Flagging accounts which are up to sale [DT member actions needed]

[mindrust]

selling accounts is not a crime nor is it a case for the dickheads of the bitcointalk police DT users.

It is not a crime.

You'll just have to live with a red trust rating shining on your forehead.

Are you threatening me with a baseless accusation trust rating?

How did you get that idea?

You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.

Signature campaigns don't want bought accounts farmed by one person. (they clearly state that you'll get banned if you were found to multiaccount spamming) They want real individuals. So your argument is invalid.

you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

I just did it for 5 accounts in this topic.

[otrkid1970]

selling accounts is not a crime nor is it a case for the dickheads of the bitcointalk police DT users.

It is not a crime.

You'll just have to live with a red trust rating shining on your forehead.

Are you threatening me with a baseless accusation trust rating?

How did you get that idea?

You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.

Signature campaigns don't want bought accounts farmed by one person. (they clearly state that you'll get banned if you were found to multiaccount spamming) They want real individuals. So your argument is invalid.

you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

I just did it for 5 accounts in this topic.

You're too quick witted for me....i think you deserve a spot in the DT list with those other ass clowns.

[AdolfinWolf]

You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.

And you think that's healthy for the forum?

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

Although, i hate people who moral high horse others, and these account sellers damn well know what they're doing.

you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

You most definitely can & what exactly is your problem?

[otrkid1970]

You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.

And you think that's healthy for the forum?

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

Although, i hate people who moral high horse, and these account sellers damn well know what they're doing.

you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

You most definitely can & what exactly is your problem?

Account sales according to the rulles of this website are NOT prohibited. Flagging these accounts is abuse of the trust system. Case closed.

[mindrust]

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

I kinda agree with quickseller but since I am not the one who shared those PM's I don't care.

It is OP's problem.

[AdolfinWolf]

You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.

And you think that's healthy for the forum?

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

Although, i hate people who moral high horse, and these account sellers damn well know what they're doing.

you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

You most definitely can & what exactly is your problem?

Account sales according to the rulles of this website are NOT prohibited. Flagging these accounts is abuse of the trust system. Case closed.

Scamming is also not prohibited as per the unofficial official forum rules... Is flagging scammers also abuse of the "trust" system?

[mindrust]

Account sales according to the rulles of this website are NOT prohibited. Flagging these accounts is abuse of the trust system. Case closed.

No flags here as far as I see. Only ratings.

Even though you can create yellow flags which is appropriate.

[otrkid1970]

You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.

And you think that's healthy for the forum?

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

Although, i hate people who moral high horse, and these account sellers damn well know what they're doing.

you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

You most definitely can & what exactly is your problem?

Account sales according to the rulles of this website are NOT prohibited. Flagging these accounts is abuse of the trust system. Case closed.

Scamming is also not prohibited... Is flagging scammers also abuse of the "trust" system?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Scammers make a user lose Value. Buying an account to join a sig campaign has no victims. your point is moot. Next?

[bob123]

You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.

Signature campaigns don't want bought accounts farmed by one person. (they clearly state that you'll get banned if you were found to multiaccount spamming) They want real individuals. So your argument is invalid.

you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

So.. just because it is hard to tell whether an account has been bought.. it is ok to do something which is not permitted by the signature campaign managers.. just to join such a campaign ?  
So.. if i am not getting caught.. i can rob a bank ?

You're too quick witted for me....i think you deserve a spot in the DT list with those other ass clowns.

He is a member of the DT1 list. Or is this some joke i don't understand?

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

I kinda agree with quickseller but since I am not the one who shared those PM's I don't care.

It is OP's problem.

I wouldn't call that scam.
It definitely would have been a scam if i took those accounts (he offered me to send credentials first) and not pay him afterwards.

But just accepting a deal and later rescinding does not fall under the scam-category IMO.

Unethical? Yes.
Unfair? Yes.
Mean and misleading? Yes.

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

Account sales according to the rulles of this website are NOT prohibited. Flagging these accounts is abuse of the trust system. Case closed.

It is not.

People behind bought accounts are NOT to be trusted.. simply because they didn't earn any trust or acceptance in this forum.
They bought an account which did.. So tagging them as what they are (simply just bought accounts, no value behind it) is not an abuse of the trust system.

[mindrust]

I wouldn't call that scam.
It definitely would have been a scam if i took those accounts (he offered me to send credentials first) and not pay him afterwards.

But just accepting a deal and later rescinding does not fall under the Scam-category IMO.

Unethical? Yes.
Unfair? Yes.
Mean? Yes.

Where did you read I said you did a scam?

I just agreed to it was unethical.

Nothing else.

edit:

Is everybody high tonight?

[otrkid1970]

You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.

Signature campaigns don't want bought accounts farmed by one person. (they clearly state that you'll get banned if you were found to multiaccount spamming) They want real individuals. So your argument is invalid.

you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

So.. just because it is hard to tell whether an account has been bought.. it is ok to do something which is not permitted by the signature campaign managers.. just to join such a campaign ?  
So.. if i am not getting caught.. i can rob a bank ?

You're too quick witted for me....i think you deserve a spot in the DT list with those other ass clowns.

He is a member of the DT1 list. Or is this some joke i don't understand?

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

I kinda agree with quickseller but since I am not the one who shared those PM's I don't care.

It is OP's problem.

I wouldn't call that scam.
It definitely would have been a scam if i took those accounts (he offered me to send credentials first) and not pay him afterwards.

But just accepting a deal and later rescinding does not fall under the Scam-category IMO.

