Quote from: RoadStress on April 19, 2015, 02:39:40 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 15, 2015, 11:47:37 AM

Quote from: RoadStress on April 15, 2015, 11:24:29 AM

Quote from: dogie on April 15, 2015, 11:06:00 AM

Bitmain dropped 10 points when I became involved with them.
Canaan Creative dropped 3 points when I became involved with them.
Spondoolies' rating has risen over the same period, even during the problems of under performing SP30 preorders.

Please don't bring the minuscule dropping of points into discussion because I already showed the real reasoning for this small drop(this was just a small step out of many steps for getting Bitmain to the top). If you want I can always refresh your memory.

Uses own chips?
Delivered miners?
Uses preorders?
On time?
Quality Issues?
Refund Issues?
Communication
Ethics
Size

Which of these rating categories do you disagree with, on what company? What evidence can you provide to substantiate a rating change?

For start Ethics and your boss Bitmain. What evidence can you provide to back up this rating? Show me evidence of the size of Bitmain's own mining farm.

Within the ethics category, all companies start at 10/10 and receive penalties removing points, hence they've lost 2 points for having a farm. It appears you're suggesting that they've been given points for having a farm? Not sure why you want to know the size of their farm or why its relevant, but antpool.com. A large chunk of that is self mine / contracted mining.

Which penalty do you think should be applied / not be applied? What evidence can you provide to substantiate a rating change?

Quote from: RoadStress on April 19, 2015, 02:39:40 PM

Quote from: brush242 on April 16, 2015, 09:28:59 PM

However, Spondoolies-Tech, you are better served not posting such things. There is no evidence either way that your statements are valid, but they certainly generate responses such as the above, and many companies fire their employees for such public commentary. It brings what may ultimately be unfounded attention, and fosters mistrust as Abracadabra noted.

The fact that dogie didn't deny it makes it good enough evidence

I can't confirm or deny a withdrawn, unevidenced allegation. Guy will repost in the future if it becomes appropriate.

Quote from: RoadStress on April 19, 2015, 02:39:40 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 18, 2015, 03:40:54 AM

Am currently with Bitmain (weak terms, only designed to punish maliciousness/selling secrets etc)

So legally you can't use the information that you know to lower some of their ratings? Is this what you are saying?

That's not how an NDA works.

1) An NDA only protects against confidential information
2) Confidential information provided from a non discloser (in this case Guy), removes the confidentiality of that information. Unless Guy was covered by an NDA with Bitmain also.
3) I don't need to release the information in order to use it here, its just not useful for others. Like the feedback on Guy's original comment has drawn.
4) Any confidentiality agreements / ethics / promises in this case are on Guy's side, not my side.
5) My NDA with Bitmain allows for disclosures of confidential information, non maliciously. That means I am free to do 99.9% of what the community requires. The NDA is primarily there to stop the selling of trade secrets / information not known to the market.
6) The information wasn't particularly useful or applicable to the guide anyway.

Quote from: RoadStress on April 19, 2015, 02:39:40 PM

Quote from: dogie on April 18, 2015, 03:40:54 AM

Speaking more generally, I can understand some people's feelings but there isn't anything there. Some people take it too far and because they fell they'd be influenced, then they feel that I MUST be influenced. They project their own inability to remain neutral, aggressively, onto me and that's not right. I truly do not care what company is 1st, 2nd, 300th, what company goes out of business, what company makes $3 trillion. Companies will come and go, companies will do well and do badly and that's okay. What I do care about is that people don't get trampled on in the interim, and so I consider myself to work for the community primarily. Because of that, it doesn't matter who I am affiliated with because they still have to play with the same criteria everyone else does. I'm probably more critical on companies I do work with, if you want to refer to that as being biased.

They don't need to feel that you are influenced. When you apply a rating to punish one direct competitor of Bitmain 3 months later than you should right when Bitmain needed it the most it is more then obvious about your intentions.

I think you need to reread what you wrote. You're saying that I purposely delayed a reduction in "a direct competitor of Bitmain". Huh