Hello Codeforces!

As you may have noticed, there are popular blogs about Ahmet Kaan and his ban from Codeforces after recent contests (top 2 blogs at the moment). One of them is a sentimental appeal, and one is an admin response to that appeal.

Before even starting the blog, let me clarify, challenging the admin decision absolutely isn't this blog's purpose. Codeforces has its own standards as a community, and admins must enforce them. Admins do not and should not have obligation to prepare something like a legal accusation, nor are they obligated to carefully examine the arguments presented in this blog when making their decisions.

Therefore, admins are not tagged in this blog, and I kindly request you to not tag them or try to contact them for this matter even if you think this explanation is satisfactory, since this matter already took much more time than they should gave. (I actually appreciate admins to address community appeal and giving hours to prepare a detailed blog, orz)

I have discussed this topic with him and I have his full point of view, and this blog will have his full approval before posting. This blog will try to explain his point of view, and what actually supports his point of view, to anyone who wants to or needs to have a more solid idea about the situation.

Before I talked to him, and before admins announced their final decision, I tried to find logical explanations for all the existing accusation up until that point in my comment, which you don't need to check, since I will restate points of that comment in this blog in a cleaner manner.

Round 1085

Full Timeline: - A is solved normally. He had some issues with B, which resulted in switching to C, after reading and having some initial thoughts about other problems, he got accepted from B 1 hours and 17 minutes after contest start, at 18.52 (I will use UTC+3). - He had a solution to D, he wrote it with a reasonable amount of initial bugs and submitted at 19.08. - After WA, he switched to thinking E, where he was able to find a solution fairly quickly, but before writing it, he returned to D, did some minimal changes to it and submitted again at 19.20. - He had no idea what was wrong in D, he had solutions to E1 and E2, so with that hype, he knew solving D would almost guarantee him being GM, so he tried to stress test as fast as possible. switched to vs code because stress testing there would be faster, he completed stress test setup, and his stress test stucked at a spesific place, he wasn't able to see problem immediately, so he switched to writing E1. - He was able to write E1 fairly fast, because that code is really simple, like some 1-line for loops and 1 slightly longer for loop. It took about 5 minutes to his submission at 19.31. - Some more efforts in D, and accidentally submitted his stress test code instead of actual code at 19.35. - More efforts on D, and he accidentally submitted his stress test code again at 19.42. Frustrated, switched to E2. - Wrote E2 in a similar speed to E1, (their codes are both simple) and submitted it at 19.47. - Returned to D, noticed submitting the wrong code, submitted the right code, and got AC.

Observations you can make that are supporting this sequence: - The difference between D in 19.42 and 19.52 is explained extremely fittingly with 2 concurrent writing. You can actually observe 2 branches, 19.20->19.35->19.42 and 19.20->19.52. Which also answers appearing and disappearing if(cin) and min_inf. - Time given for A,B,C is too long for a completely focused user on this rating. It implies some of the time is given to other problems - You can explain some of the formatting changes with editor change. What I mean by editor change is not because of auto formatting. It is because geany is a competitive programming environment, and vs code is a normal coding environment. If you examine the formatting changes between submissions that are claimed to be written in geany and submissions in vs code, you can observe that reviewing code in geany causes him to delete spaces, and reviewing code in vs code causes him to add spaces. - His code writing speed is consistent throughout this explanation.

Observations you can make against AI usage: - The formatting changes are done partially. What I mean by that is at first only spaces after commas and semicolons are added, and then other formatting changes are added in a different submissions, but even with all changes, his submissions didn't adhere to formatting rules completely in a significant code zone. Like, there were formatted parts without containing any logic, and formatting suddenly stopped when the actual logic started. It may be caused by manual edit after formatting by AI, but than you are facing the probability of him using AI, doing random changes, and doing those random changes to different rules of formatting. I am not saying it is impossible, but I say P(formatting anomalies | AI) <= P(formatting anomalies | human). - AI most likely didn't used on B, considering its latency in submission and simplicity, AI could have easily debugged or write it from scratch. Therefore if you are trying to construct an explanation regarding how AI was used, you need to accept start of using AI within this contest is after submitting B. - The state of rush, too much switch between problems, calming down after submitting D, does not fit with AI usage, where user knows he has more than an hour and capabilities of AI. Again I can't argue it is impossible, but it heavily increases the difficulty of forming an argument based on "he was trying to conceal AI usage", which needs to happen to some extent if you are trying to explain what he has done with AI. Because he has many human fingerprints in the code,