|
It looks like that they are refuting the negative feedback they received with proof of completed payouts, claiming that they aren't scamming anyone. I don't know if the link proves that or not, but it doesn't look like their intent was to advertise.
|
|
|
|
|
The idea behind the blockchain subsidy is to convince miners to support the network at the early stages of Bitcoin's history. If all goes according to design, supply and demand though transaction fees should satiate miners to keep the network going. We can't really tell for sure if its going to go that way, but fractions of a bitcoin that miners fight for in 2119 might have a greater exchange value than the 12.5 BTC they are after now. If it doesn't work out as required, the great economic enlightenment of 2076 might lead the way for a better model for Bitcoin to follow, so not too much to be concerned about now.
|
|
|
|
|
I feel like it would be incredibly boring. You know when you've seen enough movies that you can 100% predict the entire plot of any movie you watch without needing to watch it? Thats what I imagine a world without stupidity would be. If everyone operated completely logically always make the best possible decisions, a lot of excitement would be gone. I dont think that the world would necessarily be a better place, crime would still happen and atrocities would still be committed, it would just be more methodical.
|
|
|
|
|
Completely serious question to be taken at face value. Do you have an issue with PMs from random people? I get one random spam message from someone maybe once every two or three months, and maybe another questionable whether they should be contacting me message in addition in that time frame. I typically just don't reply and don't feel inconvenienced by it.
I'm not asking you to justify the request, I guess just giving you an opportunity to explain why its necessary to others like me that don't receive much in the way of junk pms and may be questioning why it is worth requesting dev time towards what may look like a very minor issue to others.
|
|
|
|
I'm going to repost here what got deleted and see if happens again.
Just felt the need to say that this is typically not a good idea. I haven't followed any additional links in this thread, but if you are correct in saying that your thread was deleted because it was in the wrong section, you won't have a problem recreating the thread but this time in the proper section. If your thread was deleted because of the content and you repost it, the consequences get more severe. Having a post/thread deleted is a moderator warning. You don't typically get PMs in detail explaining what the problem was, its expected that people can reskim the rules and figure it out, if not threads like this in meta show up and people will try to help you figure it out. If you repeat an action that you get a warning for, your chance of more severe consequences such as ban time increases. Again, not to scare you, if you are correct that the problem was that your thread was in the wrong section you are fine, but I'd try to confirm that because as mentioned earlier, threads in the wrong section will more often than not be moved to the correct section rather than just sent to the trash. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not making any assumptions, I'm reading directly from Bob's post. Bob's post is more important than the information SeW put forward because Bob was only able to operate with the information they had at the time. They claimed they were all the same person, not me. I'm not searching for additional details unless the story doesn't mesh between the buyer and seller. If Bob was mistaken and SeW and TrustedSeller are two different people, then SeW is an agent of the sale and is therefore still involved. Just like when you go to a car dealership, the salesman is involved even though they don't actually personally own the car they are selling you. There are lots of real estate agents popping up in the goods section, I guess they are free game to scam because the people they are selling houses for aren't members of the forums!
This is realllllllly simple. Bob's intentional action cost SeW money in a way that was expected. You can still be responsible for accidents, but things get a lot clearer when it isn't an accident such as in this case. This isn't a who's at fault for the sign falling off of a building onto a passerby tort. Its someone who damaged another person's property decreasing its sale value intentionally. There are strikingly similar court cases regarding social media influencer account sales where a party intentionally dropped the value of the account. This hasn't been a gray area since rulings on secondlife disputes came to exist.
If only the first two accounts were SeW's personally owned accounts, then they lost less money than if they are all SeW's accounts. If SeW and TrustedSeller are not the same person, than as TrustedSeller's agent, they lost less money than had they owned the accounts. I'm far less interested in the little technicalities of the deal that may exclude a flag from being placed based on who's lawyer reads the details of the description, and far more interested in the fact that an obvious scam is trying to be covered up. Whether it was SeW who was scammed or TrustedSeller that was scammed, the damage occurred and all parties were involved. Its absolutely ridiculous to claim innocence because another party was perhaps a greater victim than the OP.
