# Why was my flag declined?

This answer is clearly invalid, given that you read the language's documentation.

I used a custom mod flag to flag it as invalid, since it prints a Unicode ☆ instead of outputting an image with a 5-pointed star (like this one). My flag got declined, since there was apparently no evidence to support it.

The user didn't get warned, but I'm not sure if my flag was wrong, that's why I've asked here. The other reason might have been since the question was closed as unclear (which should have been closed as too broad instead IMO).

Note: actual flag text is hidden.

• I think you have to argue that the PHP answer is invalid first, because its an established answer that is not deleted. – Nathan Merrill Apr 20 '17 at 18:07
• Feel free to downvote this answer, which sets the precedent that outputting that Unicode character is a valid solution. I messaged the OP, but if he doesn't reply, it may be up to another user to edit the question and make it invalid to output a Unicode character as the result. – mbomb007 Apr 20 '17 at 18:07
• @mbomb007 It's mainly the graphical-output tag that makes me consider that answer invalid. – Erik the Outgolfer Apr 20 '17 at 18:12
• Obviously you'll need one of the mods to respond to know for sure, but there are a few weird things that stand out to me. 1) ... clearly invalid, given that you read the language's documentation. What does reading the docs have to do with validity? 2) As Nathan said, there is also a PHP answer that prints unicode that hasn't been deleted. 3) The challenge is closed as unclear. These are all strange little things I see that may have contributed to the decline. – DJMcMayhem Apr 20 '17 at 18:18
• It also wouldn't hurt to say what exactly you said in the flag for more context (assuming there isn't personal info or something in the text) – DJMcMayhem Apr 20 '17 at 18:19
• @DJMcMayhem I wanna know the exact reason, since "no supporting evidence" is a bit unclear on its own. Also, if you read the documentation, you will understand what the answer does, and consider it invalid. And there's a reason the exact flag text isn't shown. – Erik the Outgolfer Apr 20 '17 at 18:20

I declined your flag, as well as a number of flags on the PHP answer that inspired it.

A character glyph is an image; U+2606 happens to be an image of a 5-pointed star. Since the task is to print a 5-pointed star and the answer prints a 5-pointed char, it is valid.

Is it cheaty? Probably. Is it in spirit of the challenge? Probably not. Does it solve the task at hand in the most boring way possible? Yes. Do we need answers in all programming languages that simply print this Unicode character or its filled counterpart U+2605? No.

You're free to dislike the answer, and there's more than enough reason to dowvote it. You can even downvote the challenge because it allows this answer as written. What you cannot do is call the answer invalid, because it isn't.

• Wouldn't the best solution be to edit the challenge to make such a solution invalid? That's the sort of thing we'd do on a new challenge to prevent such a loophole. – mbomb007 Apr 20 '17 at 18:23
• Wait, graphical-output challenges can be solved using Unicode chars? Got to post a bunch of Unicode chars as such answers then. – Erik the Outgolfer Apr 20 '17 at 18:25
• @mbomb007 Not sure. It would certainly improve this challenge, but editing someone else's challenge with the purpose of invalidating pre-existing answers should not be done in general. – Dennis Apr 20 '17 at 18:27
• @EriktheOutgolfer I really hope that comment is facetious... – DJMcMayhem Apr 20 '17 at 18:29
• @DJMcMayhem No I'm really worrying if I could have "golfed" like that. Of course I won't go posting such answers right now :) – Erik the Outgolfer Apr 20 '17 at 18:29
• @Dennis Well, we could add a loophole that's disallowed by default? – mbomb007 Apr 20 '17 at 18:35
• @mbomb007 Loopholes don't apply retroactively, but that's a good idea to prevent future answers of this kind. – Dennis Apr 20 '17 at 18:45
• @Dennis This has been added. – mbomb007 Apr 20 '17 at 18:47
• Oh, so the reason is that we didn't have a loophole. That's unbelievable... – Erik the Outgolfer Apr 20 '17 at 21:04