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 2All 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-informationYou can't put all eggs in the same basked, those are 3 separated cased and each one should be treated separately.
Here:
He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.
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.
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...