*Edit*
Actually something good did come out of arguing with people of a mindset that I don't understand. I came to the realization, that if I (for the sake of example) sent someone malware and stole their Bitcoins off of their computer, they could not flag me. You don't enter into a contract to be one sidedly stolen from or financially damaged. There are currently loopholes for realistic scenarios that we should sure up.
|
|
|
|
Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam
The same question I have asked tecsare: Can you list all accounts which SeW900 was selling? After you are done, show me proof where SeW900 proved that they own these accounts, WHICH WAS PART OF AGREEMENT! Person A can't start red flag type 2/3 because person B caused damage to person C! Yes I can. Please note the " Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller" 1) The accounts provided by 'SeW900' (or better: @TrustedAccSeller on telegram) were: Why are you so hung up me providing proof that SeW thoroughly proved to Bob that they owned the accounts, it is not in question whether they own the accounts the "Buyer" acknowledges right there that SeW has provided adequate proof. I don't need to find where SeW proved it, because its not a point of contention. This is all really clear abuse, you found a target that you perceived as a second class forum user, so you managed to convince yourself that the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY. We aren't getting anywhere, everyone make up your own opinions. |
|
|
|
So, SaltySpitoon.. you left a negative trust rating to "pikacha15" for "attempting to sell fake items". Selling fake items is not illegal. And you did financial damage to him by interfering into his business. Based on your logic, you are a scammer and should deserve a flag. Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam
Funny enough, selling fake gold falls under US Anti Money Countefeiting laws, and its not uncommon to receive life sentences for intentionally marking something with .999, "fine" or "pure" if it isn't. You are welcome to keep grasping at straws, but out of sympathy I'll just say that trying to defend counterfeit gold sellers probably isn't the direction you want to go with your argument. Also, selling fake items is called Fraud. |
|
|
|
Except what Bob did wasn't scamming. It was just unethical.
Doing unethical stuff doesn't need to be flagged.
Account selling isn't against the forum rules but it is discouraged. If it is discouraged, you can fight them in unethical ways.
If bob hadn't revealed his identity, we wouldn't even be discussing this. You would be desperately tagging a newb account now.
Nobody would care and everybody except the hacker would be happy.
We are at a very different place fundamentally. Doing unethical stuff means getting tagged. What Bob did was unethical but it directly and intentionally caused SeW financial damage. Deception was used to financially harm another person, how is that not a scam? I am strongly disagreeing with the ends justify the means mentality. If you rob a drug dealer, you still get arrested for stealing. Certain actions have lines drawn in the sand, if we start making exceptions, rule of law goes away. If someone can get away with scamming someone because they are doing something you don't like, what prevents me from justifying scamming you for something I don't like? Scamming is scamming plain and simple, there is no hearsay and no party is in disagreement of the events that happened, just their interpretation of them. Party A was intentionally financially damaged by Party B. - Scam |
|
|
|
It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.
All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2
While I agree with you, what bob did was unethical but since his actions revealed a scammer who was trying to sell an account which he didn't originally own or paid for, it doesn't matter how and why Bob shared these information with us. He ( SeW900) was selling a hacked account ( zackie) which overrides Bob's unethical actions. I am not sure if he deserves a flag even if the account wasn't hacked, I would just ignore the flag probably but not now. Nack. You know what I think now? I think zackie should create a flag for SeW900 for hacking and selling his account. SeW900 deserves a red flag all around his forehead. I guess I'll just PM him. While I wholeheartedly support an investigation on SeW900 and the hacked account matter, they are two unrelated instances. You don't get free license to damage others because they committed some other offense. The account being hacked wasn't brought up until 2 days after the fact, it did not have any bearing on Bob's initial actions which I'm calling scamming. Its a really bad road to travel if we start justifying people's actions based on perceived problems with the other people. Maybe tomorrow it'll be cool to scam investors in ICOs since they are perpetuating what some perceive as dishonest investments. Maybe we can all decide its ok to rip off Bitcoin Cash users because we don't support their fork. |
|
|
|
Alright, so OP crated the flag  OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission
No. I never said that. I contacted OP and he told me to contact @TrustedAccSeller ('his friend'). So no deal or anything was made with OP at all.  None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob
[...]
