israel.

And this creates an interesting potential situation. Imagine, there are two countries A and B that are in conflict. They are both doing bad things in a proportional amount. The supporters of country A really want to ban country B from IOI and promote this idea everywhere. The supporters of country B don't want anybody to get banned. In this case, we will get country B banned at some point, and country A will continue participating. An odd situation, isn't it?

I understand the arguments behind the ban on Israel, I really do. But if we imagine that somewhere out there in the universe there are rules by which we should ban countries, it becomes very hard for me to imagine what these rules could be. And I am 100% sure that the ban on Israel became possible only because the precedent was created 2 years ago. Without the Russia-Ukraine war, it is very hard for me to imagine that the ban on Israel would ever come to life.

But if we stop trying to think about some "right" way in which countries should be banned and think about why they actually get banned, things become a bit simpler. Israel got banned because its ban changes something. You can see Israel at the top of the ranking. I think this is why in reality Palestine is not banned. Because its ban would not affect the upper half of the standings. And not because of the moral reasons. Sorry if it sounds cynical but I am just trying to analyze the motivation behind other people's decisions. Not asserting my opinion.

This idea of banning a country comes from the Olympics and sports in general. There, this ban implies something. For example, an athlete from a banned country has to be registered with a different federation and undergo screenings with this federation to verify that they are not using any doping. But in the case of IOI, this ban feels completely artificial. It seems like literally, the only difference is the absence of the flag and the country code in the ranking. On the one hand, this is the reason why I don't care about this issue too much. If it doesn't hurt the participants that much, it is not such an important question to think about. But on the other hand, it poses the question of how effective these bans actually are. So is there actually a point behind this? What message IOI is trying to send via these bans? What is the goal these bans are trying to achieve? Do these bans achieve the goal? Are there any alternative ways that are better suited for achieving this goal? Who are we going to ban next? And based on what?

As I said, I don't have the answers to these questions. But I see that this creates a complicated situation in which we will have to live in the upcoming years and decades. And because of that, I think we should discuss this topic more.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -152 Vote: I do not like it

    TLDR: Israel and Russia are banned, because they are too BASED and moralfags can't handle it.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +105 Vote: I do not like it

    This feels increasingly like a farce to me. I think what went through IOI organizers' heads was:

    • 2022: Russia's an aggressor, let's ban Russia! -- We're apolitical, why would we do that? -- This would be a good political gesture -- Why do we care about politics? -- Because we have sponsors who care about that and need support from local organizers -- Okay, ban the country but not the participants

    • 2022: Let's ban Belarus! -- Why? -- We've already banned Russia, feels like a precedent, it's literally the same thing -- Bruh, okay

    • 2024: Reddit noise intensifies Why didn't you ban Israel? -- Why would we? -- You've banned Russia before, the facts match, you need to be consistent -- Yeeeeeeeeeeah, okay

    This feels like a slippery slope to me. I don't like Russia nor Israel for their human rights violations and aggressive behavior if nothing else. But guess what, I loathe China, USA, and Iran for the same reasons. Yet I don't think they're going to be banned.

    I think IOI just can't backtrack without losing their face. I'm quite sure that the discussion on banning Israel was very heated, and the optimal solution would be to abolish the bans altogether. But it doesn't seem like good PR to, you know, unban Russia for seemingly no reason whatsoever?

    I'm borderline considering asking IOI to ban China. This request is socially acceptable in the western world, so I don't expect immediate backlash. What I hope for is that IOI decides they can't do it, and then go "damn, this is ridiculous, let's rollback all bans". Unbanning Russia and Israel would be seen as more neutral than just unbanning Russia. In a roundabout way, this situation might be for the better?

