Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information

[IMadeYouReadThis]

If there was a contract for $280 as you claim then why are they discussing different accounts and amounts instead ? It shows that a deal had not been made yet.

I do think that Bob narrowly escaped being in breach of contract.

I think you are just misinterpreting TECSHARE's point here.

If Bob123 didn't wanted to go into the contract with the seller or if the seller didn't wanted to engage in the contract with Bob123, this telegram discussion you are implying would just not exist.

Bob123 had a pri-decided intention to engage in the contract with the account seller and than again broke it intentionally after exposing his digital goods.

There is also a consistent trend of the seller believing the buyer will not follow through with a sale. It shows that the seller knows that there is a risk of a "no sale".

Yes, there was a risk of no sale before the seller revealed his accounts to Bob123, but when Bob123 agreed to buy the account once the ownership is proved the contract should be automatically formed there after IMO.

I find your way of relating this incident to court judgements interesting, but I don't think we could imply complex court laws here anyways there are too many differences.

[1713865674]

1713865674

[1713865674]

1713865674

[1713865674]

1713865674

[xtraelv]

If there was a contract for $280 as you claim then why are they discussing different accounts and amounts instead ? It shows that a deal had not been made yet.

I do think that Bob narrowly escaped being in breach of contract.

I think you are just misinterpreting TECSHARE's point here.

If Bob123 didn't wanted to go into the contract with the seller or if the seller didn't wanted to engage in the contract with Bob123, this telegram discussion you are implying would just not exist.

Bob123 had a pri-decided intention to engage in the contract with the account seller and than again broke it intentionally after exposing his digital goods.

There is also a consistent trend of the seller believing the buyer will not follow through with a sale. It shows that the seller knows that there is a risk of a "no sale".

Yes, there was a risk of no sale before the seller revealed his accounts to Bob123, but when Bob123 agreed to buy the account once the ownership is proved the contract should be automatically formed there after IMO.

I find your way of relating this incident to court judgements interesting, but I don't think we could imply complex court laws here anyways there are too many differences.

An acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of
an offer. Again, there must be an objective manifestation, by the recipient of
the offer, of an intention to be bound by its terms. An offer must be accepted
in accordance with its precise terms if it is to form an agreement. It must
exactly match the offer and ALL terms must be accepted.

Once an offer has been accepted, the parties have an agreement. That is the
basis for a contract, but is not sufficient in itself to create legal obligations.

In common law, a promise is not, as a general rule, binding as a contract
unless it is supported by consideration (or it is made as a deed).

http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf

[IMadeYouReadThis]

This is not what happened here.

An acceptance is a final and unqualified expression of assent to the terms of
an offer. Again, there must be an objective manifestation, by the recipient of
the offer, of an intention to be bound by its terms. An offer must be accepted
in accordance with its precise terms if it is to form an agreement. It must
exactly match the offer and ALL terms must be accepted.

Once an offer has been accepted, the parties have an agreement. That is the
basis for a contract, but is not sufficient in itself to create legal obligations.

In common law, a promise is not, as a general rule, binding as a contract
unless it is supported by consideration (or it is made as a deed).

http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf

This is what happened here.

(i) Breach
3. A breach of contract is committed when a party, without lawful excuse, fails
or refuses to perform what is due from him under the contract, or performs
defectively, or incapacitates himself from performing.
 (a) Failure or refusal to perform – a failure or refusal to perform a
contractual promise when performance has fallen due is prima facie a
breach.
(b) Defective performance – where a person promises to do one thing but
does another, which differs, for example, in time, quantity or quality,
this amounts to a breach. The effect of such a breach often differs
from those of a complete failure or refusal to perform (see below).
Note that where the "defect" in performance is particularly serious, the
breach may amount to non-performance rather than defective
performance (for example, if a seller promises beans but delivers
peas).
 (c) Incapacitating oneself – for example, a seller commits a breach of
contract for the sale of a specific thing if he sells it to a third party.

http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf

Bob123 promised to buy the accounts if the seller releases the details, but after the seller released the details, he just got under defective performance and the contract was breached as he promised one thing and did other. Hence the flag started by the seller is perfectly valid, it's your own judgement if you would like to support it or not but I think a genuine thinking towards the issue would show a serious breach of contract here.

[bob123]

Even if the seller is still in possession of the goods the "damages" is the extra effort they have to go through to either enforce the sale or resell the item to another buyer.

IMO, this is an extremely vague interpretation of 'damage'.

I would understand this if i had intentionally replaced another buyer.
If the seller had backed out from the deal with another buyer and instead decided to trade with me, that indeed - under some circumstances - could be seen as damage.


