Topic: Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information - page 4. (Read 1994 times)

If that is the case, and the original owner wants to make a flag and has evidence I would support that as well. "what if" games do not justify this behavior.

Even though the account he was selling didn't belong to him in the first place?

While I do not endorse account selling, it is not against the forum rules. Using deceptive tactics to destroy the property of others is untrustworthy behavior. Mind your own business. Flag supported.

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.




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




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).




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.




Again, no. I shared non-confidential information.




Your definition of a scammer is way off 



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


1)


and

2)

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 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.


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.


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.


Deceit, financial damage, malice? I'm not sure what I should add that doesn't tick the boxes here.



If I can prove that you knew otherwise, would you be fine with being called a scammer?


1) Your thread
2) We agree on
3) You are saying that financially harming people is fine?



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.

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.




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





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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

Alright, so OP crated the flag 




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.




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 (if at all) would be money against account.
No account, no money. As simple as that.



Flags type 2 and 3 are for breaking agreements / contracts ONLY.
So this exactly is what matters.




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.




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 think you should really revise your definition of a scam.




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).




As previously mentioned, no financial loss and no monetary value has been destroyed/decreased/etc.

Your 'facts' are simply wrong (except for fact #2).




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.




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.

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

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.

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.


More facts:

4) OP didn't prove that he owns accounts which was part of agreement which makes agreement not valid.

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.