Spondoolies Spam

[Guy Corem]

I don't mind unlocking my thread, I primarily did it as a courtesy to Con and the forum. Discussion of the reviews hasn't transferred over to the main thread as I'd hoped though.

I'm pretty mixed on the whole thing. I don't think there needs to be 13 review threads in addition to all the others, and I am a little worried that it does set a bad precedent. On the other hand, while a lot of reviews were pretty similar, there were a good number that put a lot of effort into their and gave some good data; often more in depth in terms of things like efficiency curves than is available elsewhere. As a whole they did add value to the forum and are not just pointless spam like a lot of the sig campaign garbage.
If there was an elegant way to merge them I'd support that, but I can't think of a way to do it without it becoming a nightmare to read and follow.

Very nicely put and exactly what I've meant.
We don't want to spam Hardware. Yes, for few days, hardware was flooded with reviews.
Few days afterwards,  only the intersting stuff remains.

Dogie pressed the panic button too fast. My guess is that BitmainTech got nervous due to the immenet S5 launch.
They didn't want the SP20 reviews to spoil their (inferior IMHO  ) product launch.
The moderators are being used and doesn't exercise enough judgment here (I'm referring to posts that got reported and deleted in those threads)

Edit: We're at inherent disadvantage here. BitmainTech is paying a lot for ads and we don't.
Edit2: MrTeal, can you unlock your thread?

[MrTeal]

I don't mind unlocking my thread, I primarily did it as a courtesy to Con and the forum. Discussion of the reviews hasn't transferred over to the main thread as I'd hoped though.

I'm pretty mixed on the whole thing. I don't think there needs to be 13 review threads in addition to all the others, and I am a little worried that it does set a bad precedent. On the other hand, while a lot of reviews were pretty similar, there were a good number that put a lot of effort into their and gave some good data; often more in depth in terms of things like efficiency curves than is available elsewhere. As a whole they did add value to the forum and are not just pointless spam like a lot of the sig campaign garbage.
If there was an elegant way to merge them I'd support that, but I can't think of a way to do it without it becoming a nightmare to read and follow.

Very nicely put and exactly what I've meant.
We don't want to spam Hardware. Yes, for few days, hardware was flooded with reviews.
Few days afterwards,  only the intersting stuff remains.

Dogie pressed the panic button too fast. My guess is that BitmainTech got nervous due to the immenet S5 launch.
They didn't want the SP20 reviews to spoil their (inferior IMHO  ) product launch.
The moderators are being used and doesn't exercise enough judgment here (I'm referring to posts that got reported and deleted in those threads)

Edit: We're at inherent disadvantage here. BitmainTech is paying a lot for ads and we don't.
Edit2: MrTeal, can you unlock your thread?

I'm not sure I can. I locked it by editing the OP and selecting lock under the advanced options, but I don't seem to be able to edit any posts in that thread anymore so I'm unable to do the reverse to unlock. I'll muck around to see if I can figure it out, but it might require an act of Mod to unlock it at this point.
Edit: Fixed. The unlock is in the very bottom left of the thread.

[malaimult]

I don't mind unlocking my thread, I primarily did it as a courtesy to Con and the forum. Discussion of the reviews hasn't transferred over to the main thread as I'd hoped though.

I'm pretty mixed on the whole thing. I don't think there needs to be 13 review threads in addition to all the others, and I am a little worried that it does set a bad precedent. On the other hand, while a lot of reviews were pretty similar, there were a good number that put a lot of effort into their and gave some good data; often more in depth in terms of things like efficiency curves than is available elsewhere. As a whole they did add value to the forum and are not just pointless spam like a lot of the sig campaign garbage.
If there was an elegant way to merge them I'd support that, but I can't think of a way to do it without it becoming a nightmare to read and follow.

By having 10 reviews (13?) from 10 long standing members of the community, the review process is much more decentralized then it is when we only have dogie's review, a "main" thread and little incentive for anyone else to create a meaningful review thread. IMO this gives potential customers the opportunity to see how well the machines work and can make an informed choice if they want to purchase.

I agree that whenever a new 'model' miner is released the mining subforum is going to be somewhat cluttered with that model's reviews. A simple solution would be to create two additional subforums - one for 'official' threads and one for customer reviews

[MrTeal]

I don't mind unlocking my thread, I primarily did it as a courtesy to Con and the forum. Discussion of the reviews hasn't transferred over to the main thread as I'd hoped though.

