We know that currently rating change is based on Elo, so when there are lots of cheaters, normal participants would lose points. My new proposal is this:
let each tester rate each problem (or a subset, based on the rating of the tester), take average. Then after competition, each participant has their rating change calculated based on the problem's rating. The cheaters would still be there but at least people can just compare with own historical rating.
Thoughts?
seems pointless. why don't we stop proposing things that are too complicated / not well thought-out and just get better at banning cheaters? we're still really good at catching them!
The problem is that you would need a really big number of testers in order to achieve a realistic rating. there fore you would get a greater risk of problem leaks and higher technical times for creating rounds. Also, rating is ( in my opinion ) highly personal, meaning a problem that for me should be 1700, for you is 1000 because you have practiced more on the specific topic. But still, it's always nice to think of alternative ways to deal with cheaters and the impact they have.