As long as they solve kata, and don't create them, they'll be reasonably safe.

Start creating kata, and the standards you will be held to are raised considerably. And there have been lots and lots of senseless duplicates, so tempers do run shorter when there's another one. Note how quickly your kata got retired. There are a gazillion people creating duplicate kata out there, and not all that many people who have to tell you what you did wrong. Sorry 'bout that - I don't have the energy to sugarcoat that again, and again, and again. I told you what you did wrong ( the rest of the downvoters did not ), I said please; if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Again, do note there is a difference between solving kata and creating kata.

I did not feel aggressive and this is not intended as an apology. I just hope you understand my side of it.

Sure, I just think the way you approached this was very aggressive and made me feel very unwelcome. I have been recommending Code Wars for many students who wanted to get up to speed on their JavaScript skills, but I don't know if will be doing that anymore.

I clicked through to your profile and it would seem you actually have a worthy cause. Problem is you're trying to appropriate an existing platform for your purposes.

Try to use more existing content instead of creating new duplicates, would be my short advice. I'd be happy to offer more and longer, but it would really help if you got a better feel for established practices here, and read some of the Wiki pages.

Kata Best Practices, specifically "Make sure content is new": Is the concept behind this kata novel?

That means kata that differ only in implementation details are duplicates.

If extending prototypes offends you ( which is not entirely unreasonable ), use a different ( existing ) kata as a teaching tool that does not. Or create something truly new, which does not only add to your teaching, but also to CodeWars itself. But a lot of 7 and 8 kyu ideas have been done already ( some of them to death ).

No, it does not?

We may be talking about different things.

Preloaded should not have the same skeleton code as Initial Solution. I'm not seeing that in Multiply. Where are you seeing that?

Can you please refer me to the rules?

There are a thousand kata that do not extend prototypes, which is a valid JS construct anyway ( enumerable: false missing is the real problem ).

If you want to use this as a teaching tool, please get a paid subscription to Qualified.io. This is not your personal playground - you don't get to make your own rules.

Sorry, but even the sign up test with multiply does this?

FIFY

Do not define the user function in Preloaded. That's not what it's for, and it prevents solver from defining the solution with const.

Yes, but the original was about extending the prototype of String, which is bad practise. I want to use this as a teaching tool for beginners

Forked from the original

That makes it a duplicate.

Please unpublish this. It adds nothing to CodeWars. ( Note that the original was already an 8 kyu. )