I'm pretty mixed on the whole thing. I don't think there needs to be 13 review threads in addition to all the others, and I am a little worried that it does set a bad precedent. On the other hand, while a lot of reviews were pretty similar, there were a good number that put a lot of effort into their and gave some good data; often more in depth in terms of things like efficiency curves than is available elsewhere. As a whole they did add value to the forum and are not just pointless spam like a lot of the sig campaign garbage.
If there was an elegant way to merge them I'd support that, but I can't think of a way to do it without it becoming a nightmare to read and follow.

By having 10 reviews (13?) from 10 long standing members of the community, the review process is much more decentralized then it is when we only have dogie's review, a "main" thread and little incentive for anyone else to create a meaningful review thread. IMO this gives potential customers the opportunity to see how well the machines work and can make an informed choice if they want to purchase.

I agree that whenever a new 'model' miner is released the mining subforum is going to be somewhat cluttered with that model's reviews. A simple solution would be to create two additional subforums - one for 'official' threads and one for customer reviews

I don't necessarily agree with Dogie essentially using the forum as a free for-profit review website and if I were the mods I would ban his in-thread banner ads, but (I assume) he gets his revenue because his threads get a lot of hits. If anyone else is interested, many of his reviews are very basic with not a lot of real content so there is much room to improve if anyone else is actually interested in putting in the work. There's a bunch questionable things with how he conducts himself (such as the veiled aggression towards companies who don't pay him or the whitewashing of the extremely sketchy behavior of HashCoins who are), but I don't see that as a reason to not let him post a thread per device. It's not like he's banning other reviews, other people just don't bother making them which you can hardly blame on dogie.

[malaimult]

I don't mind unlocking my thread, I primarily did it as a courtesy to Con and the forum. Discussion of the reviews hasn't transferred over to the main thread as I'd hoped though.

I'm pretty mixed on the whole thing. I don't think there needs to be 13 review threads in addition to all the others, and I am a little worried that it does set a bad precedent. On the other hand, while a lot of reviews were pretty similar, there were a good number that put a lot of effort into their and gave some good data; often more in depth in terms of things like efficiency curves than is available elsewhere. As a whole they did add value to the forum and are not just pointless spam like a lot of the sig campaign garbage.
If there was an elegant way to merge them I'd support that, but I can't think of a way to do it without it becoming a nightmare to read and follow.

By having 10 reviews (13?) from 10 long standing members of the community, the review process is much more decentralized then it is when we only have dogie's review, a "main" thread and little incentive for anyone else to create a meaningful review thread. IMO this gives potential customers the opportunity to see how well the machines work and can make an informed choice if they want to purchase.

I agree that whenever a new 'model' miner is released the mining subforum is going to be somewhat cluttered with that model's reviews. A simple solution would be to create two additional subforums - one for 'official' threads and one for customer reviews

I don't necessarily agree with Dogie essentially using the forum as a free for-profit review website and if I were the mods I would ban his in-thread banner ads, but (I assume) he gets his revenue because his threads get a lot of hits. If anyone else is interested, many of his reviews are very basic with not a lot of real content so there is much room to improve if anyone else is actually interested in putting in the work. There's a bunch questionable things with how he conducts himself (such as the veiled aggression towards companies who don't pay him or the whitewashing of the extremely sketchy behavior of HashCoins who are), but I don't see that as a reason to not let him post a thread per device. It's not like he's banning other reviews, other people just don't bother making them which you can hardly blame on dogie.

I am not saying that anything is wrong with the fact that dogie makes a thread for every new miner. What my point is that if more people do the same thing then there is a better chance that people will find value from a review.

Plus some people think the fact that dogie is paid by bitman makes him somewhat biased (I don't agree with this point of view, but it is shared by some)

[smoothie]

I think if people want to post reviews or comments on a product and there is that much discussion then it isn't spam.

Spam should be when one user posts multiple threads with the same topic over and over.

[Newar]

Some thoughts looking at Hardware page 1:

Bitmain have a thread for every model. The title says "announcement and support". There is a support section, so?

Spondoolies, apart from the reviews, have one thread plus an unoffficial model specific and the Legendary thread.

