Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Alright, so OP crated the flag Grin

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 05:27:14 PM

OP owns Zackie, Zedster, Ntrain2k, and Narousberg by bob123's admission

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.

Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 05:59:44 PM

None of that matters, SeW suffered loss due to deliberate actions by Bob
[...]
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 25, 2019, 06:01:48 PM

The agreement was to prove ownership via sending a PM.

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

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 08:02:37 PM

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.

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

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.

Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 08:02:37 PM

Saying that the information isn't legally confidential and expectedly confidential are two different things.

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.

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.

Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 08:02:37 PM

Bob had the knowledge that making the information known would do financial harm.

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.

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.

Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 08:02:37 PM

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.

I think you should really revise your definition of a scam.

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

Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 08:02:37 PM

SeW either as @TAS or their agent clearly lost monetary value as a direct result of Bob's intentional actions.

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).

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

Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 08:02:37 PM

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

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

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

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

Quote from: bob123 on June 26, 2019, 06:51:55 AM

Quote from: SaltySpitoon on June 25, 2019, 08:02:37 PM

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...

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.

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.