Invalid Price

[F CHARLIE]

As some of you know I sold a Unc Unt Samson Scewer and made a suggestion based on that auction.  I am here to say that the first price suggestion, done this year by d0, should not have been accepted.  The manner in which it was done was to correct a mistake made at the turn of the New Year and that would have been fine if the suggestion was done at that time.  Instead, it was done well after that time when the market conditions had changed. 

 

This post is not me complaining about the loss I took because I believed the price to be good, especially after I asked about it trustworthiness, but instead that accepting a suggestion like that was against the principles of the site.  As I said, if the fix had been done right away, it would have been fine but this price suggestion was done months later.  The old price would have been out of date and an item like that would have logically needed proof. 

 

Original suggestion: http://backpack.tf/vote/id/532da3234dd7b89b288b4568

 

Now I ask that my suggestion be accepted, as is, with all the arguments and discussions, so that present and future owners understand the back-story and see all the input.

[The Radiated Banana]

k

[NecroTed]

k

^

[FluttershysYAAY]

Auctions are not good proof at all. That's just how much 1 person wanted to pay for it.

 

gg no re

 

 

 

 

 

d0s suggestion was fine. Don't come here to beg for yours to be accepted :3

[d0 ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

The suggestion was mainly based on this - http://backpack.tf/vote/id/532cf3154dd7b8eb768b4568

 

Because of the more newly added "uncraft untradable" version of a few rare items I figured I would update them, well - I can't refresh the price so I only used sellers that were below the current bp.tf price, made it for the correct suggestion (the newer version) and made it more clear so people don't get confused with the dirty tradable version (that people still does all the time and think it's worth a bunch of keys).

 

The suggestion was mainly to update the uncraft version and there were no real valid sales around that time.

Your auction should clearly be counted as an quicksale because - well, you did an auction simply. You didn't put it up on Outpost (or classified?) so I assume this was just a bad trade move from your side. Not to mention the other quickbuyers who offered 6+ keys.

 

Doesn't look like the buyer got any experiance either, so yeah - http://www.tf2outpost.com/user/76561198132395513 (0 trades) - http://bazaar.tf/profiles/76561198132395513

 

Feel free to ask me other questions or add polar who accepted the suggestion if you got any complains.

[F CHARLIE]

The suggestion was mainly based on this - http://backpack.tf/vote/id/532cf3154dd7b8eb768b4568

 

Because of the more newly added "uncraft untradable" version of a few rare items I figured I would update them, well - I can't refresh the price so I only used sellers that were below the current bp.tf price, made it for the correct suggestion (the newer version) and made it more clear so people don't get confused with the dirty tradable version (that people still does all the time and think it's worth a bunch of keys).

 

The suggestion was mainly to update the uncraft version and there were no real valid sales around that time.

Your auction should clearly be counted as an quicksale because - well, you did an auction simply. You didn't put it up on Outpost (or classified?) so I assume this was just a bad trade move from your side. Not to mention the other quickbuyers who offered 6+ keys.

 

Doesn't look like the buyer got any experiance either, so yeah - http://www.tf2outpost.com/user/76561198132395513 (0 trades) - http://bazaar.tf/profiles/76561198132395513

 

Feel free to ask me other questions or add polar who accepted the suggestion if you got any complains.

 

 

I did place it in the classifieds and outpost and reduced my asking price to get attention.  If a collector wanted it they had plenty of time to find it and this guy hasn't sold his yet either.

http://backpack.tf/classifieds/search/id/533e14394dd7b8c6268b4818

 

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/19395638#latest

I originally posted this on outpost for 17, then dropped to 15 - 16.  In the end I put it at 13.  All that happened was that people curious that this thing existed.

That link is in my suggestion so I don't know how you can state that I never put it on outpost. 

 

Don't even try to condescend to me about trading.  Your suggestion had zero proof and was done months after brad cleared the price.  Logic would dictate that the market for the item changed but that was ignored. 

 

As to why some of you don't like auctions as proof, I don't know.  I have had auctions validate a price and others show that a price was incorrect (recent sale of a ps geezer validated its range in an auction).  I showed that this two week long auction had plenty of exposure considering how many saw it and that I placed ads in here about it as well (note the first bidder).

 

What you should have done was apologize for a bad, no proof, suggestion and moved on.  Instead you make assumptions about my experience with rare or weird tf2 items.  I trusted your word about this item and that was my fault but don't defend that price at all.

[Betasecret]

-Text-

I don't want to go into who has best proof/etc. But you posted it on outpost while it was still gift wrapped, how would people actually find the samson skrew if they would put it in the search bar?

[Seminal Inhalation]

You're about 2 months late buddy.

[F CHARLIE]

I don't want to go into who has best proof/etc. But you posted it on outpost while it was still gift wrapped, how would people actually find the samson skrew if they would put it in the search bar?

If you look at my trade posts you will see that 200 people viewed it on outpost and 500 viewed it on bazaar. Also, a collector would be able to find something they want to collect.

[F CHARLIE]

You're about 2 months late buddy.

My suggestion is to correct that price.