My suggestion is to have a model specific thread per model per manufacturer. Reviewers could post there. And if it turns into a support thread (which it will), so be it.


Guides how to do things belong in Support, IMHO.

[dogie]

I don't mind unlocking my thread, I primarily did it as a courtesy to Con and the forum. Discussion of the reviews hasn't transferred over to the main thread as I'd hoped though.

I'm pretty mixed on the whole thing. I don't think there needs to be 13 review threads in addition to all the others, and I am a little worried that it does set a bad precedent. On the other hand, while a lot of reviews were pretty similar, there were a good number that put a lot of effort into their and gave some good data; often more in depth in terms of things like efficiency curves than is available elsewhere. As a whole they did add value to the forum and are not just pointless spam like a lot of the sig campaign garbage.
If there was an elegant way to merge them I'd support that, but I can't think of a way to do it without it becoming a nightmare to read and follow.

By having 10 reviews (13?) from 10 long standing members of the community, the review process is much more decentralized then it is when we only have dogie's review, a "main" thread and little incentive for anyone else to create a meaningful review thread. IMO this gives potential customers the opportunity to see how well the machines work and can make an informed choice if they want to purchase.

I agree that whenever a new 'model' miner is released the mining subforum is going to be somewhat cluttered with that model's reviews. A simple solution would be to create two additional subforums - one for 'official' threads and one for customer reviews

I don't necessarily agree with Dogie essentially using the forum as a free for-profit review website and if I were the mods I would ban his in-thread banner ads, but (I assume) he gets his revenue because his threads get a lot of hits. If anyone else is interested, many of his reviews are very basic with not a lot of real content so there is much room to improve if anyone else is actually interested in putting in the work. There's a bunch questionable things with how he conducts himself (such as the veiled aggression towards companies who don't pay him or the whitewashing of the extremely sketchy behavior of HashCoins who are), but I don't see that as a reason to not let him post a thread per device. It's not like he's banning other reviews, other people just don't bother making them which you can hardly blame on dogie.

My setup guides act as a box to mining reference guide, they're not meant to be entirely exhaustive for 99.999% of people and anything and everything they could ever encounter towards that miner. Just because I don't publish pages and pages of test data doesn't mean its not being taken in different simulated environments and verified. That gets condensed into the miner specifications (as a validation of the manufacturer's rating), because 99% of users don't need raw data. I also don't think you understand the amount of time required to process that quality of photos.

Now, to answer your other concerns (which, including this discussion are heading towards OT-ness), there has to be a reason to post on the forums and keep things going. I could move my threads off site and monetise them there, but then that harms the community. The majority of the products I review in the modern market don't get close to paying for their time via the unit's value. Studios charge up to $1000 for the photography I do and up to $400 for the product 360s I've started doing when you put multiple products in at once. Tldr, expensive.

By offering exactly the same service to all manufacturers - big or small - it provides an even playing field which gives everyone to show off their wares in a sterile environment. Then, the review thread transforms into a setup guide, providing everything customer needs to go from box to mining. And then, if a customer falls into difficulty they can post their problems and they'll be dealt with as soon as I'm available. Advertising, (all $1000 of it a month...) helps pay for a portion of that environment and level playing field.

My threads are also published and then they drop off the 1st and 2nd pages until they are needed. When a customer has a problem, they post, I answer and it drops off again - they're not in the way unless they're being specifically utilised. If only one thread is being utilised, then only one thread is on the front page etc. That is different from posting 10-15 threads simultaneously and juggling to keep them all active at the top of the front page at once. Additionally, the majority of the traffic comes from Google searches, which brings external users onto the forums and keeps the ecosystem on bitcointalk healthy. The guides do not rely on the front page to garner views, hence some reviews with only a few replies have 1000s of views.

Now, to answer your other accusations - which should be in a scam accusation thread... can you provide an example company to which I show veiled aggression towards because they don't 'pay me'? I would also very much likely to highlight YOUR actions involving HashCoins, as I did nothing but provide a level playing field by not jumping to conclusions. In contrast, YOU decided that what they were doing was impossible, and so without proof YOU left them negative trust. Imagine if when you were establishing yourself [even though they have 9-12 months trading history...], someone else decided they didn't like what you were doing and dumped negative trust on you and called you a scammer - without giving them a chance to prove anything? You decided that they were a scam, until they could prove anything. You acted as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in one move. Now, are able to explain what I did (by saying don't jump to conclusions....) was so heinous?

