Topic: Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information - page 3. (Read 1994 times)

Hmm, maybe those parents can use that as a defense when they basically bought their children the right to get into a particular college. Clearly their children didn't deserve it otherwise.  


I think the more appropriate word to describe the amount of legitimate reasons is "few" not "plenty'"


"An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure." Also with the new trust system implemented, Theymos has rightfully made the preventative measures less punitive and the provable offenses more punitive. It truly is an "ounce" when our intention is to only warn, and a "pound" when damage has already been done.


I really don't think bob123's actions warrants a red flag. It is very heavy handed. Unless we want to convey to the community that when is comes to account sales, "snitches get stiches." Perhaps exclusion from DT by his peers.

Everyone knows that analogies are never a perfect fit. However, account sales are somewhat equivalent to selling identity documents. Granted, someone buying an account on Bitcointalk is not going to allow them to get much of value in the meat world. However, in our forum, it gives them the opportunity to participate in signature campaigns that they would otherwise be excluded from, not to mention other benefits the established account history may bring.

Now you're just making shit up. Which rule is that?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/unofficial-list-of-official-bitcointalkorg-rules-guidelines-faq-703657

It literally says that scams are not moderated.


Then stop arguing that. Fraudulent (farmed, hacked, etc) accounts are not ok.

So they didn't earn the money they paid to acquire it? Who gets to determine what is and is not acceptable? There is by far no universal agreement on account sales, and the need to keep the sales secret is a direct result of this arbitrary enforcement done by vigilantes seeking people to point fingers at preemptively. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it. The difference between you and me is I don't think it is my job to run around preventing people from trading because I don't like what they are trading in. If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue. The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in fraud to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen. This is not ok, and even if he was correct in his assumption one act does not justify the other. Your analogy is useless because that is all criminal activity. No one is alleging account sales are a crime.



No, but most scams are criminal activity, and criminal activity is against the rules. Furthermore the trust system LITERALLY EXISTS to help prevent fraud, not this subversion of its original intent you prefer to push where it exists to enforce pre-crime or to punish people for doing things you do not personally endorse. The entire purpose of the flag system being put in place was to offer some semblance of due process so that people can't just arbitrarily negative rate people for anything they please. Yet here you are arguing that fraud is ok, the trust system shouldn't be used to punish it, and you should have the ability to meter out arbitrary preventative enforcement of personally held beliefs using fraud.

Scams are not against the rules either. Actually most if not all use cases for the trust system don't have anything to do with forum rules, which are enforced by moderators. Untrustworthy actions are often done in secret or otherwise obfuscated. Exposing them is not a red-flag offence.


Don't even need to go that far... as I mentioned above, just selling green trust appears to be fine in this newfangled interpretation of what is considered a legitimate "business" or "property".

No, they need to keep the exact product a secret or it loses it's value to sport a reputation and credentials that were not properly earned by the buyer. Whether that be a rank, post history, merit history, or trust ratings. Most people buy them so that they can get into a signature campaign that they would otherwise not qualify for. There is the potential someone could use the bought account to do a whole lot worse. Can you imagine the damage that could be done if either you or I sold our account in secret?

Edit: Since it appears everyone wants to use analogies, let me use this one. Suppose it came to my attention that a particular individual was selling birth certificates and social security cards. This individual acquired them from the rightful owner's, willingly, by purchasing it from them. I decide to take it upon myself to pose as an illegal alien and pretend that I am interested in buying one of these documents. I request that the individual let me see one of the documents and I memorize some of the details. I then make some kind of excuse to back out of the deal and then promptly report what I know to everyone that I can think of as well as the authorities. By this act, I have not only destroyed the value of the product in question, but I have likely destroyed the person's entire enterprise as well. Would that make me a "scammer?" I think not.

It is irrelevant if bob123 is a rival account seller or not. He still used deception to destroy the property of another. The point of the analogy is you can cause financial damage to others without direct financial (or any financial) incentive. It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules. It is circular logic. We need to destroy his product because we run around destroying his products.