But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.
It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Bob123 promised to buy the accounts if the seller releases the details, but after the seller released the details, he just got under defective performance and the contract was breached as he promised one thing and did other. Hence the flag started by the seller is perfectly valid, it's your own judgement if you would like to support it or not but I think a genuine thinking towards the issue would show a serious breach of contract here.

The flag has not been started by the seller.
There was no damage resulting from rescinding from it.
There first has to be a contract, before there can be a breach of it.

[TECSHARE]

Even if the seller is still in possession of the goods the "damages" is the extra effort they have to go through to either enforce the sale or resell the item to another buyer.

IMO, this is an extremely vague interpretation of 'damage'.

I would understand this if i had intentionally replaced another buyer.
If the seller had backed out from the deal with another buyer and instead decided to trade with me, that indeed - under some circumstances - could be seen as damage.


But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.
It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Bob123 promised to buy the accounts if the seller releases the details, but after the seller released the details, he just got under defective performance and the contract was breached as he promised one thing and did other. Hence the flag started by the seller is perfectly valid, it's your own judgement if you would like to support it or not but I think a genuine thinking towards the issue would show a serious breach of contract here.

The flag has not been started by the seller.
There was no damage resulting from rescinding from it.
There first has to be a contract, before there can be a breach of it.

You made an agreement. You received considerations under that agreement (the PM and the information resulting from it). At this point the contract was active. Rather than submitting payment as you agreed to, you then released that information (consideration) you received under false pretenses not only violating the contract, but causing damages which then took you firmly into fraud territory, not just contractual violations. This is quite clear cut, you even provided all the evidence yourself. All of this Playschool lawyering is not going to change the facts.

[HCP]

But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.

True. He still has possession of exactly the same amount of money and the "same" goods.

It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Untrue. The value of his goods decreased as a direct result of your deliberate actions.

[TECSHARE]

But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.

True. He still has possession of exactly the same amount of money and the "same" goods.

It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Untrue. The value of his goods decreased as a direct result of your deliberate actions.

More importantly he received that information (consideration) via admittedly intentional deceit with the intent to deny him his legal rights, which is the legal definition of fraud.

One other note, I see a few people here agreeing with my points, but not nutting up to support the flag. If everyone is going to be spineless and only support popular flags this system is going to fail. The trust system can not be a popularity contest or it will fail. Nut up gentlemen.

[xtraelv]

But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.

True. He still has possession of exactly the same amount of money and the "same" goods.

It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Untrue. The value of his goods decreased as a direct result of your deliberate actions.

More importantly he received that information (consideration) via admittedly intentional deceit with the intent to deny him his legal rights, which is the legal definition of fraud.

One other note, I see a few people here agreeing with my points, but not nutting up to support the flag. If everyone is going to be spineless and only support popular flags this system is going to fail. The trust system can not be a popularity contest or it will fail. Nut up gentlemen.

Cannot sell something that is not for sale. Either the OP is lying or zackie is lying. Since the OP is claiming a "loss" of value of the accounts - he can only have a loss if he owns the account.

So there lies the paradox. Either the OP is lying or the OP is lying.

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!

[suchmoon]

These retaliatory flags are going to be fun. Livecoin should probably flag this user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51656503#msg51656503

Seems like a clear violation of a written contract according to some "lawyers" in this thread.

[TECSHARE]

Cannot sell something that is not for sale. Either the OP is lying or zackie is lying. Since the OP is claiming a "loss" of value of the accounts - he can only have a loss if he owns the account.

So there lies the paradox. Either the OP is lying or the OP is lying.

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!

Please note the words in bold. You will notice they are not the same word. What is the difference? One is a multiple and one is an individual. One account also does not equal all accounts, the other accounts were still damaged even if your claim is correct. Regardless of your assertion, considerations were still made forming an agreement. The seller may or may not have known the account was hacked, and was never given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I have seen many account sellers in the past return hacked accounts willingly upon proof of ownership at their own expense. Regardless of ALL OF THIS, bob123 still entered into a contract with intend to defraud the seller of his legal rights. That alone makes the flag valid.

 You people don't seem to get this is not about defending account sellers. It is about defending the rights of everyone here from wanna be internet police vigilantes who think because they intend to do some thing positive they don't have to follow the rules themselves and can pick and choose on their own who can trade, and what they trade.

These retaliatory flags are going to be fun. Livecoin should probably flag this user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5159692.msg51656503#msg51656503

Seems like a clear violation of a written contract according to some "lawyers" in this thread.

Just because you don't like a contract doesn't make it wrong or bad. Contracts are voluntary. If you don't like a contract don't engage with the entity, it is that simple. Also as others have stated it is probably not legal for them to freeze funds over such an issue. I know you are a simple creature and think this is all a game, but the only thing that keeps a place like this able to function is that we uphold our contracts. That is what enables this community to operate without the state stepping in to be mommy and daddy every time some one has an issue at the detriment of everyone. Keeping an agreement is the only thing that has any true value around here.