[dogie]

Some thoughts looking at Hardware page 1:

Bitmain have a thread for every model. The title says "announcement and support". There is a support section, so?

Spondoolies, apart from the reviews, have one thread plus an unoffficial model specific and the Legendary thread.

My suggestion is to have a model specific thread per model per manufacturer. Reviewers could post there. And if it turns into a support thread (which it will), so be it.

Guides how to do things belong in Support, IMHO.

One of the things /hardware is suffering from at the moment is that users are spilling out of different threads by asking too many questions. I tend to get flamed when posting that they'd be better off in the S2/S3/S4 threads etc, but that's where they belong. The whole point of these centralised support threads is it keeps the boards clean, reduces the time for a user to get support and centralises the knowledge base and information.

The solution is more timely moderation, but that's not really a solution in itself as there are only so many mods, so many hours they can spend on here. CK did a great job of helping to clean up things when he was made a mod.

[dogie]

I don't mind unlocking my thread, I primarily did it as a courtesy to Con and the forum. Discussion of the reviews hasn't transferred over to the main thread as I'd hoped though.

I'm pretty mixed on the whole thing. I don't think there needs to be 13 review threads in addition to all the others, and I am a little worried that it does set a bad precedent. On the other hand, while a lot of reviews were pretty similar, there were a good number that put a lot of effort into their and gave some good data; often more in depth in terms of things like efficiency curves than is available elsewhere. As a whole they did add value to the forum and are not just pointless spam like a lot of the sig campaign garbage.
If there was an elegant way to merge them I'd support that, but I can't think of a way to do it without it becoming a nightmare to read and follow.

Very nicely put and exactly what I've meant.
We don't want to spam Hardware. Yes, for few days, hardware was flooded with reviews.
Few days afterwards,  only the intersting stuff remains.

Dogie pressed the panic button too fast. My guess is that BitmainTech got nervous due to the immenet S5 launch.
They didn't want the SP20 reviews to spoil their (inferior IMHO  ) product launch.
The moderators are being used and doesn't exercise enough judgment here (I'm referring to posts that got reported and deleted in those threads)

Edit: We're at inherent disadvantage here. BitmainTech is paying a lot for ads and we don't.
Edit2: MrTeal, can you unlock your thread?

You can blame the 'spam' on users purposely spamming as to why those threads become what they become, but at the same time it doesn't change what the threads become. It was more than a WEEK after when I posted the screenshot that virtually every single SPTech thread was at the top of the front page, because the same few users kept bumping all of the threads at once.

I still don't think you understand why I argued that the practice was not a good thing. Its to retain that level playing field. How could a new or small company compete with a larger company giving $1000s and $1000s of products away so they can layer the front page? And on the flip side, you would have been complaining just as hard when larger companies were spamming even more threads than you could have. Bitmain could have posted literally 100s of threads if you had your way and review 'parties' were allowed. Its not a good practice, not a good idea and not something that should continue.... as you've said in private but seem to be saying the exact opposite in public.

Regarding your claims that you receive different admin policies to any other company because you don't spend on advertisement, please break that into a separate meta thread. Its a serious allegation and (if true), needs to be dealt with.

Regarding some of your posts being deleted, its because they often don't add information/content and are too short. You can't simply quote someone elses post and say "Thanks" when the post wasn't written towards you and you'd had no interaction with that thread beforehand. I have no say in this policy as its a policy and working standard of the forum which we all have to adhere to all the same. Again, if you feel like you're being singled out then you can post a meta thread so a tribunal of peers and admins can discuss the problem and if things need to change.

[mavericklm]

What else can we expect from dogie than a bunch of spam...

[raskul]

What else can we expect from dogie than a bunch of spam...

Xmas day and he still takes time out to whinge

Dogie Spam McScrooge.

[Bicknellski]

The moderation guidelines say:

Topic creation should not be annoying. There should not be too many topics about the same thing in a short time period, and individuals should not post too many topics. "Too many" depends on the quality of the topics.

If an entire page is taken up by Spondoolies reviews, then that's probably too many topics. How this should be handled is more tricky, since I don't want to suppress anyone's honest opinion. We'll see if ckolivas' locking solution is helpful.

