Pages:
Author

Topic: Flagging accounts which are up to sale [DT member actions needed] - page 6. (Read 11346 times)

legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 2481
The value decreased when you disclosed the confidential information.

Which itself has nothing to do with the 'contract'. What is the 'confidential information' in your eyes ?
The only thing which is 'confidential' is the PM i received. And this PM itself did not decrease the value.

The fact that i called him out for doing shady business is what decreased the value. And ONLY if you really want to call it like that.
Because the accounts had no real value. They were sold for a price. That's it. But the real value was close to zero.. it is just some shitty account which is being traded. No value behind it.


By the way.. i don't have a problem with tagging account sellers and their accounts. Even if they 'lose value'.
I know that sounds harsh to someone who owns multiple accounts.. but it is the truth.



The offer does not expose a person to liability. In order for an offer to obligate the person making the offer, it will need to be accepted by the other party prior to the offer being withdrawn, or expiring.

There were so much things missing regarding the 'trade' that it wouldn't even be called 'similar to a contract' in my country..
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371
[..] After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.
[...]

What the hell?

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

I didn't know accounts lose value for each PM sent... But that's probably because i don't buy/sell accounts..
The value decreased when you disclosed the confidential information.

Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..
Sting operations are always double edged sword.
Sting operations are a) done by law enforcement with strict oversight, and b) do not allow law enforcement to steal (or attempt to steal) from others, nor do they allow law enforcement to commit other torts

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

An offer is not an obligation. In my state even when buying a house an offer is just an offer and can be withdrawn for any reason before you sign an actual contract. Let alone buying a bicycle on Craigslist and making an offer over the phone.
The offer does not expose a person to liability. In order for an offer to obligate the person making the offer, it will need to be accepted by the other party prior to the offer being withdrawn, or expiring.

legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
If you want to look at what you are buying before being obligated to buy said item, you should not make an offer before seeing it.

An offer is not an obligation. In my state even when buying a house an offer is just an offer and can be withdrawn for any reason before you sign an actual contract. Let alone buying a bicycle on Craigslist and making an offer over the phone.
member
Activity: 270
Merit: 17
[..] After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.
[...]

What the hell?

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

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

If i bid on an auction item and then disagree to pay i would be considered untrustworthy to hold a deal/
Not relevant/applicable here. Ofcourse it would.  Roll Eyes

ok Hitler
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1427
[..] After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.
[...]

What the hell?

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

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

If i bid on an auction item and then disagree to pay i would be considered untrustworthy to hold a deal/
Not relevant/applicable here. Ofcourse it would.  Roll Eyes That's more or less the equivalent of:  "If i steal candy would i be considered a thief?"
member
Activity: 270
Merit: 17
[..] After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.
[...]

What the hell?

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

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

If i bid on an auction item and then disagree to pay i would be considered untrustworthy to hold a deal/
legendary
Activity: 1932
Merit: 2272
Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..
Sting operations are always double edged sword.
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 2481
[..] After receiving the confidential information, you did not follow through on your end of the contract, and the person suffered damages in the form of decreased value of what he is selling as a direct result of your actions.
[...]

What the hell?

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

I didn't know accounts lose value for each PM sent... But that's probably because i don't buy/sell accounts..
member
Activity: 270
Merit: 17



I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/ntrain2k-167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.
Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

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

It is OP's problem.

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

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

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

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

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

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

It's called an oral contract which he broke.
legendary
Activity: 3276
Merit: 2442



I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/ntrain2k-167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.
Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

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

It is OP's problem.

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

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

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

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

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

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

Holy crap.

Theymos what did you do...
copper member
Activity: 2996
Merit: 2371



I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/ntrain2k-167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.
Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

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

It is OP's problem.

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

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

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

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO

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

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


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

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/ntrain2k-167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

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

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

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

You are wrong, as per usual.

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

If you want to look at what you are buying before being obligated to buy said item, you should not make an offer before seeing it.
legendary
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
These are the only ones that are proven to be up for sale, but only to the extent the PMs can be proven.

I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/ntrain2k-167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

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

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

According to your "logic" any kind of price/deal negotiation would be a flaggable breach of contract, which is of course utter nonsense. If I say "I'll pay $50 for your bicycle" and change my mind upon seeing said bicycle I'm not breaching your imaginary contract.
member
Activity: 270
Merit: 17
You're comparing apples and oranges. Scammers make a user lose Value. Buying an account to join a sig campaign has no victims. your point is moot. Next?
too bad you can't put a price tag on someone's mental health deteriorating due to the amount of garbage he has to consume from these people who buy accounts and post detritus.

Your username says it all smh
legendary
Activity: 3276
Merit: 2442

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

Alright I did my job, I am going away. Cheers.
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 2481
Where did you read I said you did a scam?

I just agreed to it was unethical.

Nothing else.


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


mindrust, i think you celebrated the rise of BTC/USD a bit too much already  Tongue
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1427
You're comparing apples and oranges. Scammers make a user lose Value. Buying an account to join a sig campaign has no victims. your point is moot. Next?
too bad you can't put a price tag on someone's mental health deteriorating due to the amount of garbage he has to consume from these people who buy accounts and post detritus.
member
Activity: 270
Merit: 17
You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.
Signature campaigns don't want bought accounts farmed by one person. (they clearly state that you'll get banned if you were found to multiaccount spamming) They want real individuals. So your argument is invalid.
you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

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



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

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



I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/ntrain2k-167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.
Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

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

It is OP's problem.

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

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

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

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO



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

It is not.

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

Selling an account is not a reason for mistrust.   get a grip and go chase other ambulances.   You a lawyer?
legendary
Activity: 3276
Merit: 2442

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

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

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


Where did you read I said you did a scam?

I just agreed to it was unethical.

Nothing else.

edit:

Is everybody high tonight?
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 2481
You ever come across the notion that people want to buy an established account to join a sig campaign instead of devoting time and bullshit establishing an account?  you fuckers throwing rocks live in glass houses.
Signature campaigns don't want bought accounts farmed by one person. (they clearly state that you'll get banned if you were found to multiaccount spamming) They want real individuals. So your argument is invalid.
you cant tell if an account is bought.  you're an idiot.

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



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

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



I do think it is unethical to tell him that you will trade with him after he provides information, and after receiving information, you do not trade with him "prove the second, then we can do it", and to say that you will pay for something, and subsequently not pay "I pay 350 if it's good" "I pay 550 for green trust legendary ok". It also looks like you entered into a contract with the person, but it does not appear you followed through: "Ok send me message from this acc and we have deal", responding to https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/ntrain2k-167659 that is a "green trust hero member" to which you agreed to pay 550 for. I don't see evidence you paid him.

If this person were to open up a written contract flag against you, it would be valid.
Interesting point of view. I kind of agree here, despite these people being account sellers, was it really right to mislead them (and in a way, scam them?) as 2 wrongs don't make a right. Curious as to how other people think about this..

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

It is OP's problem.

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

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

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

But scamming? Definitely no, IMO



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

It is not.

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