No, in fact the rules specify a "Github" among others as examples of "Template engine websites, tools, and sites that generate HTML from text, markdown, or script files" that you are "NOT permitted" (their emphasis) to use.
Translating that into practical terms, it means "no Github", and also "no Jekyll" and all the other examples named and not named.
The Internet also allows such behavior so really it shouldn't have been allowed to use the Internet either.
A reasonable person would realize the key part is "Template engine" and would think they are okay as long as they avoid those. They did avoid that, and still got disqualified. That is why it isn't reasonable
And such a person after being disqualified should learn their lesson to read and understand the rules thoroughly.
The rule in question even distinguishes between "Template engine websites" and "sites that generate HTML"; if you refuse to read beyond the first comma you are being disingenuous let alone being ignorant.
As an aside, "the internet" doesn't automagically generate HTML for you. Unless I missed a memo and we can just get HTML by sticking a cable into the wall. :V
> The rules don't specify "github.io" or "load .md files", it broadly specifies "Github" the website "that generate[s] HTML from text" in no uncertain terms.
And that's just not true; the no-GitHub-whatsoever interpretation that you're pushing simply can't be described as "no[t] uncertain". In fact, I'd wager that a polling would reveal that most folks in a position to interpret the rules would come away quite certain that it isn't forbidden to use GitHub qua code host.
GitHub qua "template engine website" is "NOT permitted". That's certain.
GitHub qua code host? Not only is that, in fact, not stated "in no uncertain terms", but insisting that it's both forbidden and that it's clear that it's forbidden comes across as trying to will your way to truth.
You are not permitted to use sites that generate HTML, period. Even if you use a "site that generates HTML" like Github only as a file repository, that is still against the rule.
Your argument would be fair if the rule read like "using sites, such as Github, to generate HTML are not permitted", but that is not what the rule says.
I am not quibbling about whether the no-GitHub-whatsoever interpretation is an unreasonable interpretation of what's in the rules. I am specifically raising the issue of the hyperbolic and inappropriate use of the phrase "in no uncertain terms" in what you wrote.
Translating that into practical terms, it means "no Github", and also "no Jekyll" and all the other examples named and not named.