I don't think this is an integrity issue on gmaxwell's part. I think he created his moderation rules at a time where scam accusations were limited to individuals that were scamming people out of Bitcoin, not corporate entities that are engaging in questionable/misleading practices. BFL, and now HashFast, have presented issues which do not fit into the framework initially established and now gmaxwell is feeling pressured to honor the existing (obsolete) rules that he established with a situation that does not cleanly fit into the rules.

Rules need to adapt with changing times. They cannot be inflexible and expected to be honored. Every rules system has a framework for amendment.

There are going to be more entities which produce custom hardware and the business practices associated with said entity need to be presented as a package, not splintered across the forum for some outdated forum organization. The fact is that if you intend propose, design, produce, modify, distribute and support hardware which has only one function - to mine bitcoin hardware - there needs to be a place to discuss it. If the proposal, design, production, modification or support of the hardware is questionable, no one bats an eye - but if the distribution has problems, then all of the sudden we need to move the discussion to scam accusation? That seems ridiculous.

I think the integrity conflict gmaxwell feels is stuck between trying to honor very specific, but incomplete, rules he created a year ago and the fact that we can discuss every nuance of HashFast's hardware in this forum, except their failure to deliver that hardware.

Shipping the first product doesn't mean a damn thing if you cannot effectively distribute and support that product once it is in the world. Most of a business is the distribution and support. That's the most critical part, there should be a place for customers to discuss it, and for companies that have a clue, for them to come and discuss it too.