He still used deception to destroy the property of another.
No. I didn't destroy or damage anything.
Just because other people don't want to buy this account anymore because i shared non-confidential information, this doesn't mean that i did any damage.
It is the right of everybody to know which account has a trustworthy owner who has put a lot of effort and time into his account, and which accounts are simply bought and basically completely untrustworthy.
It is in fact equivalent to burning his product because it is now valueless as a result. The fact that account sellers need to keep their products from being revealed is 100% the result of the fact there are dozens of people on this forum who feel it is their right to go around policing the forum by whatever arbitrary metrics they deem valid rather than the forum rules.
So.. because THEY 'need' to keep it secret, I am no longer allowed to share that (non-confidential) information? Uhm.. no.. Definitely not.
I can share any non-private information as i wish. If someone is doing an extremely shady business which needs to have this information not shared at all.. that is completely their problem. I won't support a shady business.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to buy or sell an account regardless of whether you or I personally endorse it.
Tell me three..
If some one is actively engaged in fraud this is completely a different issue.
Account selling is fraud.
They are helping other people (the buyer) to deceive the whole forum to believe the person is 'trustworthy' and 'reputable'.
The problem with what bob123 did is he engaged in
fraud to preemptively attempt to stop a fraud he suspected MIGHT happen.
Unethically? Maybe.
Fraud? No.
Rescinding from a trade and sharing non-confidential information is not a fraud.
Even if that is the reason that other people won't buy those accounts anymore, this doesn't make it fraud or scam.
And everyone still seems to forget.
The flag is inappropriate.. simply because
no violation of the contract lead to damage.
There wasn't even a violation at all. I did not get an account, so i don't have to pay for it. Simple as that.
Rescinding is not a violation. I never agreed to any terms which stated that rescinding is not applicable.
The accounts are not banned. Nothing happened to them. They are neither damaged nor stolen. I just shared non-confidential information.
Just because the majority of account-buyer don't want to buy them anymore.. this doesn't make me scammer.
I warned the whole forum about untrustworthy accounts. The fact that people don't want to buy them anymore just confirms that they mostly try to do shady stuff with them.
Except from that.. those accounts are still as before. No damage or anything.
You did in fact destroy the value of the other user's property. Normally if you just found this information out via investigation that wouldn't be an issue. The problem is you explicitly used deception and violated an agreement with the user in order to obtain the information to do so. Just calling it "non-confidential information" is meaningless. Rights end where the rights of another begin. Just because you don't like people selling accounts doesn't give you carte blanche to commit
to do so.
Account selling is not necessarily fraud. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of fraud.
1a : deceit, trickery specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right "
You used deceit to obtain this information, you made an agreement, then you destroyed his property which he has a legal right to. That is fraud.
You were given clearly confidential information based on the agreement you would make a purchase if you were made privy to that information. Your "rescinding" talk is just you wishing you could modify the terms after the fact, that is not how contracts work. The accounts now are valueless to the seller, which was the entire intent of you exposing them. You intentionally caused him loss of property value. This is by your own admission, now you are trying to use semantics to cover up this fact.
The problem here is you made an agreement to gain this information. Just because you claim you had good intents is meaningless. You aren't some how special and allowed to have your own set of rules because you think your intent was well meaning. You want to get rid of this flag? Pay the man for the accounts you destroyed, ask for forgiveness from the seller, and I will advocate for you as you have remedied the damage you have caused.
All your double talk right now is just making you look more like you are full of shit. You fucked up, next time don't make agreements you don't intend to uphold. The fidelity of the trust system is more important than your compulsion to abuse it to punish people trading in goods you do not approve of.