[LuckyMux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why has AP insisted that Nat sign an NDA saying he cannot reveal who was using account #363? WTF?

Is it possibly anything to do with the fact that account 363 was being used from Scott Tom's home IP address...?

The cover-up has become worse than the offence. Deleted hand histories, press releases so full of lies they hurt your eyes to read, and all because AP is still protecting the people (yes, plural) who, it claims, swindled the company out of $1.6m.

Bullsh*t.

(BTW, Nat - any information you had already heard, from any source, whether you knew it to be correct or not at the time, is NOT covered by the NDA.)

[/ QUOTE ]
LuckyMux,

I appreciate your efforts in this whole thing, but I am bothered by your lacking of reading comprehension here. That is not what I said about #363. It has nothing to do with who was using it or what the name was on the account, but simply which account name was connected to #363.

Please be more careful in the future about stuff like this.

-Nat

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Nat, I must be in dim mode at the moment.

Are you saying it's which of 'the other four (not POTRIPPER)' accounts was #363 that you cannot tell us?

I must be missing something. Apart from the link between #363 and Scott Tom himself, why does it matter what name #363 called itself?

If #363 is Graycat, Doubledrag or whatever, what difference does it make? It's who was using it to cheat that matters, surely?

BTW, AP said you would not be allowed to examine the cheating accounts, at the request (order?) of GA. Did the GA people explain why they did that? Wasn't as if you could tamper with the evidence or anything.

EDIT: re. the NDA: I've never heard of one that would apply retroactively, and I've seen - and signed - loads. They're all much of a muchness.

An NDA is simply a promise to not share a secret. If it isn't actually a secret, the NDA is invalid. Not really sure why AP demanded one when they flat-out refused to let you see the really important stuff anyway.