Anyone annoyed yet with Dogie's 30 threads? He really seems to like bumping Antminer or Avalon or his own set up guides.

Just today I saw 7 Dogie posts in a row on a single Bitmain thread. Seriously? Does that not constitute spam. Make one post and reference 7 people you are responding to not 7 separate posts holy shit dude.

Even in this thread 3 posts in a row. Be economical.

[raskul]

The moderation guidelines say:

Topic creation should not be annoying. There should not be too many topics about the same thing in a short time period, and individuals should not post too many topics. "Too many" depends on the quality of the topics.

If an entire page is taken up by Spondoolies reviews, then that's probably too many topics. How this should be handled is more tricky, since I don't want to suppress anyone's honest opinion. We'll see if ckolivas' locking solution is helpful.

Anyone annoyed yet with Dogie's 30 threads? He really seems to like bumping Antminer or Avalon or his own set up guides.

Just today I saw 7 Dogie posts in a row on a single Bitmain thread. Seriously? Does that no constitute spam. Make one post with and reference 7 people you are responding to.

He is just a disgruntled child, let him get on with it. None of it bears any significance because a lot of his posts are just banner ads. Fuck knows how he has the guile to complain, he's an open book.

[MrTeal]

My setup guides act as a box to mining reference guide, they're not meant to be entirely exhaustive for 99.999% of people and anything and everything they could ever encounter towards that miner. Just because I don't publish pages and pages of test data doesn't mean its not being taken in different simulated environments and verified. That gets condensed into the miner specifications (as a validation of the manufacturer's rating), because 99% of users don't need raw data. I also don't think you understand the amount of time required to process that quality of photos.

Now, to answer your other concerns (which, including this discussion are heading towards OT-ness), there has to be a reason to post on the forums and keep things going. I could move my threads off site and monetise them there, but then that harms the community. The majority of the products I review in the modern market don't get close to paying for their time via the unit's value. Studios charge up to $1000 for the photography I do and up to $400 for the product 360s I've started doing when you put multiple products in at once. Tldr, expensive.

By offering exactly the same service to all manufacturers - big or small - it provides an even playing field which gives everyone to show off their wares in a sterile environment. Then, the review thread transforms into a setup guide, providing everything customer needs to go from box to mining. And then, if a customer falls into difficulty they can post their problems and they'll be dealt with as soon as I'm available. Advertising, (all $1000 of it a month...) helps pay for a portion of that environment and level playing field.

My threads are also published and then they drop off the 1st and 2nd pages until they are needed. When a customer has a problem, they post, I answer and it drops off again - they're not in the way unless they're being specifically utilised. If only one thread is being utilised, then only one thread is on the front page etc. That is different from posting 10-15 threads simultaneously and juggling to keep them all active at the top of the front page at once. Additionally, the majority of the traffic comes from Google searches, which brings external users onto the forums and keeps the ecosystem on bitcointalk healthy. The guides do not rely on the front page to garner views, hence some reviews with only a few replies have 1000s of views.

Like I said, I have no problem with your guides or with you monetizing them. You providing photography to manufacturers worth more than the value of the unit you get is a great service to small manufacturers. I would just delete or mod out your banner ads with the forums if I were them, as while it helps you pay costs having manufacturers bypass the established forum advertising route and inserting them into your threads is against the interest of the forum, IMO. Obviously they disagree or don't care, so it's not a big deal to me.

Now, to answer your other accusations - which should be in a scam accusation thread... can you provide an example company to which I show veiled aggression towards because they don't 'pay me'? I would also very much likely to highlight YOUR actions involving HashCoins, as I did nothing but provide a level playing field by not jumping to conclusions. In contrast, YOU decided that what they were doing was impossible, and so without proof YOU left them negative trust. Imagine if when you were establishing yourself [even though they have 9-12 months trading history...], someone else decided they didn't like what you were doing and dumped negative trust on you and called you a scammer - without giving them a chance to prove anything? You decided that they were a scam, until they could prove anything. You acted as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in one move. Now, are able to explain what I did (by saying don't jump to conclusions....) was so heinous?

