Re: Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information
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.
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.
Bob purposefully deceived OP for the sake of harming their business as is admitted.
The reason was not to do any harm. It was to protect people from these accounts.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Again, no. I shared non-confidential information.
You are quite literally a scammer my friend.
Your definition of a scammer is way off
I'd also like to remind you (SaltySpitoon) of the following:
1)
Short summary why this flag absolutely is inappropriate:
Creating a flag requires ALL of the following:
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.
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.
and
2)
Creating or supporting a scammer flag is actively affirming a set of pretty clear fact-statements. If someone knowingly supports a flag containing incorrect fact-statements, then that is crystal-clear abuse, and I will seek to have such people removed from DT ASAP. People who are habitually wrong, even not knowingly, should also be removed.