Sharing my thoughts about the changes:
A proper review is some effort when done properly (checking the codestub in different languages - does it try to parse an int while a long is needed? is there a trailing whitespace?).
Are given constraints met? Do testcases cover the most relevant cases?
It can turn into a lot of effort for SDK contributions (e.g. trying to crash the referee, check for proper seeding to reproduce a game under same conditions, …)
Personally I think that honoring the effort was justified. I can’t tell much about XP harvesting and if it was a problem, as I don’t follow the puzzle contributions too actively.
I also disagree on the reward for new contributions: each gives 250XP. It takes me a full weekend to write a game like Onitama, even after learning the SDK (graphics take a lot of time). In the same amount of time I could spam multiple CoC contributions, each rewarding the same about of XP as that single game.
I don’t even care about having or not having the XP itself, it’s just the balancing that feels off to me.
That’s great! I change small details from time to time (e.g. removing trailing spaces in the testcases, thus touching them ), was always wondering why the update is that slow.