| № | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | tourist | 4009 |
| 2 | jiangly | 3823 |
| 3 | Benq | 3738 |
| 4 | Radewoosh | 3633 |
| 5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
| 6 | orzdevinwang | 3529 |
| 7 | ecnerwala | 3446 |
| 8 | Um_nik | 3396 |
| 9 | ksun48 | 3390 |
| 10 | gamegame | 3386 |
| Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
| № | Пользователь | Вклад |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | cry | 165 |
| 2 | maomao90 | 163 |
| 2 | Um_nik | 163 |
| 4 | atcoder_official | 161 |
| 5 | adamant | 160 |
| 6 | -is-this-fft- | 158 |
| 7 | awoo | 157 |
| 8 | TheScrasse | 154 |
| 9 | nor | 153 |
| 9 | Dominater069 | 153 |
A participant who scored strictly more than 50% of contestants on at least one day, but does not receive a medal, will be awarded an honourable mention.
The rules change will be effective starting 2022.
So, if you would be awarded a bronze medal based on the results of at least one day, but do not receive a medal, you will receive a HM.
can I get two HMs if I scored 50% on both days
I don't think so, because getting 50% in both days means that you will get a bronze medal instead of honourable mentions
No, it doesn’t. Imagine the scores were : 10-1; 10-1; 2-2; 1-10;1-10;1-1; Contestant 3 would have 2 honorable mentions and 0 bronzes :D
It doesn't necessarily.
Say there are 100 contestants. You are contestant 100 and place 49th both days.
On day 1 contestants 1-48 score 300 points, you score 2 points, everyone else scores 1 point.
On day 2 contestants 49-97 score 300 points, you score 2 points, everyone else scores 1 point.
Overall you place third-to-last with 4 points, even though you would have received a bronze medal based on the results of either day.
Oops, ok, thanks for the explanation!
Imagine there are $$$2n+2$$$ contestants. $$$n$$$ score $$$(300, 100)$$$, $$$n$$$ score $$$(100, 300)$$$, $$$1$$$ scores $$$(0,0)$$$, and you score $$$(101, 101)$$$. You are in the top 50% of each day, but the first $$$2n$$$ people ($$$400$$$ points) all beat you ($$$202$$$ points) overall so you get second-to-last and don't medal.
Haha, three of us were replying to this all at the same time.
you triggered many CPers at the same time by writing this xD
Thank you, I have another CP problem idea from this discussion. Lol
This reminds me of 1313B - Different Rules.
What was the rationale for this decision? This is a big change in the history of IOI.
There were many discussions during this IOI within the GA, so I am not able to present all the opinions that were discussed either within the GA (that should be minuted) or on the e-mail chains.
This IOI there first was a ranked vote where GA chose the criteria they like the most; and at the final GA the vote was taken for introducing HMs with the previously chosen criteria. It received a necessary 2/3 majority support within the GA to be passed.
P.S. Note that since this proposal changed the Statutes of the Regulation, 2/3 majority was needed rather than a simple majority.
I will try to summarize the development of HMs in the IOI. Do let me know if there are any inaccuracies.
In 2020, a proposal for having HMs was submitted to the IOI conference (http://history.ioinformatics.org/oi/pdf/v14_2020_87_104.pdf).
This issue was raised in the first GA meeting of IOI 2020. While there was some interest, several leaders did not like to implement the change as:
A vote was taken and it did not meet the supermajority to pass. The GA agreed to defer discussions on HM to IOI 2021. This year, the IC asked team leaders to propose criteria for having HM in IOI 2021. Several proposals were submitted:
A. Top 70% overall
B. Top 60% on any one day
C. Top 50% on any one day
D. Either top 70% overall or top 50% on any one day
E. Success in a predetermined set of subtasks
F. Full success in at least one task
G. Top 40% in at least one task
H. No honourable mentions
Some leaders were concerned that the introduction of HMs will affect contestant strategy as they would go for something which is different from maximizing points.
A ranked vote was taken and the winning option was (C). In the final GA meeting, a vote was taken with (C) vs status quo. A supermajority voted for having HMs, and thus we will have HM at IOI 2022.
Imagine having a scoring system where solving problems is not the same thing as maximizing points
This post was made by IMO gang
Why not have HMs this year?
Why wait for 2022?
Generally, any regulation changes approved by GA on IOI’n are taking effect from IOI’(n+1).
It is possible to fast-track regulation changes, but it needs to be presented to GA a month before IOI and the vote happens at the first GA for it to take effect immediately. This happened with HM proposal at IOI 2020, and if it would have been passed, it would have taken effect immediately. But as stated above, that proposal was rejected.
Given that this year we specifically allocated time at GA to discuss and decide on HM criteria, it was not possible to fast-track this, and as such it will take effect from IOI 2022.
How unfortunate :/
I needed only 5 points from parks for a medal,
Then knowing that HMs were approved I went happy,
But it's ok, I'll wait another year :(
Anyway, thanks man for the quick response ;)
That's cool and all, But is IOI22 gonna be onsite though?
I will AK IOI2022!