[Betasecret]

If you look at my trade posts you will see that 200 people viewed it on outpost and 500 viewed it on bazaar. Also, a collector would be able to find something they want to collect.

A collector wouldn't have found it since if they checked outpost and put a samson skrewer in the search bar and selected 'uncraftable'. 0 trades would have popped up because yours was inside a gift.

 

(Totally besides the point, but you can multiquote..referring to above)

[F CHARLIE]

A collector wouldn't have found it since if they checked outpost and put a samson skrewer in the search bar and selected 'uncraftable'. 0 trades would have popped up because yours was inside a gift.

 

(Totally besides the point, but you can multiquote..referring to above)

Please note the time gap between comments. If you hover over the item image in the first suggestion there are options to find it in on outpost, bazaar or the classifieds.

[praise]

I don't think prices should based on auctions.

A V. Luger could have been on auction and won for 7 keys. Does not mean it should be dropped. There is a difference between bidding for profit/to win and selling/sold imo. 

[emilights.com]

Auction is normally used to appraise rare items.

[F CHARLIE]

I don't think prices should based on auctions.

A V. Luger could have been on auction and won for 7 keys. Does not mean it should be dropped. There is a difference between bidding for profit/to win and selling/sold imo.

The vint luger has a very stable price both in trading and scm. I sold one recently so.... These items are not simular.

[Seminal Inhalation]

Nothing you can really do, there's already a suggestion up for dropping the price.

[F CHARLIE]

Nothing you can really do, there's already a suggestion up for dropping the price.

Yes, mine.

[praise]

The vint luger has a very stable price both in trading and scm. I sold one recently so.... These items are not simular.

That was an example not a fact...

[F CHARLIE]

So it got closed.  Not because of a lack of proof but because of controversy.

I state again.  I made a sale post on outpost that got views and had price reductions.  No one cared.

The Auction lasted two weeks but its last bidder

 

 

Both of these new "detractors" seem to be alts or have little experience at all:

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198134838025

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198041636923

The claims they make are invalid as their bp history shows none of this and their "proof" is ancient.  Where did someone dig these guys up from.

 

The suggestion has no counter proof what so ever and it had support from the community.

 

I just re-suggested.

[F CHARLIE]

I believe the site violated its own rules regarding price suggestions. Again, it would have been fine if someone had just deprived in January but by the time the 17 key suggestion was accepted the proof from the original was invalid as it would have been too old and no new proof was offered.

 

Further more, it would be logical for the price to fallen even this much by this time. Being so long after the items original pricing.

 

Also, the 17 key suggestion was contriversal at that time so I don't see that as a valid reason.....at all.

 

I know that I am right here and have seen no arguement that invalidates my assertion. I will not stop this as the site is plainly wrong in my view. You may have to ban me but I am just pointing out a failure if the site to follow its own principles.

 

Ps. If it had sold for more none of you would bitch that it was an auction.

Pss. Look at the auction of the ps geezer that was also in my auction plug. The winning bid validated its range.

[F CHARLIE]

@Vincent

Your reason for closing it this time are just as invalid as your reason in the first suggestion.

It gets higher percent vote the second time and since when does community controversy have the mods making the wrong decision(key suggestion rage ring a bell).

 

No one can provide counter proof. No one has a valid arguement as to why I am wrong. On the other hand I have made a solid arguement that the site should not have accepted the recent 17 key suggestion as it had no proof and was made well after its first price had been wiped. The site is propping up an invalid price with pure hypocrisy. I get people not liking me or my price suggestions. I know I don't care to put a lot of work into them. I can't put the time in so I am fine with the flak I get. I understand people discounting me because of these things but I am not ok with this situation. I have not been proven wrong.

 

Because I believe I am right and that an error should be corrected I have no choice but to re-suggest I the hope that the you will do the right thing this time. I will make the suggestion as soon as I can unless you restrict me from doing so in which case you should then also ban me from the site and the forums. If for some reason you allow the suggestion to be made but close it again for any reason than you should also ban me from the site and the forums. If valid counter proof is found I will resuggest or deal with it myself. I do not mind being humbled if it is appropriate.

 

I have been a decent member of this community and have enjoyed my time here. I have not been controversial or that difficult to deal with. If this turns out badly for me than I will miss the community but i will move on.

 

Thanks for whatever support I have gotten.

[Distinctively Vincent]

There are too many concerned about or straight out opposed to the use of an auction sale as proof for it to be valid. If you don't see how a method of selling with inconsistent results being used as the sole proof in pricing a collector's item is a problem, there's nothing more to be said. I won't bother addressing the prior accepted suggestion as it is irrelevent- even if it should not have been accepted in the past, it does not open a door for a new suggestion with invalid proof to be accepted. If you do resuggest without new valid proof, it will be closed for spamming and you will be given a ban alongside.

[F CHARLIE]

Here is where our arguments’ fail.

Quoted from Vincent

"There are too many concerned about or straight out opposed to the use of an auction sale as proof for it to be valid."