It probably could be in a scam accusation against HashCoins, but as far as I know they haven't actually sold their Zeus miners or actually scammed anyone yet.
We've gone over this is the HashCoins thread, but your characterization that I just looked at their claim and dumped negative trust on them is hardly accurate.
In November I posted that the numbers they were using for frequency and hashrate were impossible after they called jimmothy a troll for questioning them, but I left it alone after they said they'd send you a unit to test. It could have been a typo, after all.
I didn't press the issue until a week and a half later, when I asked if they could back up their claims. In response, they posted up a cgminer screenshot with doctored values. Even then I didn't post negative trust; I went through the hashrate metering section of the cgminer code to ensure my claim on the error between the WU value and reported hashrate was correct, and PMed the lead cgminer developer to confirm it.
It was only then that I accused them of doctoring the cgminer stats showing proof of the impossibility of their MHz->GH/s relationship, and the errors in the relationship between WU and hashrate displays in cgminer. At that point, I added a 0BTC risked negative trust as in my opinion anyone should treat dealing with them with extreme caution.
Whitewashing may be a strong term, but it is very suspect when you are the only one (other than Hashcoins) stating that their claims are correct and it's all most likely an unexpected software bug and that the negative trust is unjustified. On one hand you have someone who is an expert in the chip used stating one of their claims is impossible and providing documented evidence of it along with an expert in the software used saying the numbers displayed are impossible, and on the other a company who's response was handwaving about magic boards, demanding personal information (including attempting to get forum staff to turn over personal information) and threatening lawsuits while not addressing any of the issues raised. Negative trust is absolutely justified until Hashcoins either retracts their claims or is able to demonstrate them.

[dogie]

None of it bears any significance because a lot of his posts are just banner ads.

Again, says the guy with the christmas tree sig 

[dogie]

The moderation guidelines say:

Topic creation should not be annoying. There should not be too many topics about the same thing in a short time period, and individuals should not post too many topics. "Too many" depends on the quality of the topics.

If an entire page is taken up by Spondoolies reviews, then that's probably too many topics. How this should be handled is more tricky, since I don't want to suppress anyone's honest opinion. We'll see if ckolivas' locking solution is helpful.

Anyone annoyed yet with Dogie's 30 threads? He really seems to like bumping Antminer or Avalon or his own set up guides.

Just today I saw 7 Dogie posts in a row on a single Bitmain thread. Seriously? Does that no constitute spam. Make one post and reference 7 people you are responding to not 7 separate posts holy shit dude.

Even in this thread 3 posts in a row. Be economical.

Its just quote hygiene. You don't combine 7 messages if they're with 7 different people about 7 different topics. If you do, then 7 different people each quote the entire conversation about 7 different topics with 7 other people and before you know it one quote is 40 lines long.

And have you seen the size of the messages I posted above? So long that Guy simply replied "tldr" rather than reading them?

PS, if you want to talk about consecutive posts then in your ratings thread I think you managed 16 in a row, self bumped posts before one of the troll accounts posted about what a terrible person I was. I'm more than happy for you to do whatever you want, I'm just saying don't attempt to call the cops because someone stole a watch when you're walking around with a cliche'd bag of swag.

[dogie]

Whitewashing may be a strong term, but it is very suspect when you are the only one (other than Hashcoins) stating that their claims are correct and it's all most likely an unexpected software bug and that the negative trust is unjustified. On one hand you have someone who is an expert in the chip used stating one of their claims is impossible and providing documented evidence of it along with an expert in the software used saying the numbers displayed are impossible, and on the other a company who's response was handwaving about magic boards, demanding personal information (including attempting to get forum staff to turn over personal information) and threatening lawsuits while not addressing any of the issues raised. Negative trust is absolutely justified until Hashcoins either retracts their claims or is able to demonstrate them.

I'm not saying, and have never said their claims are correct. What I did say is that you're still relying on conjecture that 'its impossible and it can't be done', rather than concrete evidence that they're scamming. And what I did say before is that there are no customers / no customers complaining, so its hard to claim they're scamming when there are no victims.

Either way you're free to rate how you want as its your liability if their speeds turn out to be true, not mine. All I'm asking is that just because you're more willing to chop someone's head off before I am, doesn't make me biased / a suspect / a scammer etc etc.

