Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information

[marlboroza]

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

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 2

All 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-information

You 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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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 2

All 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-information

You 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...

[bones261]

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...

    Sometimes, a person has to break the rules to stand up for what they believe in. The OP is certainly welcome to open up a flag on this. However, I am not going to support it, just like I do not support the US Government prosecuting Snowden.

[mindrust]

    Sometimes, a person has to break the rules to stand up for what they believe in. The OP is certainly welcome to open up a flag on this. However, I am not going to support it, just like I do not support the US Government prosecuting Snowden.

Bob's biggest mistake was revealing his real identity.

If he had created the thread with the newbie account which he used to talk to the acc sellers, It wouldn't have come to this.

Sometimes it is better to be the hero with no name.

If the acc sellers are smart enough to use throwaway accounts to scam people by selling hacked accounts,

You should counter intelligence them with throwaway accounts. Not with your main.

[marlboroza]

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.

[SaltySpitoon]

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.

[Quickseller]

I this thread says a lot about those who are defending bob effectively scamming the OP. I would not consider trusting any of these people with my own money, and none of these people belong anywhere near DT, or any other position of authority.

TBH, it is shameful.

OP created a flag - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;flag=292

[bob123]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

I this thread says a lot about those who are defending bob effectively scamming the OP.

Oh quicksy.. if THAT is already a scam in your eyes.. what have you done in 95% of the time on this forum then ?




Short summary why this flag absolutely is inappropriate:

Creating a flag requires ALL of the following:

• 1) Must have violated an agreement
• 2) The violation must result in damage
• 3) Must be created by the user who has been damaged

1) The terms of the 'agreement' were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage.

2) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation. And the resignation did not result in any damage (both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate).

3) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. OP (which is his friend, according to him) is the wrong person to create it.



Since all of the 3 points are necessary for the flag to be appropriate, and none of them is actually the case, that's more than enough to comprehend that the flag is inappropriate.

[suchmoon]

I'm opposing the flag for the reasons bob123 stated here and elsewhere, and in my own opinion in a nutshell is this:

Bob123's stated intent was not to damage someone's business or to steal something but to expose untrustworthy accounts (hacked/sold, unearned green trust etc) and he did exactly that. The fact that someone built a "business" out of this doesn't make bob123 a scammer. Nor is there any written or implied contract that says such accounts can't be exposed.

I decided to use some spare time to get some accounts - which are up to sale - flagged.

[Quickseller]

Bob explicitly said he would buy the accounts upon receiving PMs from said accounts. He did not buy the accounts. The value of the accounts subsequently declined. As a result of bobs misrepresentation, the OP was unable to offer the accounts to anyone else. The value of what he was selling has subsequently declined.

There could not be a more clear cut case of someone backing out of an agreement and the person suffering damages. Those opposing the flag are protecting a scammer.

[bones261]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

There could not be a more clear cut case of someone backing out of an agreement and the person suffering damages. Those opposing the flag are protecting a scammer.

The Zackie account was included in a package deal, during "negotiations" with the OP. I oppose this flag since there is credible evidence that the OP was perpetrating fraud by offering an account for sale that he was not authorized to do by the account owner.

[Quickseller]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

[bones261]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter.

[Quickseller]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter.

The OP was acting as an agent of “trustedseller”. There is no reason why he cannot continue acting as an agent.

Further, it is bobs burden to prove the account in question is hacked if he wants to invalidate the contract for being for something stolen. The mere allegation is insufficient and this has not been proven.

[bones261]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter.

The OP was acting as an agent of “trustedseller”. There is no reason why he cannot continue acting as an agent.

Further, it is bobs burden to prove the account in question is hacked if he wants to invalidate the contract for being for something stolen. The mere allegation is insufficient and this has not been proven.

1st off Bob would be considered the defendant. The accuser has to establish that the contract was a valid contract. I think Zackie's allegation is substantiated enough to bring in doubt that this sale was authorized by the owner. Furthermore, since I have doubts that Zackie's sales attempt was valid, it brings into question the legitimacy of "trustedseller's" entire inventory.

[Quickseller]

There is an allegation by Zackie that his account was hacked and he did not authorize sale of his account, nor access to it. Hacking into someone's account and offering it for sale is illegal. A contract is not binding if anything about it is illegal. Therefore, I am opposing this flag until the OP can establish that Zackie indeed authorized this sale of his account.

The contract in question was not in regards to Zackie. It was in regards to the Green trusted hero account.

No, here is the conversation the OP had with Bob. https://i.imgur.com/7lTjZxs.jpg The Hero account was brought up in a conversation with another person. The OP can only make a flag regarding any agreements that he went into with Bob. Which included the Zackie account. His friend is going to have to open up his own flag regarding that matter.

