Timeline for Loopholes that are forbidden by default
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 16 at 6:44 | comment | added | Steve Bennett | This does not belong in a list of loopholes. It's not a loophole. | |
| Sep 4, 2024 at 15:40 | comment | added | The Empty String Photographer | ±0, what if you’re making an account for a chatbot and you want it to get enough rep so it can actually chat? | |
| Jul 21, 2023 at 16:04 | comment | added | 12431234123412341234123 | Sometimes there exist 2 answer in the same language. And you can use one to improve the other and vice versa, sometimes the best answer is a combination of both. What to do in this case? Which answer should be improved? | |
| Feb 26, 2023 at 14:23 | comment | added | Rhaixer | Does this apply for AI-related answers where the AI-asker doesn't golf the response of the AI? | |
| Feb 7, 2023 at 18:03 | comment | added | Nithin Danday | What if the answer works in another different language (obviously with attribution) | |
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:03 | history | edited | Community Bot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 12, 2020 at 19:26 | history | edited | Param Siddharth | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Edited to get the point across without the vulgarity
|
| Feb 20, 2019 at 21:36 | comment | added | Sparr | @PeterTaylor not a violation if it's copied from another SE site, or other appropriately licensed source, with any requisite attribution. | |
| Jan 24, 2018 at 22:18 | comment | added | Daniel | I once had a guy rip off my answer almost entirely, which made extensive use of little used quirks in C#. His first answer did not even solve the problem, so he took my logic and made it a loop rather than tail recursive. Thankfully, mine was still smaller, but it really rubbed me the wrong way. He even copied my explanation for how it worked, with his own style. Crazy. | |
| Jun 22, 2014 at 18:21 | comment | added | David Mulder | As long as the answer is marked CW and publishing it under the original license is possible (e.g. SE answers are CC by-sa 3.0, so as long as you mention the author and publish on SE you're in the clear) I don't see any problem with it. Don't forget codegolf is on SE and also a Q&A site, not a gaming site. And if you don't like others 'using' your answers don't publish on SE. | |
| Apr 8, 2014 at 19:30 | comment | added | corsiKa | This can happen accidentally when two people post near the same time, or when the later poster just doesn't read the existing answers fully. Still shouldn't be allowed, but I feel this is less of a "loophole". | |
| Mar 18, 2014 at 0:35 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by C. K. Young Mod | ||
| Feb 24, 2014 at 15:21 | comment | added | Jonathan Van Matre | @IlmariKaronen In that case, I agree the thing to do is mark it as a CW and link to the original source with a mention of the author. But even so, in the spirit of the site, I would hope to see at least a "Here's my best attempt at golfing this answer, but as you can see it just can't be improved." | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 15:16 | comment | added | Jonathan Van Matre | @PeterTaylor Agreed; however, I have seen just such an answer occur in the past week, so it cannot hurt to hammer home the point in more than one way. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 10:36 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | This shouldn't need stating, because it's already a copyright violation and liable to flagging for deletion due to non-compliance with the terms of service. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 9:42 | comment | added | Ilmari Karonen | +1, although this could be argued to be acceptable if you really think the answer is optimal and cannot be improved. It might be good form to mark the answer as Community Wiki in that case, though. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 6:14 | history | answered | Jonathan Van Matre | CC BY-SA 3.0 |