I think Salty said it pretty accurately
the basic definitions of financially harming someone doesn't apply because you don't like them. Thats not how things work, and it speaks very poorly to all of your characters. It feels like I'm in the flat earth thread. I post "did someone lose money as a result of another person's action" and the response is, PROVE THIS PERSON IS ROUND IF THE SUN IS 1000 MILES AWAY.
I agree with what SaltySpitoon said. But I don't believe that applies in this case.
He made an agreement for both of us that he will buy the account if we prove ownership and use SebastianJu as an escrow if proved that the accounts is within our hands and we are not scammers by sending a message to him which trustedseller has done but he broke the agreement/contract and compromised a confidential information about our transaction.
The claim for creating the flag by the seller was clear. The parts I higlhighted in red in my opinion contradict what occurred.
Theymos made it absolutely clear that the onus of proof is with the person creating the flag and those supporting it - that you cannot create or support a flag containing incorrect fact-statementsBy supporting the flag your are certifying that escrow was arranged with SebastianJu and that the seller is not a scammer. Because that is what the OP claimed when he created the flag....
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.