[xtraelv]

Please note the words in bold. You will notice they are not the same word. What is the difference? One is a multiple and one is an individual. One account also does not equal all accounts, the other accounts were still damaged even if your claim is correct. Regardless of your assertion, considerations were still made forming an agreement. The seller may or may not have known the account was hacked, and was never given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I have seen many account sellers in the past return hacked accounts willingly upon proof of ownership at their own expense. Regardless of ALL OF THIS, bob123 still entered into a contract with intend to defraud the seller of his legal rights. That alone makes the flag valid.

 You people don't seem to get this is not about defending account sellers. It is about defending the rights of everyone here from wanna be internet police vigilantes who think because they intend to do some thing positive they don't have to follow the rules themselves and can pick and choose on their own who can trade, and what they trade.

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

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.

[TECSHARE]

Please note the words in bold. You will notice they are not the same word. What is the difference? One is a multiple and one is an individual. One account also does not equal all accounts, the other accounts were still damaged even if your claim is correct. Regardless of your assertion, considerations were still made forming an agreement. The seller may or may not have known the account was hacked, and was never given the opportunity to rectify the situation. I have seen many account sellers in the past return hacked accounts willingly upon proof of ownership at their own expense. Regardless of ALL OF THIS, bob123 still entered into a contract with intend to defraud the seller of his legal rights. That alone makes the flag valid.

 You people don't seem to get this is not about defending account sellers. It is about defending the rights of everyone here from wanna be internet police vigilantes who think because they intend to do some thing positive they don't have to follow the rules themselves and can pick and choose on their own who can trade, and what they trade.

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

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.

If you will notice, you didn't actually reply to anything I said. Furthermore there was no way bob123 could have known this when he committed an act of fraud by entering into a contract he never intended to honor.

[xtraelv]

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

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.

If you will notice, you didn't actually reply to anything I said. Furthermore there was no way bob123 could have known this when he committed an act of fraud by entering into a contract he never intended to honor.

Perhaps you want to re-read what you just said and consider whether you want to continue supporting the flag.


What I read was: " The person who placed the flag was going to scam bob123 but bob123 couldn't have known that at the time of the scam so therefore he should be tagged for not parting with his $."

An illegal contract is legally unenforceable.  Even if the illegality is found out later. But like I said earlier. There was no implied or express agreement. The PMs posted by the seller do not show that there was such an agreement.

From the evidence that I see the OP and associates demonstrated that they were trying to sell an account they did not own..

...

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.

Keep in mind that part of the claim by the OP is that they are not scammers.

[TECSHARE]

As I said, that proves nothing because of VPNs. I could do whatever you or anybody else here wants, there will always be somebody saying: "But this is still no evidence, do this and do that!" This will be a
never ending story. I'm the real zackie and this account is not for sale. Believe it or not, I don't care.

Have you checked https://bitcointalk.org/myips.php ? You have only 30 days to see the account thief's IP address.

Holy crap! Thanks for that link. Here is the result:

2019-06-25 18:52:29   2019-06-25 19:53:15   xx.xxx.xxx.xx   XXXXXXXx, Germany
2019-06-24 22:00:53   2019-06-24 22:01:56   xxxx:xx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx   XXXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-24 20:03:48   2019-06-24 20:52:38   xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx    XXXXXXX, Germany
2019-06-19 09:38:21   2019-06-20 14:02:48   42.201.183.65   Karachi, Pakistan

Indeed, somebody from Pakistan used my account!

But hey, you know.... I could have used a VPN....

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

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.

If you will notice, you didn't actually reply to anything I said. Furthermore there was no way bob123 could have known this when he committed an act of fraud by entering into a contract he never intended to honor.

Perhaps you want to re-read what you just said and consider whether you want to continue supporting the flag.


What I read was: " The person who placed the flag was going to scam bob123 but bob123 couldn't have known that at the time of the scam so therefore he should be tagged for not parting with his $."

An illegal contract is legally unenforceable.  Even if the illegality is found out later. But like I said earlier. There was no implied or express agreement. The PMs posted by the seller do not show that there was such an agreement.

From the evidence that I see the OP and associates demonstrated that they were trying to sell an account they did not own..

...

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.

Keep in mind that part of the claim by the OP is that they are not scammers.