The OP was acting as an agent of “trustedseller”. There is no reason why he cannot continue acting as an agent.

Further, it is bobs burden to prove the account in question is hacked if he wants to invalidate the contract for being for something stolen. The mere allegation is insufficient and this has not been proven.

1st off Bob would be considered the defendant. The accuser has to establish that the contract was a valid contract. I think Zackie's allegation is substantiated enough to bring in doubt that this sale was authorized by the owner. Furthermore, since I have doubts that Zackie's sales attempt was valid, it brings into question the legitimacy of "trustedseller's" entire inventory.

You don’t know what you are talking about. Bob needs to raise the defense that the contract is invalid and as such unenforceable.

See https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-law.html

If there is a valid defense to a contract, it may be voidable, meaning the party to the contract who was the victim of the unfairness may be able to cancel or revoke the contract. In some instances, the unfairness is so extreme that the contract is considered void, in other words, a court will declare that no contract was ever formed

[bones261]

You don’t know what you are talking about. Bob needs to raise the defense that the contract is invalid and as such unenforceable.

See https://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-contracts-forms/will-your-contract-be-enforced-under-the-law.html

If there is a valid defense to a contract, it may be voidable, meaning the party to the contract who was the victim of the unfairness may be able to cancel or revoke the contract. In some instances, the unfairness is so extreme that the contract is considered void, in other words, a court will declare that no contract was ever formed

First of all, when a flag is being raised, aren't we all being called to be jurors/judges? I have already presented my questions regarding this flag and will oppose at this time. I am suspicious that "trustedseller" may be selling hacked accounts, and therefore, I don't think any action to attempt to enforce his contracts are valid.

There is also this to consider.

In Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises (1988),[1] the California Court of Appeal for the Third District refused to enforce a contract for payment of promissory notes used for the purchase of a company that manufactured drug paraphernalia. Although the items sold were not actually illegal, the court refused to enforce the contract for public policy concerns.

Sounds similar to "account sales are allowed, but discouraged."

[bob123]

The value of the accounts subsequently declined.

Not really.

Information which should be publicly available were made public. Nothing else has been done.

The account is still under possession of OP's friend and still has the same value (which is close to 0).
Just because OP's friend wanted to have an unrealistic high amount of money, this doesn't mean that he can't still demand that amount.

As a result of bobs misrepresentation, the OP was unable to offer the accounts to anyone else.

Why? Did i steal the account? No.
OP's friend (not OP) still has this account and still can sell it to anyone else.

There could not be a more clear cut case of someone backing out of an agreement and the person suffering damages. Those opposing the flag are protecting a scammer.

Oh Quicksy.. please explain how backing out of the agreement (lets call it agreement, just for you) lead to damage.

Hint: You can't.. because it didn't.


Me making public that the accounts aren't trustworthy (information which everyone should have access to) didn't even lead to any damage.
OP can still sell his accounts for any amount he wishes.

But the public deserves to know which accounts are to be trusted and which not.


I know.. you, as an extremely shady and account farming person, try everything you can to protect account seller and farmer.

But your opinion is simply wrong.

[SaltySpitoon]

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.

[bob123]

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.

The reason was to inform the public about untrustworthy accounts.

Their value was close to nothing. If the owner didn't put any effort into an account and just bought it, the value of the account is close to nothing.
No decrease of value. And OP didn't lose any money.

By 'direct cause of your actions'.. what are you referring to? Publicly posting non-private information ? This does NOT fall under the category of 'breaking an agreement'
And this alone is enough to proof that the flag is inappropriate.

Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted.

The reason was not to do any harm. It was to protect people from these accounts.

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.

Addresses are confidential information.
Your username.. is not. No publicly viewable username counts to confidential information.

And again.. the goal was to protect others. No damage has been done. And especially not by 'breaking an agreement' (which again.. is required for a flag).

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 never acknowledged the value. As you said.. i didn't plan to buy them.

To speak in your language:
I didn't 'crash the lamborghini'. What i did was rescinding from an 'agreement' and informed everyone about the color of the leather seats.
Just because pink leather is not very popular among people, this doesn't mean i did any 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.

Again, no. I shared non-confidential information.

You are quite literally a scammer my friend.

Your definition of a scammer is way off 



I'd also like to remind you (SaltySpitoon) of the following:


1)

Short summary why this flag absolutely is inappropriate:

Creating a flag requires ALL of the following:

• 1) Must have violated an agreement
• 2) The violation must result in damage
• 3) Must be created by the user who has been damaged

1) The terms of the 'agreement' were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage.

2) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation. And the resignation did not result in any damage (both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate).

3) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. OP (which is his friend, according to him) is the wrong person to create it.



Since all of the 3 points are necessary for the flag to be appropriate, and none of them is actually the case, that's more than enough to comprehend that the flag is inappropriate.

and

2)

Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.