The flag wouldn't be for not following through with the sale, it'd be for causing damaged by going in with false pretenses to make the OP give up information that they wouldn't have previously, and then publishing that information.
1) OP is not able to suffer from anything because he forwarded me to 'his friend' 2) OP did not suffer any loss. He still has his account. I did not steal anything, neither did i refuse to pay. If the agreement is BTC for account, there is no damage done if someone rescinds from a trade. 3) I did not cause any damage to OP (or his friend) He still has his account. The fact that he wanted to sell an account already makes the account worthless because the person who will be owning it won't have put any effort into it. Therefore he now can't scam other people by demanding an unrealistic high price, because it is publicly known that the (future) owner of this account put zero effort into this account and therefore is highly untrustworthy. 1) Again, in the highlighted quote above, you claim that his friend and him are the same person. Even if they aren't, by referring you to a friend for financial gain, SeW was acting as an agent. 2) You made the thread in question in order to expose the accounts knowing that it'd decrease their value from the asking price to nothing. You've posted the intent yourself. It is absolutely undeniable that as a direct cause of your actions, the OP lost money. Hence, the flag is appropriate. 3) There is screenshots of you negotiating the price, so obviously you are aware of the money at stake. Your opinion on whether their asking price is too high or not isn't really that important unless you want to start attempting to quantify how much money you scammed. The agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM.
The agreement (if at all) would be money against account. No account, no money. As simple as that. Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted. Bob didn't decide to back out of the deal because the conditions weren't favorable, they backed out because they never had any intention of buying anything, so arguing over whether the contract conditions were met or not doesn't matter.
Flags type 2 and 3 are for breaking agreements / contracts ONLY. So this exactly is what matters. The agreement doesn't matter because you had no intent to purchase the accounts. Again, if you are arguing semantics over the language that Flags 2/3 are written for, I'd be happy to have the language clarified or see about getting new flag types made for this very specific case. Saying that the information isn't legally confidential and expectedly confidential are two different things.
Excuse me? Just because YOU believe some information has to be confidential, i don't have to think the same. It is not hard at all to ask for it to stay confidential. But not mentioning it and later claiming '... expectedly confidential.. ' is just a joke. Again, I refer to the screen shots where you two discussed the risks of exposing the information. If I do business with you, its expected that our addresses are confidential. It is expected that you won't share any personal information we provide each other for grins. Not only were you aware that sharing the personal information was damaging, but that was your goal. I'm just citing information publicly posted in your thread, I'm not misunderstanding any cross talk or anything. Bob had the knowledge that making the information known would do financial harm.
It did NO financial harm at all. I did not scam anybody or steal anything. Neither did i damage anything. The accounts are worth close to nothing. Just because OP's friend is selling them for a unreasonable high amount of money, it doesn't mean that he can not still continue to do so. The value of the account is close to nothing. And already was before, since sold accounts have zero effort in them from the (future) owner/buyer. If the accounts were worth $280 and now $5, you did $275 in damages. If you go into a Lamborghini dealership and crash a $500k Lamborghini, you don't get to say that the car is overpriced, therefore instead of $300k in damages, you only did $20. There is proof that you negotiated a price with the OP, you acknowledged the value of the accounts, and you were completely aware of what would happen to the value of the accounts when you posted your thread. I don't care if you don't like account sellers or not, I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but you don't get to justify yourself as not a scammer because you scammed someone you don't like.
I think you should really revise your definition of a scam. Deceit, financial damage, malice? I'm not sure what I should add that doesn't tick the boxes here. SeW either as @TAS or their agent clearly lost monetary value as a direct result of Bob's intentional actions.
The value of the account is still the same. Now, just everyone is knowing that they are up to sale and the owner is not to be trusted (instead of only the seller and buyer knowing it). If I can prove that you knew otherwise, would you be fine with being called a scammer? Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do
As previously mentioned, no financial loss and no monetary value has been destroyed/decreased/etc. Your 'facts' are simply wrong (except for fact #2). 1) Your thread 2) We agree on 3) You are saying that financially harming people is fine? We are opening a world of bad justification if we allow scams based on the reason the person scammed the other. This is akin to walking into a window store, taking a look at a few windows, telling an associate that you want to buy one, and before signing you just leave and smash the other windows on your way out. The issue isn't that you decided not to buy the windows...
