Topic: Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information - page 5. (Read 1982 times)

    Sometimes, a person has to break the rules to stand up for what they believe in. The OP is certainly welcome to open up a flag on this. However, I am not going to support it, just like I do not support the US Government prosecuting Snowden.

This is pretty twisted logic based on a plethora of attempted loopholes rather than common sense. Bob assumes OP and @TrustedAccountSeller to be the same person, even if they are not, if you really want to get picky about it, could you not claim that OP is an agent of @TrustedAccountSeller for facilitating the trade? I expect OP would have some financial reason for passing Bob onto @TrustedAccountSeller rather than just out of the goodness of his heart to make sure Bob got an account. That is, if they aren't the same person. Therefor, if a flag is valid, its fine for OP to leave it.

Onto whether the flag is valid or not. Its pretty clear to follow the chain of events and the money here. Then you apply whether or not it was intentional and whether Bob can be held responsible for it. Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted. Bob didn't decide to back out of the deal because the conditions weren't favorable, they backed out because they never had any intention of buying anything, so arguing over whether the contract conditions were met or not doesn't matter.

Saying that the information isn't legally confidential and expectedly confidential are two different things. Unless you are suggesting that everyone should get NDAs drafted up before they do any business here, based on their prior communication with regards to escrow agents and warnings about negative trust, Bob had the knowledge that making the information known would do financial harm.

I don't care if you don't like account sellers or not, I'm not a huge fan of them myself, but you don't get to justify yourself as not a scammer because you scammed someone you don't like. SeW either as @TAS or their agent clearly lost monetary value as a direct result of Bob's intentional actions. All of the excuses I'm seeing are technicalities that are trying to weasel not out of the fact that Bob scammed SeW, but why they aren't allowed to leave a flag based on perceived loopholes in the warning flags.

Facts of the matter:
1. Bob intentionally acted in a manner that caused another user financial loss
2. Account selling is not illegal
3. You don't get to financially harm someone just because you are against what they do

We are opening a world of bad justification if we allow scams based on the reason the person scammed the other. This is akin to walking into a window store, taking a look at a few windows, telling an associate that you want to buy one, and before signing you just leave and smash the other windows on your way out. The issue isn't that you decided not to buy the windows...

How that does not matter?

OP didn't provide proof of ownership for accounts which he was trying to sell.

In this thread, we are talking about ownership of accounts 1 and 2

All other accounts are from different sellers and they are irrelevant for OP's flag.

So what loss Bob caused to OP who failed to provide proof that he owns accounts 1 and 2??

If seller number 2 wants to flag bob - they claimed they are owner of account which turned out not to be for sale and supposedly hacked they broke their own contract then (I didn't check for other accounts)

If seller number 3 wants to flag bob - as it is shown in pictures there was no deal.

Also, nothing here is confidential information. For information to become confidential, you have to make it confidential https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/confidential-information

You can't put all eggs in the same basked, those are 3 separated cased and each one should be treated separately.

Here:
Again, SeW900 didn't prove ownership of accounts 1 and 2 which we can only assume he owns.

Each flag type 2 or 3 requires thread and you can't create flag on someone else's behalf.

Don't engage in buying/selling accounts and this thread wouldn't even be here to be read.

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.

None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob, the main point is that Bob never had any intention of purchasing anything, and their information seeking was solely to do damage. The flag wouldn't be for not following through with the sale, it'd be for causing damaged by going in with false pretenses to make the OP give up information that they wouldn't have previously, and then publishing that information.

This isn't a matter of accidentally leaking details which could be attributed to unexpected results, this is a case of a deliberate action doing its intended purpose, and the result to be expected. Can you deny that SeW is out money due to Bob's deception?

I personally think #1,2, and 3 apply, but #2 is probably the safer bet

It is also Bob's assumption that OP and trustedaccseller are the same person.

Lets stick to topic, as far as I see it, OP wants to create red flag, as written in subject "flagging user broke an agreement" and as I can see OP has no basis to create red flag because:

1) OP claimed they referred bob to another person (trustedaccseller) for accounts 3 & 4
2) OP didn't provide proof that they own first 2 accounts

So bob technically don't have confirmation that accounts 1 & 2 (chat with OP) are for sale and OP can't sell accounts 3 & 4 because they belong to another seller.

So bob didn't broke any agreement in this case.

Also, it is not stated that information from chat is confidential and OP has no basis for red flag.

OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission, as well as others probably owned by OP. I'm not sure why the accuser would have to prove something that the defendant has confirmed themself? Zackie may be hacked, or by bob's assumption they just don't want to admit that they were caught selling their account. Regardless of if Zackie was hacked or not, that wasn't brought up until two days after this claim. That doesn't mean that SeW900 is innocent, that means that it was absolutely not a factor in this case, and deserves its own case if anything.

