> That is very obviously not the case, seeing how they literally followed the rules.
They followed the spirit of the rules rather than the letter, because Github was explicitly mentioned as one of the banned templating engines. Had they used an unlisted templating engine, they might have gotten away with it.
Github obviously does not belong in that list, but to the busibodies at the contest, that's irrelevant.
Even if we assume that Github is a templating engine, you also have to recognize that it is also a content hosting platform. Hosting content on github does not in any way indicate that said content also came from github, or any other template package.
This is yet another example of "authorities" making tech rulings without even a basic understanding of the technology they are trying to ban/permit/legislate/tax/etc.
Absolutely. The rule and enforcement of the rule are entirely stupid, but the rule does explicitly mention Github, and that does make this disqualification strictly according to the letter of the law, despite the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever. It's busibody bureaucrats exerting power over something they don't understand.
"Microsoft" is not listed as banned, "Github" is. Like I said, it's stupid, it's unreasonable, it's unfair, it makes no sense, but Github is listed as banned. Clearly by someone who doesn't understand it, and the judge who didn't understand it either just blindly disqualified them for explicitly using Github.
I'm not saying any of this is good; it obviously isn't. But the stupid ruling is entirely justifiable by the letter of the stupid rules. Github was explicitly listed as banned. Stupid, but that's the way it is.
They followed the spirit of the rules rather than the letter, because Github was explicitly mentioned as one of the banned templating engines. Had they used an unlisted templating engine, they might have gotten away with it.
Github obviously does not belong in that list, but to the busibodies at the contest, that's irrelevant.