What kind of a comparison is that ? Smashing window is directly destroying objects. I did not do that I rescinded from a trade and made the (non confidential) information publicly available. That's like walking into a window store, taking a look at few windows, leave before signing and tell others that the windows have a white frame. No financial damage. Fine, you didn't delete the accounts from existed, you just drew all over them with sharpie. Now they are in the discount bin, and the window company is out $X. You never had any intention to do the trade, so again the details don't really matter. You are quite literally a scammer my friend. I supported the flag, and hope that people will not start the prescient that its ok to scam if you think you have a good reason. |
|
|
|
|
Mhmmm.... well keep me updated.
|
|
|
|
|
Irony post? I guess the best solution is to set up your own miners and compete against them. Putting aside the small detail that there would be no case, identifying targets and getting them into your jurisdiction would be near impossible.
Bitcoin's decentralized nature was made to avoid persecution by governments. I don't think any individuals would have the resources or capability to make any sort of change, even with just cause. Governments might have the ability to go after some pool owners, but only within their own jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of those that they could pressure.
|
|
|
|
This is pretty twisted logic based on a plethora of attempted loopholes rather than common sense. That is not twisted logic and it is pretty much how every justice system works, like it or not. There are many assumptions in your post which I won't comment. Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do More facts: 4) OP didn't prove that he owns accounts which was part of agreement which makes agreement not valid. Again, the agreement does not matter in the slightest. If OP had offered the accounts for 1 satoshi each and provided all of the details in the world, Bob was still not a buyer, there was never any agreement. The problem isn't with the deal, its the consequent intentional financial damage. People don't get to scam each other and have it justified based on the other person's decisions. If I stole hundreds of dollars from you because you did something that I didn't approve of, I'd still be a scammer. If you scam an evil person, you are still a scammer. |
|
|
|
How that does not matter? OP didn't provide proof of ownership for accounts which he was trying to sell.In this thread, we are talking about ownership of accounts 1 and 2All other accounts are from different sellers and they are irrelevant for OP's flag.So what loss Bob caused to OP who failed to provide proof that he owns accounts 1 and 2?? If seller number 2 wants to flag bob - they claimed they are owner of account which turned out not to be for sale and supposedly hacked they broke their own contract then (I didn't check for other accounts) If seller number 3 wants to flag bob - as it is shown in pictures there was no deal. Also, nothing here is confidential information. For information to become confidential, you have to make it confidential https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/confidential-informationYou can't put all eggs in the same basked, those are 3 separated cased and each one should be treated separately. Here: He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction. Again, SeW900 didn't prove ownership of accounts 1 and 2 which we can only assume he owns. Each flag type 2 or 3 requires thread and you can't create flag on someone else's behalf. This is pretty twisted logic based on a plethora of attempted loopholes rather than common sense. Bob assumes OP and @TrustedAccountSeller to be the same person, even if they are not, if you really want to get picky about it, could you not claim that OP is an agent of @TrustedAccountSeller for facilitating the trade? I expect OP would have some financial reason for passing Bob onto @TrustedAccountSeller rather than just out of the goodness of his heart to make sure Bob got an account. That is, if they aren't the same person. Therefor, if a flag is valid, its fine for OP to leave it. Onto whether the flag is valid or not. Its pretty clear to follow the chain of events and the money here. Then you apply whether or not it was intentional and whether Bob can be held responsible for it. Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted. Bob didn't decide to back out of the deal because the conditions weren't favorable, they backed out because they never had any intention of buying anything, so arguing over whether the contract conditions were met or not doesn't matter. Saying that the information isn't legally confidential and expectedly confidential are two different things. Unless you are suggesting that everyone should get NDAs drafted up before they do any business here, based on their prior communication with regards to escrow agents and warnings about negative trust, Bob had the knowledge that making the information known would do financial harm. I don't care if you don't like account sellers or not, I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but you don't get to justify yourself as not a scammer because you scammed someone you don't like. SeW either as @TAS or their agent clearly lost monetary value as a direct result of Bob's intentional actions. All of the excuses I'm seeing are technicalities that are trying to weasel not out of the fact that Bob scammed SeW, but why they aren't allowed to leave a flag based on perceived loopholes in the warning flags. Facts of the matter: 1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss 2. Account selling is not illegal 3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do We are opening a world of bad justification if we allow scams based on the reason the person scammed the other. This is akin to walking into a window store, taking a look at a few windows, telling an associate that you want to buy one, and before signing you just leave and smash the other windows on your way out. The issue isn't that you decided not to buy the windows... |
|
|
|
It is also Bob's assumption that OP and trustedaccseller are the same person.
