DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 what happened was, a price drop of an unusual i own, has passed within the suggestion, there're three of "1:1 sales" which i found invalid the suggester used only the hats' owner history and not trade post links in the 3 sales he claimed to be 1:1, at least mine was not, i added about a bud to do an upgrade and in the other two i found no evidence of them are both 1:1 trade here's the link of that price suggestion: http://backpack.tf/vote/id/53c770aa4dd7b81c0a8b4568 all 3 of sales shouldn't be a valid proof, am i right? if so, what should i do? should i make a new suggestion point out that the previous suggestion was invalid and suggest the "new price" back to what it was? please somebody help, i've never suggested a price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminal Inhalation Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 what happened was, a price drop of an unusual i own, has passed within the suggestion, there're three of "1:1 sales" which i found invalid the suggester used only the hats' owner history and not trade post links in the 3 sales he claimed to be 1:1, at least mine was not, i added about a bud to do an upgrade and in the other two i found no evidence of them are both 1:1 trade here's the link of that price suggestion: http://backpack.tf/vote/id/53c770aa4dd7b81c0a8b4568 all 3 of sales shouldn't be a valid proof, am i right? if so, what should i do? should i make a new suggestion point out that the previous suggestion was invalid and suggest the "new price" back to what it was? please somebody help, i've never suggested a price Then make a suggestion with a proper range and proper proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted July 19, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 19, 2014 here's the link of that price suggestion: http://backpack.tf/vote/id/53c770aa4dd7b81c0a8b4568 all 3 of sales shouldn't be a valid proof, am i right? I don't see anything wrong with it at all. If you feel its wrong, feel free to counter-suggest with proper range and proper proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 Then make a suggestion with a proper range and proper proof. Is it valid if I just point out that the previous one was invalid, and the price shouldn't be moved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curly Brace Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Is it valid if I just point out that the previous one was invalid, and the price shouldn't be moved? No, because you'd have to prove the old range was correct then. If you're going to update it, give us proof of the current market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted July 19, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 19, 2014 Is it valid if I just point out that the previous one was invalid, and the price shouldn't be moved? No, it isn't. You can't just say "its invalid" you have to prove with your counter suggestion that the one which was accepted was wrong with proper proof. Anybody can claim "Its invalid" Like we said...Counter-suggest with proper range and proper proof if you feel like its completely invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 I don't see anything wrong with it at all. If you feel its wrong, feel free to counter-suggest with proper range and proper proof. As I said, the suggester claims those he post are 1:1 trades but in fact not. I don't have new proof to support the old price but neither does him has the proof to support his price :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearly Gates Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 No, because you'd have to prove the old range was correct then. If you're going to update it, give us proof of the current market. he owns one, that's why he's unhappy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curly Brace Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 he owns one, that's why he's unhappy "Oh no, my numbers" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 he owns one, that's why he's unhappy Yea, as i said, I am unhappy lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted July 19, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 19, 2014 As I said, the suggester claims those he post are 1:1 trades but in fact not. I don't have new proof to support the old price but neither does him has the proof to support his price :/ If you really added a bud over the top of your unusual counter-suggest with link of your inventory history. Don't know how to do that? Check HERE Other two links looks fine to me. If you have proof of your claim and all, the new range should be 2.5 - 3.2 I meant 2.3 - 3.2 buds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 If you really added a bud over the top of your unusual counter-suggest with link of your inventory history. Don't know how to do that? Check HERE Other two