If Bob started communications with SeW under false pretenses, and as a result did financial damage to SeW, does that not deserve a flag?

Excuse me, but which account OP proved that they own?

I am looking at screenshots and for first two accounts I don't see proof of ownership and for other 2 accounts owner (zackie) said account is not for sale - maybe compromised.

Am I missing something in OP's accusation? Based on what OP will create flag?


Second quotation you have posted is bob's assumption based on coincidence.

You don't get it to have both ways. Regardless, that'd be a separate matter. Bob did financial damage to SeW900 intentionally.

It seems that accused didn't broke any agreement as accuser have tried to sell bob123 what it seems to be hacked account:



Further, you are not allowed to sell hacked accounts and admin should look into this case and ban your ass if this turns out to be true.

I can’t imagine how anyone could argue that holding someone accountable for their promises would not make the forum a better place.

The argument I am hearing from you is that bob is a good poster therefore him breaking a promise should be excused. This will make the forum a much worse place because it sends a clear message that you have a license to scam others if you steal from an unpopular person.

I don't see the flag. You're breaking a written contract by not creating it.

I wrote this a while ago:
In this case, I don't think a tag or flag on bob123's account would make this forum a better place and I don't think it's worth destroying his account.
And this case doesn't make me feel like I would need a warning if I would do business with bob123.

For anyone wondering what this is referring to: I pretended to be a customer to get untrustworthy accounts - which are up for sale - tagged.

Creating a flag requires the following:

• Must be created by the user who has been damaged
• Must have violated a written contract
• The violation must result in damage

There are multiple reasons why a flag is not appropriate:

1) There was no written contract.

2) IF you want to call that chat a 'contract', the terms were 'money for account'. Without an account being handed over, no payment is due. Therefore there was no violation at all. Neither any damage.

3) Rescinding from a trade is not a violation and did not result in any damage (Both would be absolutely necessary for a flag to be appropriate).

4) It must be created by @TrustedAccSeller. Why are you speaking for 'your friend' ?



If you are talking about a negative trust rating instead, this also is not appropriate.
Simply because the fact that i called your accounts out for being untrustworthy does not mean that i am untrustworthy in monetary terms.





I never explicitly said that i WILL buy an account - as it is - after the proof.
Once it was bound to the account having a good post history - which it didn't have.
Once it was after a promised +240 trust acc (which was a +6 trust acc).

There was no explicit agreement.

Even IF it was (which is not the case), a flag would still not be appropriate because simply rescinding from it is not a violation AND did NOT result in damage.





And both of you INSISTED on not using an escrow.
And insisting in terms of trying everything you can to not use an escrow.

This alone makes you extremely untrustworthy already.





We had no transaction. We were speaking about a potential transaction.

What confidential information are you talking about ? There was no confidential information.

Usernames are public. PM's which i receive can be shared by me without any consent of the sender.
You didn't even mention that you want to keep that confidential, which could have changed something.

The OP did say this in this thread, however this was not actually mentioned in the OPs conversation with Bob. In the telegram chat, Bob stated that he wanted to be sure the OP actually owned the accounts he was selling. There was no mention of post quality prior to when Bob agreed to buy the "green trusted" account upon receiving a PM from it to confirm the OP actually owned it.

Also, the specific account in question was actually Ntrain2k[/quote], who has not been active very much after the merit system was implemented, however it does not appear to be farmed, and doesn't appear to have ever participated in any kind of signature (or similar) campaign.


Fair enough regarding being conservative as to which flags you support. However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless (you can read my comments in this thread).

http://archive.is/rlBTD

You can clearly see this statement:

"Bob: Yes, 280 is good" - in which bob already checked the account and agreed to this  kind of amount
"Accountseller: Okay
Do you pay me after PM
?!"
"Bob: Yes with escrow"

You can take a look at the conversation and he would insist to look the other accounts and agreed to buy it he also insisted to use SebastianJu as the escrow.

OP confirmed it:
I'd say that was part of the agreement.
(archived)

The "he agree to it" is might be lost in translation a bit, but many posts are like this:

First: there is no flag
Second: I am under no obligation to support any flag, and I've been very conservative in supporting flags.

The flag (once created) would warn anyone considering to trade with Bob that he previously broke an agreement, and has not made the other person whole.
I don't see anywhere in which it was stipulated the accounts made high quality posts.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190619113422/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5155184.0 <-- OP's sales thread
http://archive.is/rlBTD <-- telegram conversation.

Unless you can explain why there was not a broken agreement (you say the accounts didn't make high quality posts, but this was not a term of the deal, implied or otherwise), if you are not supporting the flag, you are giving people an excuse to not honor their agreements with those who are unpopular.

If you say you are going to do something, you need to do it, and if you don't, you should be held accountable. There are no ifs, thans, or buts to this concept.