Lets stick to topic, as far as I see it, OP wants to create red flag, as written in subject "flagging user broke an agreement" and as I can see OP has no basis to create red flag because:
1) OP claimed they referred bob to another person (trustedaccseller) for accounts 3 & 4
2) OP didn't provide proof that they own first 2 accounts
So bob technically don't have confirmation that accounts 1 & 2 (chat with OP) are for sale and OP can't sell accounts 3 & 4 because they belong to another seller.
So bob didn't broke any agreement in this case.
Also, it is not stated that information from chat is confidential and OP has no basis for red flag.
None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob, the main point is that Bob never had any intention of purchasing anything, and their information seeking was solely to do damage. The flag wouldn't be for not following through with the sale, it'd be for causing damaged by going in with false pretenses to make the OP give up information that they wouldn't have previously, and then publishing that information. This isn't a matter of accidentally leaking details which could be attributed to unexpected results, this is a case of a deliberate action doing its intended purpose, and the result to be expected. Can you deny that SeW is out money due to Bob's deception? I personally think #1,2, and 3 apply, but #2 is probably the safer bet  |
|
|
|
You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally.
Excuse me, but which account OP proved that they own? I am looking at screenshots and for first two accounts I don't see proof of ownership and for other 2 accounts owner (zackie) said account is not for sale - maybe compromised. Am I missing something in OP's accusation? Based on what OP will create flag? Second quotation you have posted is bob's assumption based on coincidence.  OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission, as well as others probably owned by OP. I'm not sure why the accuser would have to prove something that the defendant has confirmed themself? Zackie may be hacked, or by bob's assumption they just don't want to admit that they were caught selling their account. Regardless of if Zackie was hacked or not, that wasn't brought up until two days after this claim. That doesn't mean that SeW900 is innocent, that means that it was absolutely not a factor in this case, and deserves its own case if anything. If Bob started communications with SeW under false pretenses, and as a result did financial damage to SeW, does that not deserve a flag? |
|
|
|
It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account: WTF is going on here? Mindtrust, remove your negative feedback. My account isn't for sale. And I also did not got hacked, but I'm going to change my password right now, just to be sure!
Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox, I haven't even used this account for weeks...
Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true. You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally. Yeah, I'm really surprised. I have no explanation for that but my account is NOT for sale! And I changed the password a few minutes ago.
How can I find out wheter I got hacked? I don't have these messages in the outbox, I haven't even used this account for weeks...
What a coincidence  I hope you understand that this is hard to believe.. especially since you didn't post in the last ~8 months and coincidentally came online yesterday  I don't see a way you can proof this certainly wasn't you or someone you tasked with selling your account. A signed message only shows that this is really you at the moment. And IP logs only show whether you used the same IP to log in. This doesn't say anything about someone you tasked with selling your account or a VPN / proxy you might have used. |
|
|
|
I checked links again and seems OP changed them, they are placed in this order: http://ohhttp://tehttp://cshttp://hahttp://reLooks like a code or something.
Going to have to 3rd Tec and Quickseller on this one, its not a funny joke. False accusations that are not 100% obviously a joke are bad people stuff.
