Suggestion Question; Circling TF Logo Outdoorsman, 12-15 keys, Mr. Bucket

[polar]

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/51a65e44ba25369812000002

 

Proof included 2 invalid links and a link to an outdated forum thread. 

 

First link is buying "some" unusuals for 12-16. Second link is a guy who says he will buy any unusual, but he doesn't even have any in his bp and he didn't take a nuts sultan for 12 keys that was offered to him.

 

Look, I know a logo outdoorsman is worth >12-15, but how does this suggestion help this website:

 

(1) You are setting a precedent that bullshit proof is acceptable. 

 

(2) You are saying that opinions (all unusuals are worth 12 keys) are acceptable proof in the absence of real proof that the hat sells at 12-15

 

(3) You are not making a more accurate suggestion since 12-15 is just about as inaccurate as 11-15

 

(4) People will see that this price was recently updated on bp.tf and think that this price must be reasonably accurate when it is grossly INaccurate. 

 

How does accepting this sort of suggestion help this site? If anything it encourages trolling of the worst kind and misinforms the community of buyers that actually look at this site for a gauge to unusual pricing. 

[Christley </3 Peelz]

agreed to that one. shouldnt have been accepted. you need to prove all of the range. he proved with one link it can fetch 12. which was: http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/9257750 but he didnt prove anything above that.

id like a revert of that one

[polar]

agreed to that one. shouldnt have been accepted. you need to prove all of the range. he proved with one link it can fetch 12. which was: http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/9257750 but he didnt prove anything above that.

id like a revert of that one

Look at this link: http://www.tf2outpos...m/trade/9257750

 

The only unusual he has actually bought was 2 months ago on that trade. He has 120 keys in his bp and 0 unusuals. Last low tier unusual he posted was a nuts raincatcher 5 months ago. Should that be counted as a valid trade? That should not be enough proof to pass a suggestion.

[Christley </3 Peelz]

Look at this link: http://www.tf2outpos...m/trade/9257750

 

The only unusual he has actually bought was 2 months ago on that trade. He has 120 keys in his bp and 0 unusuals. Last low tier unusual he posted was a nuts raincatcher 5 months ago. Should that be counted as a valid trade? That should not be enough proof to pass a suggestion.

after seeing this offer, ive changed my mind about that trade http://puu.sh/34NSz.jpg

[Woifi The Viking]

after seeing this offer, ive changed my mind about that trade http://puu.sh/34NSz.jpg

That guy hid his own post. Maybe he sold it 1 min after his post to someone else. Doesn't tell us anything.

[Christley </3 Peelz]

That guy hid his own post. Maybe he sold it 1 min after his post to someone else. Doesn't tell us anything.

if i still had my nab hard counter i could try it. but sold it yesterday

[Mr. Bucket]

Must have skipped over the new posts: http://forums.backpack.tf/index.php?/topic/1187-no-unusual-12-keys-again-update/page-3 (link was broken on bp.tf btw)

 

I had not realized the 12 key minimum rule for unusuals was no longer active, so I simply thought the suggestion was a 12 key minimum bump. If I recall, a non-formal 12 key minimum rule for unusuals was established not too long ago, but it appears that time has ended.

 

1. Proof is not everything in a suggestion, normal rules (or the former rule I thought still existed) still apply.

2. Like I mentioned earlier, it was established that all unusuals are a minimum of 12 keys, it wasn't necessarily just his opinion.

3. I accept many "inaccurate" suggestions, simply because it was better than the previous range.

4.That can happen to any item, not just this particular item.

 

Now that the 12 key minimum rule no longer exists, It wouldn't help the site. If the rule existed like I thought it did, it would help raise the minimum price. I don't really understand how it would encourage trolling...but okay.

 

I apologize for not being informed that the rule was no longer existent, I should have been more careful.

[polar]

Thanks, Bucket. I had simply meant for this to be a way for everyone to keep up with this change because Woifi had also merged my thread onto his, so I'm sure a lot of people missed the new updates on that. 

 

Also, I never liked the way that "rule" was implemented. Woifi, at least as he told me, never intended for his thread to be implemented the way it was for this very reason. People start blindly linking even when the links are no longer valid. And people don't even bother looking for the hat on outpost. 

 

What I meant by trolling is that someone who is unfamiliar with the forums will see a suggestion like that made and say that it must be okay for me to make suggestions without any proof either. Anyways, I've already overdone this. Sorry bout that.