Change number of owned items to a owned tickbox

[♠Derpeh♤]

There have been countless suggestions where users would look purely on how many of the item is own by the suggester disregarding valid proofs given with a simple statement saying that the user owns XX amount and thus is manipulation and downvote.

 

I believe it would be better to simply change this to a tick box giving a indication that the suggester does own this item instead of a number while still fulfilling it's purpose. In addition it would prevent blind voting on the basis of the amount owned instead of proof given.

 

Thoughts?

[Grimes]

+1

[OverduePixels]

Yes, sadly I have to agree with this as well.

 

Also, how about this? It shows a tick when a suggestion is posted but when a person checks their backpack, then it shows somewhere in the backpack how many items the person owns.

 

 

I mean it would be nice to know how many does the suggester owns or even better, I would also like to know how many of the specific item I own, instead of going over and counting it myself.

[v³ Unknown NO FEAR]

I would actually prefer to keep the old system, as owning just 1 of something compared to owning over a hundred would be a big difference.

Besides, if even one person was even slightly attentive, and checks the suggestor's backpack finding out that he owns hundreds of the item, 

there's no stopping him from just telling everyone by commenting how many the suggestor has in the suggestion; point is, people will know either way.

 

And I honestly feel that the current way helps in the long run; suggestors will be extra careful to provide as much proof as possible and also not overextend by trying to raise the price from something like 2 ref to 4 ref in one go.

 

Literally right before I saw this thread I was looking over a user who owns 121 strange part with heavies killed spamming suggestions and trying to push the part from being 1.33 to 1.66-2 ref. People in the comments are complaining of his lack of proof (and with good reason, the guy has almost none). I feel that if it didn't show the fact that he owned 121, not many people would actually look over the proof to make sure he's not just trying to benefit from the suggestion. 

 

Here's his user in case anyone is bored or anything: http://backpack.tf/u/76561198031351917

[♠Derpeh♤]

Literally right before I saw this thread I was looking over a user who owns 121 strange part with heavies killed spamming suggestions and trying to push the part from being 1.33 to 1.66-2 ref. People in the comments are complaining of his lack of proof (and with good reason, the guy has almost none). I feel that if it didn't show the fact that he owned 121, not many people would actually look over the proof to make sure he's not just trying to benefit from the suggestion. 

 

Here's his user in case anyone is bored or anything: http://backpack.tf/u/76561198031351917

That's avery who is infamous among bp.tf members to always be manipulating in some way which is a horrendous example.

 

As i said for suggesters who do have a lot of valid proof many receive a lot of hate and criticism simply from how many they own Ill link a few examples later where it exemplifies this situation (having valid proof yet many people comment on how much they own)

 

EDIT: http://backpack.tf/vote/id/526c2c504cd7b81c628b4568

Here is one there are alot more in the past just cant think of any specific suggestions atm :S

[v³ Unknown NO FEAR]

Even if they have a lot of hate, are they ultimately the ones to pass a suggestion? No, it's the mods who do, and I know for a fact that the mods know when there is enough proof to support the suggestion or not. The example you gave is great; Although Offline got a lot of hate because he owned several, it still got passed because of the amount of proof he gave. What I'm saying is that by applying this system kind of keeps the suggestors in check and makes them provide as much proof as possible to back up their suggestion, and that only leads to more accuracy. 

 

Now speaking of Avery's case, he's doing what I said in my first comment which was that he was overextending; he may be right that the part might need a slight bump up, but he's trying to squeeze out as much as he can by making it from 1.33 to 1.66-2 ref. Had he been even a little conservative and not had been too greedy (and had more proof), he might have had a chance of getting a suggestion passed.

[knavesmith]

Now speaking of Avery's case, he's doing what I said in my first comment which was that he was overextending; he may be right that the part might need a slight bump up, but he's trying to squeeze out as much as he can by making it from 1.33 to 1.66-2 ref. Had he been even a little conservative and not had been too greedy (and had more proof), he might have had a chance of getting a suggestion passed.

Actually, I had noted in the comments of his suggestion that he had no proof of 1.66 whatsoever. Afterwards, he tries to use a claim and an item offer to support 1.66. The claim had no link or screenshot to prove that it actually happened and he assumed that 2 ref in items is 1.66 with overpay. (Which is wrong because anyone can set their rules about overpay.) The only suggestion he could have tried to make was a 2 ref suggestion as he had some proof for it but it wouldn't have passed anyways because there wasn't enough proof to support the price.

 

Without proof for 1.66, he couldn't support any range with 1.66 in it.

[v³ Unknown NO FEAR]

So if he didn't have proof for 1.66, why would he still include that in the range? I get what you're saying here, but Avery definitely did not make the suggestion 1.66-2 ref because he had no proof of 1.66, it was probably because it'll further increase his BP value and it's slightly reasonable if one takes a glance at it. 

 

Getting back to the topic here, the only reason why there isn't more suggestions similar to Avery's is because they're smart enough to realize that there's a counter that shows the whole world how many of that item they own, which will make more people inclined to actually read the proof, and make an effort too see if the links are legitimate. 

[Roller]

People these days are just too biased.

[OverduePixels]

I change my mind. Unknown known fear  made some valid points throughout this thread which I have not thought of and I 100% agree with him. He has some solid points. I think its fine as it is, though it leads to some blind voting and what not, all will have downside to it.