a true management democracy :skull:

lol。

The Freedom in Democratic Party means a monster dance on the table?Means more and more politically corrects filled with our lives？Means Sweet Baby?

It doesn't say that more than four contestants can't come and rules specifically say that one to four limit is for official national delegations only, not for those who are participating under IOI flag. So since there's no official Israel delegation they are not limited by this rule.

We don't want to see bad countries' names and flags. That's it.

Well... In this paradigm, there is no reason to ban China. The bans are not about human rights violation and what not. The bans are about wars. So China (at the moment) does not fall into this category. Why the bans are about wars specifically is an interesting question. I agree that unbanning Russia now would look like a statement. If you banned it, and then unbanned it, does it mean that they became better? Now you support them? But adding more bans only worsens this situation. What should happen for Israel to get unbanned? And can it realistically ever happen? This is such a big decision that is being made in a moment, undoing of which would be so much harder than the ban itself.

2024: Reddit noise intensifies

Really, you describe it as reddit noises?

Pro-Palestine movement was overwhelmingly supported by academic community, where IOI comes from. This year, in many many universities, students built encampments, while professors supported students. There was (is) a boycott movement too.

I think it would be hard not to consider any action given this environment. And I'm glad that just like with Russian participants, the action taken still allows individual participants to not be a scapegoat for the whole country.

Also, in my personal opinion, I think it's indeed more consistent to take similar action for all of Russia, Belarus, Israel, than against only the first two.

What strikes me most is how the 2022 meeting is very clearly done in fear. I almost felt it soothing through the screen. It was clearly a very stressful situation, and I can't begin to imagine how much it influenced the decision.

On political pressure on the assembly:

Confidential voting was discussed. [...] Canada said the votes should be confidential because of political pressure. Switzerland seconded this. [...] Australia wanted to know if the vote will be completely confidential (i.e., perhaps scrutineers will know how votes were cast).

People knew consensus is not guaranteed to be reached:

Estonia asked what happens if the formal yes/no vote does not pass. [...] Estonia asked for assurance that this would not necessarily mean we end up with the first option. Ben was unable to give this assurance [...]. Put another way, if the GA is paralyzed, “do nothing” is the end result. Estonia asked that this be made very clear. Italy spoke to say that this did not seem fair [...].

Estonia asked what would happen if the motion does not pass. Troy said this is not defined. Italy said that we should know. Ben spoke to say the current evidence suggests that only Option 2 [onsite competition in an unofficial manner] can pass. Thus, we are paralyzed if it does not pass. The default is that Russia and Belarus will be able to come back and participate. Estonia followed up to emphasize that we are effectively voting between the first two options. Indonesia asked for another option. Troy said we will not be changing the voting procedure at this point.

Ukraine and Poland make an argument that if Russians are allowed at IOI, this will be used as propaganda:

Ukraine spoke at length proposing to ban Russia and Belarus indefinitely and attempted to persuade the GA to go this route. They said Russians are not responsible for what their government is doing, but opinion polls do suggest many people support their government’s actions. [...] Ukraine emphasized the role propaganda is playing in the war and that the IOI will be used for future propaganda.

Poland indicated that anything short of a full ban plays to the Russian propaganda machine. They cited examples from other Olympiads.

Russia participating in an official format would deter at least 4 countries:

Germany expressed interest in knowing how many countries would not join if the first option is chosen. By a show of hands in the room, four countries indicated this is the situation they would be faced with.

Poland spoke and said they are very happy to have their Ukrainian friends here at the IOI. They do not think this would be possible if Russia and Belarus are present. Poland might not have come if they were.

Lithuania said they understand that the IOI consists of intellectual people, and it is very hard to exclude people. [...] However, when an aggressor comes to your home, you are not in a conversation. [...] Lithuania will not come to IOI if Russia is there with their flag.

Recent statements threatened the existence of Estonia and therefore also Latvia, Lithuania and perhaps Poland. [...] this is not about the students, but this is about applying pressure (e.g., as happened with apartheid in South Africa). [...] Estonia has received a clear indication that they cannot participate in competitions that Russia participates at.

There were some comparisons with the Nazi regime I won't quote. Very few parties focused on kids, it was all politics. These are the exceptions:

Araz Yusubov (IC) said there is a need for deeper and longer discussions. [...] We may be forgetting about one important objective of IOI which is friendship between scientists and people. He cited examples of Israeli team leaders positively interacting with Palestine contestants in Baku, and Azerbaijan inviting Armenia in 2019. Araz has proposed a group discussion topic along these lines: to write down IOI values, which would help in contradicting situations. [...] Should the IOI be a platform for these politics? Perhaps it is wiser to avoid doing so.

Czechia made the commend that it is hard to distinguish between what we think is right and what is right for the IOI.

The deputy leader from Spain [...] said that the IOI can be one of the most important events in a contestant’s life. These kids cannot just leave their country and compete elsewhere like some athletes can. [...] In summary, he says the IOI is for the kids and we should consider them first.

Tajikistan said that excluding students will make them think their government’s propaganda is right.

Mile spoke to say that the IOI should be about inclusion and building bridges.

India indicated they more or less agree with everything Mile said. [...] These are school kids, and we want them to meet other kids. [...] We should focus on running a good competition, not on politics.

Do you honestly think this decision was taken to promote countries from 33rd to 34th in the table?

Of course, that's not what I meant! I meant that the fact that the word "Israel" appears at the top of the ranking annoys some people. On the other hand, if it was at the bottom, nobody would see it and nobody would even care.

Do you honestly think this decision was taken to promote countries from 33rd to 34th in the table?

Where did I mention equivalence? I was talking about the significance of differences. In the case of Russia, it is a clear situation as from any reasonable moral viewpoint, there was an aggressor and a defender. And the excerpts from the discussions at IOI cited above prove this. There was no discussion on who is right and who is wrong. The only discussion was whether it is a good response to impose the ban. What I am saying is that the case of Israel is much less straightforward, and thus leads to controversy. This leads to the fact that there is no "rule" for bans anymore. It's just a subjective decision that is randomly made.

bro can't read

Well that's in fact sarcasm on the British and French who considered the entire world, or Africa in particular, as their backyard and drew straight-line borders as they pleased.

It's not in middle east. But he forgot Oman and Turkey