Ah, but you are overlooking the context within which that is mentioned. It says they *reserve the right to cancel, etc.* if any of those things (including the technical failures you cite) occur. It does *not* say that the using the technical failures to your advantage is breaking the rules... it simply reserves the right to change/cancel the contest in that event. VERY different things, and that's precisely why no one has yet been able to cite what rules are being broken by so-called "cheaters" (other than multiple accounts, which I'll address in a second).

This is a very valid point and is the one rule that appears to be getting broken on a frequent basis, and therefore should be enforced as such. However, don't presume that there would be more fake accounts if the game was rewarding the skill of trivia knowledge only. Fake account would be inspired by any configuration of the game that rewards winners handsomely, so you should be careful not to argue that rewarding fast-clickers, fast-readers, thorough-readers, etc. is the *cause* of the fake accounts. It is the lucrative awards themselves that are the inspiration. Heck, even if the game was nothing more than a random-number generator that amounted to a lottery draw, you'd still have fake accounts being created so people could get multiple tries at the booty. This is the point I keep repeating... people are so obsessed with getting the game to match their skill set so they can win that they overlook the fact that there's nothing inherently bad about rewarding people randomly, people who can click fast, or even people who are smart enough to read what their browser downloads.