Unethical? Yes.
Unfair? Yes.
Mean? Yes.

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

Account sales according to the rulles of this website are NOT prohibited. Flagging these accounts is abuse of the trust system. Case closed.

It is not.

People behind bought accounts are NOT to be trusted.. simply because they didn't earn any trust or acceptance in this forum.
They bought an account which did.. So tagging them as what they are (simply just bought accounts, no value behind it) is not an abuse of the trust system.

Selling an account is not a reason for mistrust.   get a grip and go chase other ambulances.   You a lawyer?

[AdolfinWolf]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Scammers make a user lose Value. Buying an account to join a sig campaign has no victims. your point is moot. Next?

too bad you can't put a price tag on someone's mental health deteriorating due to the amount of garbage he has to consume from these people who buy accounts and post detritus.

[bob123]

Where did you read I said you did a scam?

I just agreed to it was unethical.

Nothing else.

Not replying to you here, but to AdolfinWolf:

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

mindrust, i think you celebrated the rise of BTC/USD a bit too much already  

[mindrust]

mindrust, i think you celebrated the rise of BTC/USD a bit too much already  

Alright I did my job, I am going away. Cheers.

[otrkid1970]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Scammers make a user lose Value. Buying an account to join a sig campaign has no victims. your point is moot. Next?

too bad you can't put a price tag on someone's mental health deteriorating due to the amount of garbage he has to consume from these people who buy accounts and post detritus.

Your username says it all smh

[suchmoon]

These are the only ones that are proven to be up for sale, but only to the extent the PMs can be proven.

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

It wouldn't. Alice/bob didn't agree to pay for merely disclosing the account names, and that's all that happened. He offered to pay for an account, which he didn't end up getting.

According to your "logic" any kind of price/deal negotiation would be a flaggable breach of contract, which is of course utter nonsense. If I say "I'll pay $50 for your bicycle" and change my mind upon seeing said bicycle I'm not breaching your imaginary contract.

[Quickseller]

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

I kinda agree with quickseller but since I am not the one who shared those PM's I don't care.

It is OP's problem.

I wouldn't call that scam.
It definitely would have been a scam if i took those accounts (he offered me to send credentials first) and not pay him afterwards.

But just accepting a deal and later rescinding does not fall under the scam-category IMO.

Unethical? Yes.
Unfair? Yes.
Mean and misleading? Yes.

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

When you said you would buy the account after he provides confidential information, you entered into a contract with him. The terms of the contract were he was to send you a PM from the account he was selling (exposing confidential information to you), you would pay him 550 and he would give you the account. After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.

The term "scam" is very subjective, but there was a written contract, the terms were violated (assuming you can not demonstrate you upheld your end of the deal), and he suffered damages. This is the criteria for a written contract flag. It is up to the person to create a flag.

These are the only ones that are proven to be up for sale, but only to the extent the PMs can be proven.

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

It wouldn't. Alice/bob didn't agree to pay for merely disclosing the account names, and that's all that happened. He offered to pay for an account, which he didn't end up getting.

According to your "logic" any kind of price/deal negotiation would be a flaggable breach of contract, which is of course utter nonsense. If I say "I'll pay $50 for your bicycle" and change my mind upon seeing said bicycle I'm not breaching your imaginary contract.

You are wrong, as per usual.

There is no requirement to see what is being sold in order for a contract to be valid. The OP made an offer that was accepted by the other party once he fulfilled his part of the contract.

If you want to look at what you are buying before being obligated to buy said item, you should not make an offer before seeing it.

[mindrust]

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

I kinda agree with quickseller but since I am not the one who shared those PM's I don't care.

It is OP's problem.

I wouldn't call that scam.
It definitely would have been a scam if i took those accounts (he offered me to send credentials first) and not pay him afterwards.

But just accepting a deal and later rescinding does not fall under the scam-category IMO.

Unethical? Yes.
Unfair? Yes.
Mean and misleading? Yes.

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

When you said you would buy the account after he provides confidential information, you entered into a contract with him. The terms of the contract were he was to send you a PM from the account he was selling (exposing confidential information to you), you would pay him 550 and he would give you the account. After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.

The term "scam" is very subjective, but there was a written contract, the terms were violated (assuming you can not demonstrate you upheld your end of the deal), and he suffered damages. This is the criteria for a written contract flag. It is up to the person to create a flag.

Holy crap.

Theymos what did you do...

[otrkid1970]

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

I kinda agree with quickseller but since I am not the one who shared those PM's I don't care.

It is OP's problem.

I wouldn't call that scam.
It definitely would have been a scam if i took those accounts (he offered me to send credentials first) and not pay him afterwards.

But just accepting a deal and later rescinding does not fall under the scam-category IMO.

Unethical? Yes.
Unfair? Yes.
Mean and misleading? Yes.

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

When you said you would buy the account after he provides confidential information, you entered into a contract with him. The terms of the contract were he was to send you a PM from the account he was selling (exposing confidential information to you), you would pay him 550 and he would give you the account. After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.

The term "scam" is very subjective, but there was a written contract, the terms were violated (assuming you can not demonstrate you upheld your end of the deal), and he suffered damages. This is the criteria for a written contract flag. It is up to the person to create a flag.

It's called an oral contract which he broke.

[bob123]

[..] After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.
[...]

What the hell?

How did my expection to receive an PM to get the proof of ownership decrease the value of what he is selling?

I didn't know accounts lose value for each PM sent... But that's probably because i don't buy/sell accounts..