Quote from: xtraelv on June 30, 2019, 09:05:04 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 29, 2019, 08:12:27 PM

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 fraud to do so.

I agree with Techshare that value was destroyed.

It is a bit like someone selling cocaine and it getting seized because they get busted. Or someone blackmailing someone and publishing the details so they have nothing to blackmail with anymore.

Not something that I particularly sympathize with.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 29, 2019, 08:12:27 PM

Account selling is not necessarily fraud. Please familiarize yourself with the definition of fraud.

I also agree with Techshare on this.

Account sales (unless the account is stolen) are "deception" but not necessarily a fraud using the definition provided by TECHSHARE

However - if you use the alternative definition in the dictionary:

Quote

a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

https://i.imgur.com/SoZuuCh.png

https://i.imgur.com/Zv9oY8L.png
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

Then it is "fraud".

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 29, 2019, 08:12:27 PM

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.

This is where I disagree with TECSHARE

Deception was used but it was not fraud (Using TECHSHARES definition of fraud) . I do not believe a contract was made. The evidence that I have seen is where there was an attempt by an account seller to sell an account that he didn't own / no longer owned (potential fraud).

However if you use the alternative definitions there was fraudulent representation.

There was an invitation to treat / inquiry by the buyer. There was an offer on occasions but there was no acceptance of terms agreed by both parties - so no contract.
I covered that in more detail here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5157334.msg51571002#msg51571002

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 29, 2019, 08:12:27 PM

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.

In order for there to be a contract to keep it confidential there has to be consideration and mutually accepted terms. There was no consideration or mutually accepted terms so it cannot be considered to be a contract. By the seller providing clearly false information in some of the cases it can also be argued that the seller was in breach of any contract if there was one.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 29, 2019, 08:12:27 PM

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.

I do agree that private sting operations are not a good idea. Police sting operations often have stringent rules and can be inadmissible under certain circumstances.

A more proper analogy would be that some one who sells the precursor chemicals to manufacture cocaine getting their lab burned down by a vigilante after he gains access by pretending to be a customer. Selling accounts is not criminal, and even if it was burning down his property using a fraudulent agreement is still not acceptable.

There are plenty of words that have alternative common use meanings which do not hold to the technical and originally intended definition of the word. Fraud is a legal term and as such it has very structured metrics by which an act of fraud is determined. Let us look at the legal definition of fraud.

"Fraud

A false representation of a matter of factwhether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosedthat deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

Clearly what bob123 did falls under this definition. Just because account sales fall under the more loose, casual, and colloquial use of the word is meaningless. One falls under the technical legal definition, one doesn't.

Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

Offer - The seller made an offer at a specific price point.

Acceptance of identical terms of the offer - Bob123 agreed to the price point on the stipulation his consideration of revealing the name/ownership of the account and they both agreed to identical terms.

Consideration - The seller provided consideration under this contract by providing the confirmation stipulated, bringing it into effect.

I appreciate your genuine and civil discussion of the issues, but you are incorrect by your own metrics.

EDIT: I am sure most of you who oppose this flag do so mostly because you disagree with account sales. I do not agree the ends justify the means, but consider this. Theymos has the ability to outright ban account sales if he wishes, but he doesn't. Why? Because he knows all it will do is push the sellers further underground and make it harder to keep track of them. All you are doing is not only making accounts more valuable by making selling them difficult and more rare, you are also teaching the sellers how to go further underground out of the eyes of those monitoring their activity. What you are doing is not just destroying the fidelity of the trust system by allowing its abuse by exception, but you are literally having a counterproductive effect than the one you intended just so you can feel like you did some thing.