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +49 Vote: I do not like it

      Well... In this paradigm, there is no reason to ban China. The bans are not about human rights violation and what not. The bans are about wars. So China (at the moment) does not fall into this category. Why the bans are about wars specifically is an interesting question. I agree that unbanning Russia now would look like a statement. If you banned it, and then unbanned it, does it mean that they became better? Now you support them? But adding more bans only worsens this situation. What should happen for Israel to get unbanned? And can it realistically ever happen? This is such a big decision that is being made in a moment, undoing of which would be so much harder than the ban itself.

      → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +6 Vote: I do not like it

      2024: Reddit noise intensifies

      Really, you describe it as reddit noises?

      Pro-Palestine movement was overwhelmingly supported by academic community, where IOI comes from. This year, in many many universities, students built encampments, while professors supported students. There was (is) a boycott movement too.

      I think it would be hard not to consider any action given this environment. And I'm glad that just like with Russian participants, the action taken still allows individual participants to not be a scapegoat for the whole country.

      Also, in my personal opinion, I think it's indeed more consistent to take similar action for all of Russia, Belarus, Israel, than against only the first two.

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it -8 Vote: I do not like it

        That was a bad way to phrase it, sorry. I didn't mean to downplay the support.

        Compared to Ukraine, Palestine support seems to be more grass-root and less like an official governmental stance in the western world. I've seen real-life movements silenced, strikes ruined by the police, and so on. I believe this is mostly due to US being in bed with Israel, but still.

        I hope you see why I jumped to this metaphor without thinking. Far-left (that's meeeeeeeeeeeee :3) online spaces are, sadly, the only locations where I can reliably connect with pro-Palestinian people.

        → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
        ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +114 Vote: I do not like it

        When they have the balls to ban usa, only then will i support the bans of any other country on such grounds. It is pure discrimination otherwise.

        Applying a rule fairly is much more important.

        IOI GA only cares about penalizing countries thy dont like, and not about actually stopping all wars, only wars that they dont support

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          3 months ago, # ^ |
            Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

          My comment was notwithstanding the United States, which I agree ideally should get same treatment for same actions, but we both know that it's unlikely ever to happen for political reasons.

          → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +55 Vote: I do not like it

    I suggest you to read the thought process of the members in the IOI GA meeting minutes if you'd want to see how historical precedents have been handled (specifically 2022 and 2023 minutes).

    https://ioinformatics.org/page/general-assembly/5

    The 2024 minutes is pending GA approval (which I believe will be released at the conclusion of IOI 2025).

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +11 Vote: I do not like it

      What strikes me most is how the 2022 meeting is very clearly done in fear. I almost felt it soothing through the screen. It was clearly a very stressful situation, and I can't begin to imagine how much it influenced the decision.

      On political pressure on the assembly:

      Confidential voting was discussed. [...] Canada said the votes should be confidential because of political pressure. Switzerland seconded this. [...] Australia wanted to know if the vote will be completely confidential (i.e., perhaps scrutineers will know how votes were cast).

      People knew consensus is not guaranteed to be reached:

      Estonia asked what happens if the formal yes/no vote does not pass. [...] Estonia asked for assurance that this would not necessarily mean we end up with the first option. Ben was unable to give this assurance [...]. Put another way, if the GA is paralyzed, “do nothing” is the end result. Estonia asked that this be made very clear. Italy spoke to say that this did not seem fair [...].

      Estonia asked what would happen if the motion does not pass. Troy said this is not defined. Italy said that we should know. Ben spoke to say the current evidence suggests that only Option 2 [onsite competition in an unofficial manner] can pass. Thus, we are paralyzed if it does not pass. The default is that Russia and Belarus will be able to come back and participate. Estonia followed up to emphasize that we are effectively voting between the first two options. Indonesia asked for another option. Troy said we will not be changing the voting procedure at this point.

      Ukraine and Poland make an argument that if Russians are allowed at IOI, this will be used as propaganda:

      Ukraine spoke at length proposing to ban Russia and Belarus indefinitely and attempted to persuade the GA to go this route. They said Russians are not responsible for what their government is doing, but opinion polls do suggest many people support their government’s actions. [...] Ukraine emphasized the role propaganda is playing in the war and that the IOI will be used for future propaganda.