- Rare collector items are routinely sold and priced in auctions.  These people who are concerned have a veiled fear their item will lose value in truth.

http://galleristny.com/2014/05/christies-745-million-contemporary-art-sale-is-most-expensive-single-auction-in-history/

 

"I won't bother addressing the prior accepted suggestion as it is irrelevent- even if it should not have been accepted in the past, it does not open a door for a new suggestion with invalid proof to be accepted."

- Your failure to address this issue is simply turning a blind eye to it.  You are deciding to cover up a false, invalid price for no apparent reason.  I don't know why you would to adopt such corrupt thinking as to allow a horribly inaccurate price to exist when an alternative has been provided.  It is suspicious and hypocritical.  I condemn it completely.

 

"If you do resuggest without new valid proof, it will be closed for spamming and you will be given a ban alongside."

- The proof I originally provided is all that is needed considering it is rarely traded.  The suggestion complies with all site rules at the time of its suggestion. No additional proof is needed per the rules and policies of the site at the time I made the suggestion.

- You can not threaten a ban when I have already said that I expect a ban.

 

I will now add some thoughts.

Why would anyone expect that this item would retain such a high value.  There are so many variants in the game:

Untradable - 60,000 plus

Tradable and craftable - 60,000 plus

Uncraftable - 40

Untradable and Uncraftable - 40

 

It is completely logical that the value of these odd 40 would plummet over time as they are not special like a houwar where less than 500 exist in its two variants or the Smissmiss Caribou of which only 163 exist.  In addition to that, this is a heavy misc.  Heavy items are notorious for having lower values than other items similar to it (seven of lowest twenty valued unusuals are heavy hats for example).

 

Furthermore, your reasons for closing both previous suggestion are also invalid. 

1^st - http://backpack.tf/vote/id/537f81764dd7b801788b47fd

2^nd - http://backpack.tf/vote/id/5389bd3c4dd7b821308b48af

Controversy surrounds many other prices and suggestions.  That is not a reason to close a suggestion.  Also, my suggestion gained additional support on the second attempt (up to 68% from 61%).

In the end I have no choice but to call you out for making the wrong decision and to call out the site for allowing this.  It seems that my standing as a long time member of the site, who has been very active in it and concerned about its well being has gained me little.  I have already re-suggested and, according to what you have said, I expect to be banned.  Make the ban from both the site and the forums.  I guess it is fitting that you were the first mod I ever contacted and the last mod I plan on addressing. 

 

Ps. My only interest in the matter was to improve the site.

[polar]

First, after looking at the suggestion I accepted before for 17 flat based on the b/o, I think I made a mistake there and probably shouldn't have accepted that. It's somewhat tricky on regular items with ancient prices. Whereas unusuals have a ticker indicating the price is more than 3 months old, regular items do not. And most regular items shouldn't have one since craft hats at 1.33 shouldn't get such a notification. It would honestly be hard to figure out which items we should mark as outdated and unreliable and for which ones we shouldn't. Anyways, that's why I accept suggestions lowering hats based on b/os for regular items as better than current and not on unusuals.

 

As for pricing based on an auction, I agree with Vincent and other people who have already commented. An auction is not an adequate method to ascertain an item's value. There are too many confounding variables including time the auction was made, duration of auction, etc. Bazaar also doesn't generate as much traffic as outpost which is problematic on such rare items. I gave up on selling rare items there when I literally got one offer on my unusuals in a full month of selling and bumping. No, auctions cannot be used as the only proof in a price suggestion.

[F CHARLIE]

First, after looking at the suggestion I accepted before for 17 flat based on the b/o, I think I made a mistake there and probably shouldn't have accepted that. It's somewhat tricky on regular items with ancient prices. Whereas unusuals have a ticker indicating the price is more than 3 months old, regular items do not. And most regular items shouldn't have one since craft hats at 1.33 shouldn't get such a notification. It would honestly be hard to figure out which items we should mark as outdated and unreliable and for which ones we shouldn't. Anyways, that's why I accept suggestions lowering hats based on b/os for regular items as better than current and not on unusuals.

 

As for pricing based on an auction, I agree with Vincent and other people who have already commented. An auction is not an adequate method to ascertain an item's value. There are too many confounding variables including time the auction was made, duration of auction, etc. Bazaar also doesn't generate as much traffic as outpost which is problematic on such rare items. I gave up on selling rare items there when I literally got one offer on my unusuals in a full month of selling and bumping. No, auctions cannot be used as the only proof in a price suggestion.

 

As my ban request has not taken effect yet I will say this. Neither of you have proof of these assertions. I can at least say that I have had a recent auction of a ps geezer that validated its current out of date range. The fewer types of proof you allow will ultimately leave you with an inaccurate determination of where supply equals demand. This is like only using the gas station price for a bag of chips and not considering costco, Walgreen, Wal-Mart because they may be annoying to go shopping in. Yes the gas station is more convenient but is not indicative of all sources of exchange. You have been making policies I'm a community but do mot live up to the demands that you place upon price suggestors.

 

You should be have to provide proof and background information behind policy decisions. The market conditions may change and users will know how to provide proof that would change policy. The site was founded on transparency and should not sway from this.