Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information

[SeW900]

Flagging: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628 (Bob123)
Flag Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292
Topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.0

Bob123 user contacted me through telegram: @alice_Bob

he asked that he might want to buy a Full member account, he asked for the information of the accounts (name of the account and the bpip.org to check the statistics of the account) after some conversation I managed to send the full members account name after that I asked him if he would buy it at a certain amount and he said that yes if the posts are high quality after he checked it he agree to it and I asked him if we should use an escrow

He agreed to it and we choose SebastianJu to escrow us but I warn him that the account might be tagged red trust because the escrow might be connected to DT and the account would be compromised but he said it's accounts sale are allowed and so he said he wanted to prove ownership first after checking the account I noticed that I can't open it and so I referred him to trustedseller account which he made another negotiation and after saying he will buy it if he proves ownership after sending a message this happened (according to trustedseller)


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.

Should the DT also make a move about this kind of behavior? Selling is allowed but discouraged and we also prove that we own the account and we won't scam him but his goal was to make harm to the accounts and breaking our agreements.

[Avirunes]

Any chat screenshots to prove that this really happened? You know how hollow this accusation sounds without a proper screenshot. Also I find this matter better suited in "Reputation" since there is no scam accusation and is a matter about breaking an agreement.

[LoyceMobile]

Anyone can create a flag, but I don't think you'll find support for it.
Besides, bob didn't use his account for this, so the "warning" wouldn't help other account sellers. Just like account sellers who hide behind a Newbie account.

The accounts didn't make high quality posts OP, so bob didn't break your agreement.

Any chat screenshots to prove that this really happened? You know how hollow this accusation sounds without a proper screenshot. Also I find this matter better suited in "Reputation" since there is no scam accusation and is a matter about breaking an agreement.

See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.0

[Quickseller]

Besides, bob didn't use his account for this, so the "warning" wouldn't help other account sellers. Just like account sellers who hide behind a Newbie account.

The flag (once created) would warn anyone considering to trade with Bob that he previously broke an agreement, and has not made the other person whole.

The accounts didn't make high quality posts OP, so bob didn't break your agreement.

I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190619113422/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155184.0 <-- OP's sales thread
http://archive.is/rlBTD <-- telegram conversation.

Anyone can create a flag, but I don't think you'll find support for it.

Unless you can explain why there was not a broken agreement (you say the accounts didn't make high quality posts, but this was not a term of the deal, implied or otherwise), if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

If you say you are going to do something, you need to do it, and if you don't, you should be held accountable. There are no ifs, thans, or buts to this concept.

[LoyceV]

The accounts didn't make high quality posts OP, so bob didn't break your agreement.

I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.

OP confirmed it:

he said that yes if the posts are high quality after he checked it he agree to it

I'd say that was part of the agreement.
(archived)

The "he agree to it" is might be lost in translation a bit, but many posts are like this:

time to grab some Litecoins...

if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

First: there is no flag
Second: I am under no obligation to support any flag, and I've been very conservative in supporting flags.

[SeW900]

http://archive.is/rlBTD

You can clearly see this statement:

"Bob: Yes, 280 is good" - in which bob already checked the account and agreed to this  kind of amount
"Accountseller: Okay
Do you pay me after PM
?!"
"Bob: Yes with escrow"

You can take a look at the conversation and he would insist to look the other accounts and agreed to buy it he also insisted to use SebastianJu as the escrow.

[Quickseller]

I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.

OP confirmed it:

he said that yes if the posts are high quality after he checked it he agree to it

I'd say that was part of the agreement.
(archived)

The OP did say this in this thread, however this was not actually mentioned in the OPs conversation with Bob. In the telegram chat, Bob stated that he wanted to be sure the OP actually owned the accounts he was selling. There was no mention of post quality prior to when Bob agreed to buy the "green trusted" account upon receiving a PM from it to confirm the OP actually owned it.

Also, the specific account in question was actually Ntrain2k[/quote], who has not been active very much after the merit system was implemented, however it does not appear to be farmed, and doesn't appear to have ever participated in any kind of signature (or similar) campaign.

if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

First: there is no flag
Second: I am under no obligation to support any flag, and [url=http://loyce.club/trust/flags/personal/459836.html]I've been very conservative in supporting flags[/url].

Fair enough regarding being conservative as to which flags you support. However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless (you can read my comments in this thread).

[bob123]

For anyone wondering what this is referring to: I pretended to be a customer to get untrustworthy accounts - which are up for sale - tagged.

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' ?



If you are talking about a negative trust rating instead, this also is not appropriate.
Simply because the fact that i called your accounts out for being untrustworthy does not mean that i am untrustworthy in monetary terms.

He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership [...]

I never explicitly said that i WILL buy an account - as it is - after the proof.
Once it was bound to the account having a good post history - which it didn't have.
Once it was after a promised +240 trust acc (which was a +6 trust acc).

There was no explicit agreement.

Even IF it was (which is not the case), a flag would still not be appropriate because simply rescinding from it is not a violation AND did NOT result in damage.

He agreed to it and we choose SebastianJu to escrow us

And both of you INSISTED on not using an escrow.
And insisting in terms of trying everything you can to not use an escrow.

This alone makes you extremely untrustworthy already.

[...] he [..] compromised a confidential information about our transaction.

We had no transaction. We were speaking about a potential transaction.

What confidential information are you talking about ? There was no confidential information.

Usernames are public. PM's which i receive can be shared by me without any consent of the sender.
You didn't even mention that you want to keep that confidential, which could have changed something.

[LoyceV]

However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless

I wrote this a while ago:

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

In this case, I don't think a tag or flag on bob123's account would make this forum a better place and I don't think it's worth destroying his account.
And this case doesn't make me feel like I would need a warning if I would do business with bob123.

[suchmoon]

Flagging: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=579628 (Bob123)

I don't see the flag. You're breaking a written contract by not creating it.

[Quickseller]

However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless

I wrote this a while ago:

Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?

In this case, I don't think a tag or flag on bob123's account would make this forum a better place and I don't think it's worth destroying his account.
And this case doesn't make me feel like I would need a warning if I would do business with bob123.

I can’t imagine how anyone could argue that holding someone accountable for their promises would not make the forum a better place.

The argument I am hearing from you is that bob is a good poster therefore him breaking a promise should be excused. This will make the forum a much worse place because it sends a clear message that you have a license to scam others if you steal from an unpopular person.

[SaltySpitoon]

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:

• cicizhang  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=935809)
• TanClan98 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1045919)
• zackie (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=99997) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• Zedster (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=78317) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• Ntrain2k https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659 [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• nonnakip https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=69046
• narousberg https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=61971 [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]
• pant-79 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=203430

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:

• J Gambler (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=821674)
• fitty (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=25298) [Proven that the account is really up to sale and owned by the seller]

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:

• 1) with SeW900 ('Walter' on telegram): https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg
  
  • with @TrustedAccSeller (telegram):
  • • part 1
    • part 2
• 2) with Rueduciel ('Mara Mae' on telegram): https://i.imgur.com/dt4l4KX.jpg

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.

[marlboroza]

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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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.

[marlboroza]

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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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?

[marlboroza]

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 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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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

[Quickseller]

The agreement was to “prove” ownership via sending a PM. Although this would not actually prove ownership, it is stipulated in the agreement that it does. Therefore for purposes of the agreement in hand, the OP held up his end of the agreement.

[yahoo62278]

Don't engage in buying/selling accounts and this thread wouldn't even be here to be read.