      Poland indicated that anything short of a full ban plays to the Russian propaganda machine. They cited examples from other Olympiads.

      Russia participating in an official format would deter at least 4 countries:

      Germany expressed interest in knowing how many countries would not join if the first option is chosen. By a show of hands in the room, four countries indicated this is the situation they would be faced with.

      Poland spoke and said they are very happy to have their Ukrainian friends here at the IOI. They do not think this would be possible if Russia and Belarus are present. Poland might not have come if they were.

      Lithuania said they understand that the IOI consists of intellectual people, and it is very hard to exclude people. [...] However, when an aggressor comes to your home, you are not in a conversation. [...] Lithuania will not come to IOI if Russia is there with their flag.

      Recent statements threatened the existence of Estonia and therefore also Latvia, Lithuania and perhaps Poland. [...] this is not about the students, but this is about applying pressure (e.g., as happened with apartheid in South Africa). [...] Estonia has received a clear indication that they cannot participate in competitions that Russia participates at.

      There were some comparisons with the Nazi regime I won't quote. Very few parties focused on kids, it was all politics. These are the exceptions:

      Araz Yusubov (IC) said there is a need for deeper and longer discussions. [...] We may be forgetting about one important objective of IOI which is friendship between scientists and people. He cited examples of Israeli team leaders positively interacting with Palestine contestants in Baku, and Azerbaijan inviting Armenia in 2019. Araz has proposed a group discussion topic along these lines: to write down IOI values, which would help in contradicting situations. [...] Should the IOI be a platform for these politics? Perhaps it is wiser to avoid doing so.

      Czechia made the commend that it is hard to distinguish between what we think is right and what is right for the IOI.

      The deputy leader from Spain [...] said that the IOI can be one of the most important events in a contestant’s life. These kids cannot just leave their country and compete elsewhere like some athletes can. [...] In summary, he says the IOI is for the kids and we should consider them first.

      Tajikistan said that excluding students will make them think their government’s propaganda is right.

      Mile spoke to say that the IOI should be about inclusion and building bridges.

      India indicated they more or less agree with everything Mile said. [...] These are school kids, and we want them to meet other kids. [...] We should focus on running a good competition, not on politics.

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it -29 Vote: I do not like it

        Ahh yess, the usual suspects: Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia

        → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +16 Vote: I do not like it

        Why are you using the word "politics" as something bad? Everything is politics. I get that you and I were raised with the notion that politics is something dirty, exactly to discourage us from trying to participate in politics, that is one of the reasons why our government is starting wars. But you clearly see that it was propaganda, so why are you continuing to have this view?

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          3 months ago, # ^ |
          ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

          What I'm saying is:

          • The GA cares about a wide "real-world" scope, e.g. responses from government officials and use in propaganda,
          • Participants care about problem-solving, the competition itself, building connections, discussing programming, etc.

          This is a very broad comparison, and I'm sure there's exceptions on both sides, but it's quite clear to me that the two groups have different values and thus different priorities.

          I'd like to emphasize that these views are often in wild disagreement.

          In 2023, Ukraine tried to push Russian participants to be disqualified for wearing T-shirts provided by sponsors containing an URL with a .ru domain. Personally, I find this proposal laughable, yet ~1/3 parties supported it. Denmark then proposed that Russia not be awarded medals publically, which almost passed supermajority.

          I empathize with the students. To me, punishing children by refusing to publicly acknowledge their individual achievements for an honest mistake is ridiculous and borderline insane. IOI is a major life event for students, it's not some kind of local competition. Giving out the medals in private could have disastrous consequences.

          I'm not saying politics is necessarily bad, not at all. But following apparent best practices in international politics is unhealthy for a competition focusing on individual achievements. I can't accept throwing teens (under voting age!) under the bus.

          → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            3 months ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

            Yes, participants care about participant stuff and decision-making bodies care about wide real-world scope and policies. It's pretty normal to me that participants don't care about the global impact that can last years, why would they? On the other hand, somebody should.

            I don't see anything wrong with giving out the medals in private. Teens might be under voting age, but they are mature enough to realize that the symbols they are carrying, even if unconsciously, might be unwelcome in some situations.

            You can't say olympiads just should be apolitic. They will be made political by interested sides. My last year in school was 2014. Know what also happened in 2014? All-Russian olympiads are usually held in April. Oh, how the hosts milked the arrival of delegations from Crimea, how everyone was expected to clap loudly! It was disgusting.

            There is a difference between Vasya Pupkin getting IOI gold and Vasya Pupkin representing Russian Federation going on the stage with the flag of Russian Federation and receiving gold medal from respected international org while everything is being photographed. The former is much harder to use in propaganda.

            → Reply
            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              3 months ago, # ^ |
                Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

              I feel like you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying political decisions are a bad thing. I'm arguing against wild decisions that help nobody, feel like spite, and attack individual competitors.

              It's not about a flag. A flag is a symbol, a hymn is a symbol, a TLD is not a symbol. I can't imagine how anyone could have guessed it would be interpreted that way. It was a damn domain name on a T-shirt provided by a sponsor. You can't seriously assume teens would realize something like this would be unwelcome, especially after the organizers blundered this too.

              The problem with giving out the medals in private is, well, not getting publicity. To many, this is their peak result in the individual programming sport. When these folks try to get hired, prove their achievement, or maybe just tell a story to a friend, they can point to a YouTube video. A static standings page doesn't give the same effect.

              → Reply
              • »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                3 months ago, # ^ |
                  Vote: I like it -13 Vote: I do not like it

                Regarding the shirt issue, Russian team themselves acknowledged it was their honest mistake, and they accept the decision the GA would come into (including disqualification). Not to say they have any say in the matter, but they do acknowledge it is something not supposed to be happening. The discussion also served as a precedent: one, to emphasize such mistake, however naive it is, is not okay, and repeated mistake of similar nature would have much higher consequence (including disqualification).

                → Reply
            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              3 months ago, # ^ |
                Vote: I like it -23 Vote: I do not like it

              You can't say olympiads just should be apolitic.

              Correct. It makes no sense to expect that from international competitions, considering that IOI GA is basically a bunch of nation-state bootlickers and are mainly paid by those states to promote whichever bullshit their owners tell them.

              Fortunately we have Codeforces\Atcoder, which are independent and managed by smart people and have actually good contests on a regular basis. IOI is pretty much irrelevant compared to them at this point.

              → Reply
            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              3 months ago, # ^ |
                Vote: I like it -16 Vote: I do not like it

              I'm surprised to see this comment downvoted.

              Large internal competitions and their attached bodies are not apolitical by definition. They do get to decide on policies on

              • who is able to compete, who is not
              • which regions get how much participants (more in ICPC, but i.e. in IOI -- which regions are regions enough).
              • what are the competition rules and possible problems subjects
              • how many participants are awarded
              • when the participants are awarded, how exactly it's framed for news
              • etc, etc, etc

              It's very easy to see that different policy decisions for the decisions above lead to different outcomes.

              → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it +2 Vote: I do not like it

    Some good points, but it's completely idiotic that you suggest Israel was banned because they finished in the "upper half" of the standings.

    As far as I know from people more involved in IOI, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that's the case and there's obviously a moral backlash against what Israel does that goes far beyond the IOI. Do you honestly think this decision was taken to promote countries from 33rd to 34th in the table? Anyway, Russia was much more successful in IOI--did you try to ridicule the GA by putting these words into their mouths then?

    So you say "Sorry if it sounds cynical but I am just trying to analyze the motivation behind other people's decisions. Not asserting my opinion." But seems otherwise.