links looks fine to me. If you have proof of your claim and all, the new range should be 2.5 - 3.2 Yea but 1 sale doesn't seems well to get a suggestion thu ._. And thanks for you guys, guess I better get thu with that new price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted July 19, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 19, 2014 Yea but 1 sale doesn't seems well to get a suggestion thu ._. And thanks for you guys, guess I better get thu with that new price Well, if you have proof of your history providing you added 1 bud over the top, then the new high -end should be 3.2 buds. Then you have proof of 2.3 and 2.5 So, the new range could be 2.3 - 3.2 buds if you could provide the proof that you added 1 bud + your old unusual(Anger) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 Well, if you have proof of your history providing you added 1 bud over the top, then the new high -end should be 3.2 buds. Then you have proof of 2.3 and 2.5 So, the new range could be 2.3 - 3.2 buds if you could provide the proof that you added 1 bud + your old unusual(Anger) Emmm, I don't understand, how do you determine the low end and the high end?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted July 19, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 19, 2014 Emmm, I don't understand, how do you determine the low end and the high end?? Simple...The low-end is coming from the suggestion (Sale 3). All I did for the high end is added +1 to the total value (2.2) which becomes 3.2 Again, remember 3.2 is only valid if you really added a bud on top of your old unusual (Anger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 Simple...The low-end is coming from the suggestion (Sale 3). All I did for the high end is added +1 to the total value (2.2) which becomes 3.2 Again, remember 3.2 is only valid if you really added a bud on top of your old unusual (Anger). I checked my trade history, I didn't added 1 bud, but now I'm sure I added 10 keys to meet up the old low-end And buds were 18 keys by the time I traded (8 Jul) So how's the range should be?? https://photos-4.dropbox.com/t/0/AACASebvdEfoFmqaBTGdUmVBSkGYqbdqExtAJqyuEt9HYA/12/41846552/png/1024x768/3/1405782000/0/2/fgddgdg.png/GTb8zyI8yFmd5dpyC8o6aXAkix3NpwbEwcMNuZRbX30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted July 19, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 19, 2014 I checked my trade history, I didn't added 1 bud, but now I'm sure I added 10 keys to meet up the old low-end And buds were 18 keys by the time I traded (8 Jul) So how's the range should be?? https://photos-4.dropbox.com/t/0/AACASebvdEfoFmqaBTGdUmVBSkGYqbdqExtAJqyuEt9HYA/12/41846552/png/1024x768/3/1405782000/0/2/fgddgdg.png/GTb8zyI8yFmd5dpyC8o6aXAkix3NpwbEwcMNuZRbX30 2.3 - 2.8 should be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 2.3 - 2.8 should be right. Thank you Could you please kindly do that suggestion for me?? Because suggest on a hat I own is just stupid and not seems going to success... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted July 19, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 19, 2014 Thank you Could you please kindly do that suggestion for me?? Because suggest on a hat I own is just stupid and not seems going to success... Yeah sure, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators OverduePixels Posted July 19, 2014 Administrators Share Posted July 19, 2014 Thank you Could you please kindly do that suggestion for me?? Because suggest on a hat I own is just stupid and not seems going to success... Done, hope you are happy now xD http://backpack.tf/vote/id/53ca76884cd7b82e0f8b4568 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIXON CIDER Posted July 19, 2014 Author Share Posted July 19, 2014 Done, hope you are happy now xD http://backpack.tf/vote/id/53ca76884cd7b82e0f8b4568 Thanks a lot mate ^^ You're cool Btw I made a new pic for myself, check that out http://steamcommunity.com/id/76561112454186126 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
u.v.bunny Posted July 25, 2014 Share Posted July 25, 2014 I'm not really a participant on backpack.tf but I had to sign in to the forum just to comment on this... I don't see anything wrong with it at all. If you feel its wrong, feel free to counter-suggest with proper range and proper proof. You don't see anything wrong with that suggestion? There wasn't a single verifiable trade in there, yet it got approved. There is every chance that none of those trades were 1:1. There was no evidence given to suggest that any of them were. Done, hope you are happy now xD http://backpack.tf/vote/id/53ca76884cd7b82e0f8b4568 This isn't helping the credibility of backpack.tf pricing. The new suggestion is still based on 2 trades that are mere speculation with no supporting evidence and only one actual known trade. And yet approved again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.