1) Scripts may not have been explicitly forbidden, but they certainly were implicitly a deal-breaker on winning: "Sponsor reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify any individual who is found to be tampering with the entry process or the operation of the Contest..."
2) There are scenarios in which they did not need to award prizes, mostly surrounding inability to verify winners. You'll note liberal use of the word "may", and not "must" when outlining how they find the winners to award prizes.
3) There was no obligation in those rules to announce results.
4) There was a way to request a winners list, but there was a deadline on it.
In short, they may have simply seen that scripts wrecked the contest and had enough wiggle room in the rules to just bail on it and move on. Or, maybe they did quietly send some awards out and just did not market the event. Hard to say for sure at this point unless you find someone who actually worked on the event.
You'll note a few interesting things:
1) Scripts may not have been explicitly forbidden, but they certainly were implicitly a deal-breaker on winning: "Sponsor reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify any individual who is found to be tampering with the entry process or the operation of the Contest..."
2) There are scenarios in which they did not need to award prizes, mostly surrounding inability to verify winners. You'll note liberal use of the word "may", and not "must" when outlining how they find the winners to award prizes.
3) There was no obligation in those rules to announce results.
4) There was a way to request a winners list, but there was a deadline on it.
In short, they may have simply seen that scripts wrecked the contest and had enough wiggle room in the rules to just bail on it and move on. Or, maybe they did quietly send some awards out and just did not market the event. Hard to say for sure at this point unless you find someone who actually worked on the event.