    And the rest of your comment rests on some sort equivalence between Israel and Palestine in the war. For what should be obvious reasons, not everyone will agree with this sort of equivalence.

    All in all, your comment reads more like "IOI took a decision I agree with, and one I don't--surely their principles are inconsistent." In reality, many people with power to make these decisions dislike what Russia and Israel are doing. In democratic organizations, this allows for bans to be implemented.

    More dislike what Russia is doing, so those bans are more widespread. It is as simple as that.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
      ← Rev. 4   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

      Do you honestly think this decision was taken to promote countries from 33rd to 34th in the table?

      Of course, that's not what I meant! I meant that the fact that the word "Israel" appears at the top of the ranking annoys some people. On the other hand, if it was at the bottom, nobody would see it and nobody would even care.

      Do you honestly think this decision was taken to promote countries from 33rd to 34th in the table?

      Where did I mention equivalence? I was talking about the significance of differences. In the case of Russia, it is a clear situation as from any reasonable moral viewpoint, there was an aggressor and a defender. And the excerpts from the discussions at IOI cited above prove this. There was no discussion on who is right and who is wrong. The only discussion was whether it is a good response to impose the ban. What I am saying is that the case of Israel is much less straightforward, and thus leads to controversy. This leads to the fact that there is no "rule" for bans anymore. It's just a subjective decision that is randomly made.

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it -27 Vote: I do not like it

        Sure, maybe some people would like to pretend that's the reason. But seems totally disingenuous to pretend that this is motivated by IOI standings when you can clearly see the discussion on Israel and Russia is very much a part of every day discourse in western countries. Plus Belarus is banned despite being weaker in recent years.

        The fact is that this banning issue is not at all specific to the IOI and on top of that there's no reason the IOI has to take a super logical and thought out position on it. (In fact the GA voted against doing exactly that.)

        It would be helpful for sure if some logic about this was formalized, but if having Israel and Russia compete under their flags is damaging to contestants from other countries, then such bans reduce the damage while still allowing the students a chance to compete. On top of that such bans are decided on by a democratic process.

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          3 months ago, # ^ |
          ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it -20 Vote: I do not like it

          Well... What does "democratic process" mean? You can't just vote for whatever you want and then approve it if the majority votes for it. For example, in a democracy, you can't vote to take human rights away from some group of people. It just doesn't work this way.

          Secondly, from what I understood from the public comments I read, the details of this vote were questionable (with problems similar to the ones from the 2022 meeting quoted above) but I don't want to discuss it until the 2024 minutes are released.

          → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            3 months ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it -6 Vote: I do not like it

            It works exactly that way. There are already IOI regulations (https://ioinformatics.org/files/regulations24.pdf) concerning what sort of matters fall under the scope of the General Assembly, voting procedures and so on. These bans follow those rules.

            Anyway, what point are you trying to make? Should the GA decide on every type of decision they can make ahead of time? Do they need to come up with an algorithm for exactly what type of country can be banned? What good would come out of all that wasted effort? The mission is to give opportunity to young talented students, and they address these decisions accordingly.

            → Reply
            • »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              »
              3 months ago, # ^ |
                Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

              I think you are completely missing the point of what I was saying with my initial comment so I will not respond anymore. Sorry.

              → Reply
              • »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                »
                3 months ago, # ^ |
                  Vote: I like it +15 Vote: I do not like it

                Fine, but I think you are missing my point.

                1) The decision of the GA is not based on any sort of algorithm for banning countries

                2) It absolutely does not involve consideration of how a team placed.

                Maybe you would like to see it different. Fine, but the insinuation you made in your post is nonsense.

                → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +1 Vote: I do not like it

        "Where did you mention equivalence"--you questioned why Palestine is not banned, because your idea is that Palestine is not banned because they don't take enough medals.