[MrTeal]

Whitewashing may be a strong term, but it is very suspect when you are the only one (other than Hashcoins) stating that their claims are correct and it's all most likely an unexpected software bug and that the negative trust is unjustified. On one hand you have someone who is an expert in the chip used stating one of their claims is impossible and providing documented evidence of it along with an expert in the software used saying the numbers displayed are impossible, and on the other a company who's response was handwaving about magic boards, demanding personal information (including attempting to get forum staff to turn over personal information) and threatening lawsuits while not addressing any of the issues raised. Negative trust is absolutely justified until Hashcoins either retracts their claims or is able to demonstrate them.

I'm not saying, and have never said their claims are correct. What I did say is that you're still relying on conjecture that 'its impossible and it can't be done', rather than concrete evidence that they're scamming. And what I did say before is that there are no customers / no customers complaining, so its hard to claim they're scamming when there are no victims.

Either way you're free to rate how you want as its your liability if their speeds turn out to be true, not mine. All I'm asking is that just because you're more willing to chop someone's head off before I am, doesn't make me biased / a suspect / a scammer etc etc.

I'll take that back, you never said their claims were correct. You said that their claim was possible and that there is a good chance it's that cgminer and the chips are behaving in a new way.

I don't like the manner in which they were attacked in that thread, ie "its a scam unless you do x y z and I've given you negative trust". There are Zeus customers out there and they haven't complained, so its more than possible what they've claimed is correct. I know you and CK say it isn't in your views, but then were are the complaining customers? There is a good chance that cgminer / the chips are simply behaving in a way not observed yet.

Also, I never said you were a scammer. I would say you are biased and financially motivated to protect those companies that are paying your bills, even if it's not something you intentionally set out to do. You've posted several times after Con or I have posted that our claims are conjecture, it might just be a bug, "allegedly falsified", etc. You can say that it is just your concern for fairness, I would call it a whitewashing of what is an intended deception. "It totally looks like a scam and smells like a scam and there's some proof, but let's just see where it goes" is the reason why the securities/services subforums are full of cloudmining ponzies in various stages of collapse.

[dogie]

Whitewashing may be a strong term, but it is very suspect when you are the only one (other than Hashcoins) stating that their claims are correct and it's all most likely an unexpected software bug and that the negative trust is unjustified. On one hand you have someone who is an expert in the chip used stating one of their claims is impossible and providing documented evidence of it along with an expert in the software used saying the numbers displayed are impossible, and on the other a company who's response was handwaving about magic boards, demanding personal information (including attempting to get forum staff to turn over personal information) and threatening lawsuits while not addressing any of the issues raised. Negative trust is absolutely justified until Hashcoins either retracts their claims or is able to demonstrate them.

I'm not saying, and have never said their claims are correct. What I did say is that you're still relying on conjecture that 'its impossible and it can't be done', rather than concrete evidence that they're scamming. And what I did say before is that there are no customers / no customers complaining, so its hard to claim they're scamming when there are no victims.

Either way you're free to rate how you want as its your liability if their speeds turn out to be true, not mine. All I'm asking is that just because you're more willing to chop someone's head off before I am, doesn't make me biased / a suspect / a scammer etc etc.

I'll take that back, you never said their claims were correct. You said that their claim was possible and that there is a good chance it's that cgminer and the chips are behaving in a new way.

I don't like the manner in which they were attacked in that thread, ie "its a scam unless you do x y z and I've given you negative trust". There are Zeus customers out there and they haven't complained, so its more than possible what they've claimed is correct. I know you and CK say it isn't in your views, but then were are the complaining customers? There is a good chance that cgminer / the chips are simply behaving in a way not observed yet.

Also, I never said you were a scammer. I would say you are biased and financially motivated to protect those companies that are paying your bills, even if it's not something you intentionally set out to do. You've posted several times after Con or I have posted that our claims are conjecture, it might just be a bug, "allegedly falsified", etc. You can say that it is just your concern for fairness, I would call it a whitewashing of what is an intended deception. "It totally looks like a scam and smells like a scam and there's some proof, but let's just see where it goes" is the reason why the securities/services subforums are full of cloudmining ponzies in various stages of collapse.

[Rather than breaking this down because its the same answer to both parts]. I said you couldn't be absolutely 100% sure, and so it is possible. And so by jumping the gun you're potentially creating so much self liability because you've potentially damaged a perfectly good company's reputation and potentially interfered with their ability to do business. That's your decision and your prerogative, but as I said before just because I'm not willing to create liability as freely as you are isn't a reflection on me.