Mike supports $SPORT team the Compressors. He's so sure they are unbeatable that he accepts 50:1 bets against them. Patrick bets 100$ that they won't win this year's championship; Mike accepts. Later, the Compressors announce financial troubles and can't pay the fee to enter the championship, which is then won by another team. Patrick reclaims his 5000$. Mike refuses to pay saying that the Compressors have not been beaten, and the championship result does not disprove his claim that the Compressors are unbeatable, which was the spirit of the bet since the beginning. Mike offers to refund the 100$. Patrick holds that the terms of the bet were met and he deserves the 5000$.
And the FAQ for the bet said that if a team can’t afford to enter the playoffs then the bet is off.
1. Which line in the FAQ are you making an analogy to?
2. A FAQ for the newsgroup is not automatically part of the rules for the challenge.
3. If the entire FAQ is treated as rules text, then the rules directly say you cannot win, and that's not an acceptable way to do rules.
>Which line in the FAQ are you making an analogy to?
The line about filename shenanigans being disallowed.
>A FAQ for the newsgroup is not automatically part of the rules for the challenge.
I think it’s completely clear that this FAQ was about the challenge.
> The line about filename shenanigans being disallowed.
I don't think that person was being verbatim or summarizing well, can you find support in the actual FAQ?
The part where the FAQ calls out filenames, the example is lmfjyh.c putting the entire program in the filename. Nothing like that is happening here.
The FAQ does talk about being so strict you can't even get bit length, but that kind of strictness is clearly not being applied to Mike's challenge.
> I think it’s completely clear that this FAQ was about the challenge.
Unless I missed there being two FAQs, you have completely misread the situation.
This is the FAQ: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/part1/index.html
It is not about the challenge.