Not leaving negative feedback over this, but it was annoying enough to consider it. People make mistakes with taboos in discourse communities, whether you learn that a bunch of people would be pissed off by this type of thing will decide if its a lesson learned or it becomes a problem.
What you have described sounds exactly like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RickrollingExcept now, whenever someone does a forum search to see if there have been any scam accusations against Lauda or MinerJones, they'll find this thread, and have to spend however much time it requires to read through it and judge for themselves whether its a joke or not. As you can tell from some of the posts here, its not that obvious, especially to those who don't know that you can falsify quotes. I didn't click on any links, I came here, saw the quotes, and read the first and second page of the thread. I realized it was not real when I got to The Pharmacist's post. |
|
|
|
It appears to me that a flag is very clearly valid should SeW900 decide to create one. Creating a flag requires the following: - Must be created by the user who has been damaged
- Must have violated a written contract
- The violation must result in damage
There are multiple reasons why a flag is not appropriate: 1) There was no written contract. 2) IF you want to call that chat a 'contract', the terms were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage. 3) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation and did not result in any damage (Both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate). 4) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. Why are you speaking for 'your friend' ? I don't see anywhere that says flags require a written contract. I think its fairly reasonable to say that when you enter into a purchase agreement with someone, thats a contract be it verbally or not. The forum operates on reason, not legalese. The damages were the loss of value of the accounts that you intentionally damaged. Rescinding from a trade is not a violation, but purposefully destroying the value of the accounts as you publicly and intentionally did is. Your own thread explains the whole process of how you first contacted SeW900. Quoting for Reference: I decided to use some spare time to get some accounts - which are up to sale - flagged. I found 2 threads claiming to sell forum accounts: 1) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155184.0 ( archived link): User 'SeW900' 2) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5139800.0 ( archived link): User 'Rueduciel' Both of them contained their telegram ID, so i just went ahead and contacted both of them. 1) The accounts provided by 'SeW900' (or better: @TrustedAccSeller on telegram) were: According to him, some of them (the first and/or the second one) are already banned. However, the remaining ones - which he wanted to sell - are not banned yet. 2) The accounts provided by Rueduciel were: I asked both of them to send me (user: alice321, just created today to receive those messages) a proof that they indeed own that account. 1) After requesting proof of ownership of cicizhang and TanClan98 from SeW900, he told me that 'the account' already is banned. Therefore he proposed me 2 other accounts, which i can buy ( zackie and Zedster). He told me to contact @TrustedAccSeller (via telegram), which i did. After a long conversation with him and multiple excuses i brought up to not buy an account which he had proven the ownership of (because i wanted to tag as much accounts as possible), i finally got the proof of ownership of multiple accounts and names of a few accounts without proof of ownership. The accounts proven to be for sale and owned by him ( zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k and narousberg) should definitely receive a negative trust rating. I am not sure about the accounts without proof ( cicizhang, TanClan98, nonnakip and pant-79). I'll let some DT member decide how to handle this. 2) Rueduciel offered me J Gambler.But he did not send me a proof for ownership because he noticed that this account already is reserved for some other buyer. Therefore he proposed me the account fitty, which he proved that he indeed has control over this account via a PM. But now i really wanted to also have his first account ( J Gambler) to be flagged too. I asked him whether i can have this account if i additionally pay 50$ on top (not like 400$ aren't enough already). He agreed. Unfortunately i made a big mistake by leaving him a negative trust rating BEFORE contacting, paired with my sense of humor regarding the chosen username, which interfered my plan. He came to the conclusion that my alt (alice321) is related to me (bob123). While it is not proven that J Gambler is really under control of him, i still believe that he indeed wants to sell this account. I am not sure about leaving a negative trust rating on this account, therefore i will let the DT members decide how to handle this. fitty definitely should receive a negative trust rating. Screenshots of the chat history: Screenshot of my received PMs: here and here. I have sent a negative trust rating to fitty, zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k and narousberg. Now i need a few (at least 1) DT member to also leave a negative trust rating. Especially for Ntrain2k, since he has 6 positive trust feedbacks. No one should trust an account which is up to sale. Especially not Hero / Legendary ones and some with a positive trust rating. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
