On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, comex wrote: > If the dethronement rule "allows" a dethronement, then why didn't the > contracts "allow" all players to join? Both actions are technically > possible but (usually!) not feasible.
By that logic, you could make any sort of "technically feasible" contract: "Any player may join, provided e tells me the secret number." "Any player may join, provided e posts the minutes from the third annual Reykjavik conference on artificial plum propagation" or "any player may join, provided e does so in this 60-second window." The last one may be true even if not stated directly, if the contest vanishes within a short time frame. It's clear that a contract can raise an arbitrary level of practical hurdles while still claiming to "allow" joining: it is certainly reasonable that the courts consider whether the true net effect is to reasonably "allow" all players an opportunity to join. -Goethe