Don't speak for me, I can speak for myself. As I explained before and which you promptly ignored in favor of your next convoluted distraction, was that the seller may or may not have known the account was stolen. Furthermore more than one account was involved. There is no way for you to know the seller's intent based on this information. We can however determine the intent of bob123 here without a doubt, because he said so publicly his intent was to enter into a contract he never intended to keep, then take actions resulting in intentional damages to the seller. The rest of your song and dance is irrelevant.

[Quickseller]

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

It appears that you are supporting a flag created by someone that appears to have violated the specific conditions of the alleged agreement. (i.e. trying to sell a hacked account)

The agreement is not alleged, the screenshots posted by bob (who is the accused) document him agreeing to purchase the forum accounts in question upon receipt of a PM, which he received. Bob has confirmed that he had no intention of completing the purchase despite his promise to do so. The account that is "hacked" has not proven to be hacked, nor was it part of the specific agreement bob violated.

In that case show me the specific accounts that he bought and show the proof. Because if you read the thread I quoted I showed why I believe there was no agreement and that one of the accounts the seller tried to sell is hacked.

First, if you are not familiar with the thread and situation, I don't see how it would possibly be appropriate to have a stance on the flag one way or another.

The evidence is in this post.


I have copied a portion of the screenshot linked in the above referenced post. If you review the screenshot, you will see that bob123 said he will buy [url=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=167659] Ntrain2k upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see in the below image that bob123 received a PM from ntrain2k:

You can see above the copied portion of the conversation that bob123 was offered a "green hero" for $550, and also that bob123 asked for PMs to be sent to "alice321" which they were.

Further, you can see this portion of the conversation posted by bob123:

Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid. 

[xtraelv]

Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid.  

Is contradicted by this  which was posted by the seller.



Seller posted the entire chatlog here:
http://archive.is/rlBTD

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.

It was later shown that at least one of the accounts the seller was attempting to sell was stolen.

The claim by the seller is:

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.

I don't see escrow being used and by trying to sell the stolen / account that was not for sale the seller is by definition a scammer.

The claims made by the seller do not pass scrutiny. Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it.

...

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.

[TECSHARE]

https://i.imgur.com/P3n361H.png
Above you can see that bob123 agreed to purchase a legendary account for $600 upon receiving a PM from the account. You can see from the above screenshot of PMs posted by bob123 that a PM was sent from narousberg, which is a legendary account.

Further, you can see based on bob123's actions that he did not have any intention of actually buying the accounts up for sale, despite making the representation that he wishes to do so, which is a breach of an implied agreement.

I would have to scrutinize the details further to find additional agreements that bob123 broke, however the above more than demonstrates a breach of agreement(s), and as such proves the flag is valid.  

Is contradicted by this  which was posted by the seller.

https://i.imgur.com/UYUQ3J0.png

Seller posted the entire chatlog here:
http://archive.is/rlBTD

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.

It was later shown that at least one of the accounts the seller was attempting to sell was stolen.

The claim by the seller is:

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.

I don't see escrow being used and by trying to sell the stolen / account that was not for sale the seller is by definition a scammer.

The claims made by the seller do not pass scrutiny. Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it.

...

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.

You are just repeating yourself now. There is no proof that the seller knew the account was hacked, furthermore, more than one account was damaged. bob123 received considerations under contract which he never intended to honor BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. bob123 provided the proof himself.

[Quickseller]

I think Salty said it pretty accurately

the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

[xtraelv]

I think Salty said it pretty accurately

the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

I agree with what SaltySpitoon said. But I don't believe that applies in this case.

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.

The claim for creating the flag by the seller was clear. The parts I higlhighted in red in my opinion contradict what occurred.

Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it - that you cannot create or support a flag containing incorrect fact-statements

By supporting the flag your are certifying that escrow was arranged with SebastianJu and that the seller is not a scammer. Because that is what the OP claimed when he created the flag.

...

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.

[TECSHARE]

I think Salty said it pretty accurately

the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.

I agree with what SaltySpitoon said. But I don't believe that applies in this case.

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.

The claim for creating the flag by the seller was clear. The parts I higlhighted in red in my opinion contradict what occurred.

Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it - that you cannot create or support a flag containing incorrect fact-statements

By supporting the flag your are certifying that escrow was arranged with SebastianJu and that the seller is not a scammer. Because that is what the OP claimed when he created the flag.

...

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.

If you stretch your narrative any thinner, it is going to pop. Supporting the flag does not mean we support everything the creator ever said, it means that we support the claim of the flag, which is supported by bob123's own admissions. This is pretty cut and dry regardless of how badly you wish to distract from that. The only reason the escrow was not arranged was because bob123 accepted the terms that he would pay a set price up front upon consideration of a PM from the user name (as proven by bob123's submissions). He knowingly entered into a contract he did not intend to honor, with intent to take the legal rights of the seller by causing damages. Just because you think the ends justify the means does not change the facts.