Quote from: LoyceV on June 26, 2019, 07:44:45 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on June 26, 2019, 03:47:23 PM

It appears that xtraelv, suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, marlboroza are all abusing their positions in opposing flag #292 that is clearly valid based solely on evidence admitted to by the accused.

All of the above should be blacklisted from DT1/2

I'd like to see theymos' opinion on this flag. It seems to be dividing users:

Quote

292 Insufficient support. SeW900 flagged bob123 (type 2, see why). Supported by SaltySpitoon, Quickseller, SeW900. Opposed by suchmoon, LFC_Bitcoin, bones261, marlboroza, xtraelv.

I am willing to listen to theymos opinion on the matter, however what he says will not be the deciding factor in my opinion on the matter, unless he is able to make an argument that changes my mind (or if someone else does the same).

I believe the elements of a contract were met, including acceptance of said contract. There was clearly deceit based on bons own words, and there was clearly financial damages. This meets the criteria for supporting the flag.

Account sales are allowed, and as such there are no public policy exceptions to not enforcing the contract. No portion of the contract forced bob to actually use the account he agreed to buy, so the argument that enforcing the contract would cause bob to do something immoral.

I think this is a pretty clear case that should not be controversial.