        As if the nature of the situation in Palestine was completely irrelevant, and had Palestine taken a gold medal, they would be banned for the "same reason" as Israel.

        And can you really objectively say the situation in Israel is "less straightforward"? You have your own opinion on what makes one occupation justified and not another, but to pretend it's objective is ridiculous.

        → Reply
        • »
          »
          »
          »
          »
          3 months ago, # ^ |
          ← Rev. 3   Vote: I like it -20 Vote: I do not like it

          There are things like war laws, international court of justice and its orders, principle of proportionality, war crimes, and so on. Sure, none of these things are objective, but the subject of these opinions is not myself. And the question we are trying to answer here is not "is what Isreal is doing bad?" but "is what Isreal is doing bad but what Hamas is doing is ok?".

          → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            3 months ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it +10 Vote: I do not like it

            No it's not--maybe that's the question you want to talk about because of your own feelings on the matter.

            But the question the GA is trying to answer is "should we allow Israel to send a delegation under their flag?"

            Taking into consideration not only some concept of morality, but the experience of the competitors and so on.

            And Israel's position in the scoretable was not a major factor in the consideration.

            → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            3 months ago, # ^ |
            ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

            But Hamas does not compete in the IOI, while Israel does. You are making a false equivalence here. The Palestine team is supported by the PA (and as such represents the PA), not Hamas.

            → Reply
          • »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            »
            3 months ago, # ^ |
              Vote: I like it +10 Vote: I do not like it

            There has never been a Hamas flag at the IOI, has there?

            → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
    ← Rev. 2   Vote: I like it -38 Vote: I do not like it

    i have brainrot from reading your comment

    i believe many would agree with the idk what the hell is going on above because u are red but today i just realized that being good at cp doesnt mean alot outside of it

    edit : to understand my pov here are the most stupid (in my opinion) takes

    in peltorator opinion :

    we should not ban countries violating human rights but we should ban countries going to war even if they are on the right side

    israel was mainly banned because it had good results

    israel-palestine is not as clear as russian-ukraine "bro started watching from this season"

    in purplesyringa opinion :

    israel shouldnt be banned because its a trend going on on reddit

    israel shouldnt be banned because china iran and usa are not banned

    politics are bad because "idk they just are".

    can u not see how dumb the stuff above are ? if u dont believe that this summary simply summarizes everything said above then read it by yourself.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    I believe standings don’t really affect the visibility of situation. There are simply too many people disliking Israel. I completely agree that the process should involve more consideration than “israel le bad”. Right now it doesn’t matter since participants are allowed to participate as individuals but it’s a slippery slope.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -36 Vote: I do not like it

    You could have simply written your question without all this long, meaningless nonsense. As an answer to your question, the Palestinians will not participate under the flag of the state that killed more than 40,000 civilians, most of them children. The Palestinians did not steal land that was not theirs. The Palestinians did not besiege the entire city and kill people from hunger. And you still say that the war is not as clear as the war between Russia and Ukraine?

    → Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
← Rev. 7   Vote: I like it -7 Vote: I do not like it

Change Taiwan to Chinese Taipei / Taiwan, China when

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +78 Vote: I do not like it

Good to see some consistency for once.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -38 Vote: I do not like it

    Middle east is not your backyard.

    Thanks.

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +36 Vote: I do not like it

      Well that's in fact sarcasm on the British and French who considered the entire world, or Africa in particular, as their backyard and drew straight-line borders as they pleased.

      → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +24 Vote: I do not like it

    If it were my choice I wouldn't draw a border anywhere

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +11 Vote: I do not like it

    You forgot rest of north africa

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +14 Vote: I do not like it

      It's not in middle east. But he forgot Oman and Turkey

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

        yeah, maybe put Central and South-Eastren Asia aswell

        → Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -29 Vote: I do not like it

Respect

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +22 Vote: I do not like it

what the actual fiddlestick is this comment section

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +48 Vote: I do not like it

We may be forgetting about one important objective of IOI which is friendship between scientists and people. Examples of Israeli team leaders positively interacting with Palestine contestants in Baku, and Azerbaijan inviting Armenia in 2019.

