There seems to be a habit to define the rules of the experiment - on the basis that there are no rules - and then use this to illustrate a particular point of v

There seems to be a habit to define the rules of the experiment - on the basis that there are no rules - and then use this to illustrate a particular point of view as "right" or otherwise justifiable. By your definition it would have also been fine if Sam had actually gone out and bought himself and iPad. Technically fair game? Would that have been ok? Probably not to most people. Not because of the rules, but because we all have our own view of acceptable behaviour. In this case, he gamed the system and in the process poured water on some people that were having fun. I don't buy that it's a social experiment more than someone trying to be clever and game a system. So yeah. Fair game, but I can see why they're annoyed.