Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Next scheduled rescrape ... in 1 day
Version 1
Last scraped
Scraped on 01/05/2025, 22:39:57 UTC
Quote from: LoyceV on April 30, 2025, 03:19:44 PM
I have a question about the Type 3 Flag:
Code:
This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.
What if a service makes contradicting claims on their website, and only one of those claims would mean a written contract was violated, while the other claim supports what they did? Would that still qualify as breaking a written contract?
For context, see this post.

These sorts of things are all open to interpretation byVoters should read the flag creatorallegation-statement and votersdecide (with the same mindset as a judge in a legal case) whether it's true or false. Especially when it comes down to edge cases like that, people can validly have different opinions as to the truth.

My personal opinion: I lean toward thinking that a type-2 is more appropriate because advertising which contradicts the ToS is in my eyes more of an informal/implied agreement than a contract. But I wouldn't say that a type-3 would be egregiously wrong or anything.
Original archived Re: Trust flags
Scraped on 01/05/2025, 22:10:01 UTC
Quote from: LoyceV on April 30, 2025, 03:19:44 PM
I have a question about the Type 3 Flag:
Code:
This user violated a written contract with me, resulting in damages.
What if a service makes contradicting claims on their website, and only one of those claims would mean a written contract was violated, while the other claim supports what they did? Would that still qualify as breaking a written contract?
For context, see this post.

These sorts of things are all open to interpretation by the flag creator and voters.

My personal opinion: I lean toward thinking that a type-2 is more appropriate because advertising which contradicts the ToS is in my eyes more of an informal/implied agreement than a contract. But I wouldn't say that a type-3 would be egregiously wrong or anything.