I don't support internationally banning a country

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -28 Vote: I do not like it

GA is just a dicker banning countries to support its political status. I don't remember last time I seek fairness in their actions.

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

    GA's resolution was voted on, is there anything unfair about it? And shouldn't the country that started the war be punished?

    → Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -14 Vote: I do not like it

Based IOI

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +130 Vote: I do not like it

This post must be what one of mike's nightmares look like

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -65 Vote: I do not like it

    It cost more than 40,000 lives, and a friend was arrested in France for keeping the post up until now.

    → Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -8 Vote: I do not like it

when codeforces turns 4chan xD

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it +3 Vote: I do not like it

No tech for apartheid, Bravo IOI for taking your stance for the Palestinian plight.

→ Reply
»
3 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it 0 Vote: I do not like it

Professor Scott Aaronson also posted his response on the ban of Israel in IOI (this includes a letter from the Israel team leader explaining the situation from his side):

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8356

→ Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it -49 Vote: I do not like it

    Yep. Academic community, high principles, bla bla bla.

    I dont know how sick you should be to behave this way. But Palestinians always ready to surprise, I guess.

    → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +19 Vote: I do not like it

    Professor my ass

    → Reply
    • »
      »
      »
      3 months ago, # ^ |
        Vote: I like it +58 Vote: I do not like it

      Professor is just a title you are given once you have "proved yourself" and moved up enough in the academia ladder, often in a particular area / subject. It just doesn't follow that all of your opinions would be "good" or "correct" once you become a professor. The same also applies to chess or codeforces GM+ and similar (not trying to call anyone out).

      Also, with how many universities actively repress their student protestors (even peaceful ones), I'm not surprised that some professors would be against the ideas that those students are protesting for. Some professors formed line to protect the students against the repressions, and some did nothing.

      → Reply
      • »
        »
        »
        »
        3 months ago, # ^ |
          Vote: I like it +9 Vote: I do not like it

        Well, second part (from representative of the team) describes how this ban happened. You can be on either side of conflict, but you should agree that we shouldnt ghost teams from decision making this way.

        "IOI 2024 began on September 1st, 2024. At that time, the Israeli delegation was informed that they would not be allowed to participate in the discussion, even remotely. Israel was permitted to submit a written statement, which would be made available for all team leaders to download, but it was never read aloud during any discussions. The reason given was that Israel had been effectively erased from IOI 2024 by the hosts, and the International Committee acquiesced to this. Meanwhile, the Egyptian and Palestinian delegations were actively lobbying for votes throughout the week of IOI 2024. The discussion and vote on sanctions took place on the final day of IOI 2024 during a meeting of the General Assembly (the legislative branch of the IOI, where each nation has one vote). Israel was not even permitted to listen to the discussion (our leaders managed to hear it only because a sympathetic team leader unofficially opened a Zoom channel for them), let alone speak. The discussion itself was problematic in many ways. For instance, it grouped Israel together with Russia and Belarus. Ultimately, a majority voted to sanction Israel, along with Russia and Belarus, which had already been sanctioned previously"

        This is how you want it to be?

        → Reply
  • »
    »
    3 months ago, # ^ |
      Vote: I like it +8 Vote: I do not like it

    That article is a perfect example of efforts to distract people from major issues to minor ones.

    → Reply
»
2 months ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -15 Vote: I do not like it

They're just banning the best teams wtf. Soon China too probably.

→ Reply
»
6 weeks ago, # |
  Vote: I like it -16 Vote: I do not like it

So apparently IOI justifies the terrorist attacks that took place in Israel last year October. Hmm interesting....... In the name of democracy, IOI bans the only democratic country in Middle-east lol.

→ Reply