You state that it is the policy of the forum to ignore the entirety of civil law related to confidentiality to administer your own judgment in areas about which you know fuck-all.
All this means is that we won't give you the scammer tag for breaking a NDA for that purpose. We will NOT EVER request someone to break a NDA for a scammer investigation. We are also not legally obligated to remove confidential information that was revealed. This is an investigation for a tag on some forum, not a lawsuit.
So you disavow this statement?
It is board policy that, in order to help scammer investigations, NDA's and other such agreements will not be honored for the purpose of the scammer tag when the agreements are broken in order to reveal a scam.
No. That statement was taken out of context. It was regarding a case where an agreement to keep silent was already broken. We will never require or ask you to break a NDA, etc., for the purpose of a scammer investigation. We may ask you to reveal your own information and information that isn't protected by a NDA, however.
And the comment about bonds? You're dictating terms for the exchanges now as well?
No, of course not. I just saying that I wouldn't consider it a scam if actual mining didn't back a bond as long as it never explicitly claims that it does. Also, remember that a scammer tag has a much higher burden of evidence than a civil case.
Such as not sending you a bitcoin address?
If that is the only thing holding someone up from fulfilling their obligations and it's being purposefully held back in order to claim that someone is scamming you, yes. Keep in mind that that was my impression at the time, since Goat is known to troll.