The criteria did not change, nor the way that I enforce it. In December I added more descriptive text to all the criterion so I didn't have to keep repeating myself throughout the thread - the descriptions act as an FAQ. For example I was asked what was company size about 20 times which you can search for in this thread.
Why not post the differences of the text for everyone to see it? Show us what was written pre-December so we can compare to the present text. Will you do it or will you chicken out?
I'm not on trial here, nor do I have to prove my 'innocence'. Even so, I checked and the oldest version dropbox archived is 9th Jan 2015. There is an internet archive version
here from October which shows the only description was:
Preorders?
Preorders are a recipe for disaster and puts all the risk on the buyer.
As I said, I added more descriptive text.
Yes, your unethical behaviour is on trial here.
Until December, your description for preorders was:
Preorders are a recipe for disaster and puts all the risk on the buyer.
Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141022200447/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456691When it was time to remove our pre-orders ranking (we stop doing pre-orders in November), the description was changed:
Preorders are extremely bad for the industry and put all the financial risk on the buyer. This criterion does not act as a snapshot, but a longer term (both past and future) "does
this company engage in preorders". A company who's business model relies on preorders to fund development and new generations is still considered to utilise preorders even if
they intermediately sell some products from stock. Transitional scores may be used when companies have promised the exclusion of preorders but have yet to prove their business
model can operate without them.
Source:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456691.msg5035158#msg5035158I told, endless times, that we won't take pre-orders on our 3rd gen due to the design risk.
It falls on deaf dogs ears.
In addition:
- You opposed the SP20 legendaries reviews we did for some reason, very loud
- You asked a moderator to move a thread called "Spondoolies Spam" from trash to meta, after we launched the SP20 legendaries reviews
- You've unjustifiably reported some of my posts in some of the legendaries reviews threads
- You reported Philip's poll questions threads and tried to kill the hardware manufacturer's poll
All of that, I believe, is because of our unrelated dispute.
Guy