I did not participate the constest because I was in story mode. Aside from my low chances of winning, it afforded 4 prizes, so, thought, "maybe I can one". This is very misleading.
Aside from the "elogious" words between Chewett and Constatine, it is of my opinion that the rules of the challenge count as they are made public - and it said 4 prizes in the contest's page.
Pipstickz says "the challenge is not fair", but I say a challenge with moving rules is no challenge at all. Similar shifiting rules are used in shady circumstances to punish participants, so it betrays the purpose of contending and is, therefore, not a contest. Using a hyperbolic example, if Chewett decided "the new change made in the rules say Donald Black has won all the prizes, I only had no time to say it before" people here would be having a shi*fit - they would feel stolen from their time - and they would be right. That's what is happening here; the other winners (and I refer to them like this because they are) were stolen by a piece of rules that wasn't made public apropriately by whatever reasons (because to them it makes no difference) and have all right to complain.
If Chewett denies John the audience he's asking with Mur this makes this ALL THE WORST since he has:
1. Admitted the mistake was his;
2. Said he'll do nothing about it;
3. Will deny access to the resolution of a problem he has created himself, while not solving it.
It says: "Yes, I did things wrong because I had issues, but I'll do nothing about it, none of you will do anything about and if any of you tries, I'll mess it up". This is not even about the contest anymore, is about being fair.
I'm a rookie and I know many players - Chewett being an extreme case - gives a lot more time and effort to MD than me, but fair is fair. The right thing to do is to reward all winners according the the public rules, change the rules after and hold other contests in the new law. Burns, over there, said law is applied retroactively, but as far as my research led it only retrocedes in benefit of the charged - and in this case there are innocent people being punished. Put yourself in the place of the other players for a bit, ok?
Also, the restriction page, or rule page as it is, says the game provides the ability to question decisions.
Not to give people the chance to question a decision is being very authoritarian: while this happens a lot in real life and in other games, this is (alledgely) a community built game and the purpose to it is making things different and fun - and there is no fun at all in being stolen from.
Now, something to remember about the intro:
This is a multiplayer adventure game, you will find here creature fights, amazing places, secret areas, puzzles to solve, alliance collaborative play, a story that changes based on your decisions , magic spells and much much more...
Let's just hope this "much more" doesn't involve "the same stuff you hear at work and from your government and that makes you feel tired with life and people all around" - that would be very anticlimatic.