Topic: Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information (Read 1982 times)

Just because Bob123 happened to be correct after the fact does not mean he had any ability to know if these accounts were hacked or legitimately acquired beforehand. Again to summarize...

Lying = not a flaggable offense

Forming a contract you don't keep = flaggable offense

Solution? Don't form contracts you don't intend to keep, even with scumbags. If contracts don't also apply to scumbags they don't apply to any of us.

I just want to say, that we now have verification that a second account that the OP and his business partner offered for sale was a hacked account. It appears that the OP and his business partner are selling stolen merchandise. But I guess some people believe that we should flag anyone that dare try to expose their shady business. Fortunately, for Nasty Fans, whoever acquired this account didn't realize what kind they could have done. It appears they only shitposted with it.

It is not about "everything the seller ever said". It is about the specific reasoning he gave when he created the flag.





The OP has been flagged as a scammer by the account he tried to sell that he does not own. How much more scammy can it possibly get ?

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.

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


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.

I think Salty said it pretty accurately

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.

Is contradicted by this  which was posted by the seller.



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



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:



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.

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.

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..



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

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.

We are talking about trying to sell a hacked account.

The claim from the OP was:

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.



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.

These retaliatory flags are going to be fun. Livecoin should probably flag this user: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51656503

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

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.

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.

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


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

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.

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.




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.