You analogy is flawed. There is no evidence that bob123 is a rival account seller. Therefore, he had absolutely nothing to financial gain from eliminating competition. Second, regarding the other situation that you elude to, I have not supported or opposed that particular flag. However, I do believe that particular user's posts fall rather close to threats of violence against a particular ethnicity. It goes farther than mere "naughty words." However, it appears it falls just under what is considered an offense worthy of a ban.
Also, bob123's act is not equivalent to burning the particular product. All he did was reveal which products are for sale. It's rather dubious that we have market where it is detrimental to reveal that the product is for sale. Most legitimate businesses would welcome someone informing others exactly which products they have for sale. I'm sure that you don't mind if i post the links to these threads:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/all-sold-extremely-rare-norfeds-more-5127280
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/wts-my-sole-for-bitcoins-5120800

Then reveal to everyone that you are selling gold coins and your sole.

There is one big flaw here.

SeW900 is not a fucking newspaper salesman. He is not selling cars, he is not selling bitcoins, he is not selling GPU's. He is selling accounts.

And account sellers are not to be trusted.

If we are both newspaper salesmen, and I burn down your newspaper stand, that doesn't directly provide me a profit does it? Yet I still violated the other salesman's property rights now didn't I? You all love using the widest interpretation possible to justify flags for people saying naughty words, but some one directly destroying the property of another doesn't count as risky behavior? The trust system is not your personal cudgel to be used against your opponents and kept from being used against those you agree with.


You are the one who started with the stupid analogies. I don't have to agree it is a legitimate business in order to agree that the user still has property rights which were violated through deception. If the user is scamming then produce evidence of it and open a flag and I will support it. These are two separate issues and one does not justify the other.

I can say my own words, I don't need you to make shit up. The OP was not scammed. I don't know him so I can't say whether I like him or not.

---

So what's next - should we also support selling green trust? I mean it's a "business" just like account trading. IIRC one of the accounts bob123 exposed did have green trust.

   It's interesting that the word "scammed" is being used when bob123 wasn't enriched by even 1 satoshi for this. I don't see any evidence that bob123 used this acquired information to try and extort the OP. Also, punishing a whistle blower for revealing the truth with a red flag is a bit heavy handed, especially in this case.
    I also don't think buying and selling accounts, in most cases, is legitimate. Someone is basically paying money so that they can present a reputation that does not truly represent them. Even if they are only purchasing it to get into a signature campaign, they are using it to land a gig that they probably don't legitimately qualify for.

In other words, you are okay with the OP getting scammed and are willing to protect the person who scammed the OP because you don’t like him.

Or perhaps we should dispense with the stupid analogies and generalizations and take the facts at their face value. You think account farming is a legitimate "business" here. I don't. It's a scam.

That is not a legitimate comparison. A more realistic comparison would be you meet some one on Craig's List because you think they are selling a stolen bike, then you run it over with your car so they can't sell it. Engaging in deception to damage the value of the accounts is not excusable just because some one suspects they might be stolen. You all need to get lives and stop pretending you are on an internet version of "COPS".

It's more like finding out that someone is selling a stolen bicycle and reporting them to police.

Sold accounts are being exposed all the time, often after the sale. Is is any better if the buyer ends up screwed? The whole "business" is based on deception and the seller basically shifts the risk to the buyer.

FWIW I don't agree with some of what bob123 did or said but there is no doubt to me that the account farmer's flag is bogus and frivolous.

Salty will be the first to tell you I don't agree with his opinions just because he is the one to state them. I do however agree with his logical conclusion that these are separate issues, and one act does not justify the other. I don't need to post anything because that is irrelevant to this thread.

So you supported flag based on SaltySpitoon's opinion?

You didn't read thread which is linked in OP, you wouldn't say what you said if you did  


Can you post which accounts SeW900 tried to sell?

This ^

So you supported flag without reading thread?

Some people still think amateur vigilante sting operations are a good idea?

Bob most definitely engaged in deception with the intent to damage other users business dealings and property value.
Maybe I don't like stores that sell lotto tickets and alcohol due to my religion but that doesn't make it right for me to go destroy their products..

Not sure about it fitting a flag yet though.. I'll watch some more..