Hedge sold his TF2 Unusual from $10 to $4000

[floppyfish390]

Genuinely don't understand why people are getting angry here. The user in question had a buyorder up and someone fulfilled that said buyorder (granted it was a stupid one but it was one nonetheless). It's not the guy intentionally lowballed tf out of him or even added him to sell it on the community market. The onus in this case is FULLY on the seller, and as someone who has gotten some insane deals from the community market, stuff like this happens all the time so expecting the buyer to do something when he has no obligation to do anything is crazy, remember a couple days ago how that guy got that glitched service medal specifically given out to valve employees for market place, people didn't get angry in fact they congratulated the guy for the snipe (which i mean it was lmao) I don't see how this is any different. 

[100 Degrees Leather Jacket]

15 minutes ago, floppyfish390 said:

Genuinely don't understand why people are getting angry here. The user in question had a buyorder up and someone fulfilled that said buyorder (granted it was a stupid one but it was one nonetheless). It's not the guy intentionally lowballed tf out of him or even added him to sell it on the community market. The onus in this case is FULLY on the seller, and as someone who has gotten some insane deals from the community market, stuff like this happens all the time so expecting the buyer to do something when he has no obligation to do anything is crazy, remember a couple days ago how that guy got that glitched service medal specifically given out to valve employees for market place, people didn't get angry in fact they congratulated the guy for the snipe (which i mean it was lmao) I don't see how this is any different. 

It's not the same. He didn't notice that the medal was unnumbered until after he bought it, and it wasn't even from a buy order (it is also legitimate to buy it under the pretense that if you don't, someone else definitely will). The fact that it is unnumbered was just coincidence. And if he had gotten the medal via a buy order, it still checks out because their intent was to buy a normal one.

Meanwhile Hedge set a super low buy order on a hat of which no unusual effect would ever be remotely be close to $10. It was deliberately preying on someone's mistake.

[floppyfish390]

3 minutes ago, 100 Degrees Leather Jacket said:

It's not the same. He didn't notice that the medal was unnumbered until after he bought it, and it wasn't even from a buy order (it is also legitimate to buy it under the pretense that if you don't, someone else definitely will). The fact that it is unnumbered was just coincidence. And if he had gotten the medal via a buy order, it still checks out because their intent was to buy a normal one.

Meanwhile Hedge deliberately set a super low buy order on a hat of which no unusual effect would ever be remotely be close to $10. It was deliberately preying on someone's mistake.

Exactly, the onus is on the seller not to make that mistake. It's not like ABC or other sharkers where they deliberately misrepresent item values to get insane deals, the seller did not do his due diligence (he had two chances to CONFIRM THE PRICE) and someone benefited from that mistake, not a big deal lol. You could consider that hat selling for 10 dollars as well to be a coincidence, its all subjective my man.

[100 Degrees Leather Jacket]

11 minutes ago, floppyfish390 said:

Exactly, the onus is on the seller not to make that mistake. It's not like ABC or other sharkers where they deliberately misrepresent item values to get insane deals, the seller did not do his due diligence (he had two chances to CONFIRM THE PRICE) and someone benefited from that mistake, not a big deal lol. You could consider that hat selling for 10 dollars as well to be a coincidence, its all subjective my man.

If you find a wallet someone dropped by mistake, in many countries you are not legally allowed to keep the wallet. Now this isn't a 1 for 1 example obviously, but my point is that someone is making a mistake does not automatically make it moral or even legal for you to capitalize on it. Also, your logic could just as easily apply to sharking:

"Why should it matter that the sharker deliberately misrepresented item values? You still had the responsibility to do your own research to know their value". So I don't know why you are convinced that it is different.

The hat selling for 10 dollars is not a coincidence. Even less of a coincidence than finding a wallet on the ground. That buy order was not a coincidence, it was intentional. Listing the hat for cheap was almost certainly not intentional and was a mistake.

[floppyfish390]

1 minute ago, 100 Degrees Leather Jacket said:

If you find a wallet someone dropped by mistake, in many countries you are not legally allowed to keep the wallet. Now this isn't a 1 for 1 example obviously, but my point is that someone is making a mistake does not automatically make it moral or even legal for you to capitalize on it. Also, your logic could just as easily apply to sharking:

"Why should it matter that the sharker deliberately misrepresented your item's value? You still had the responsibility to do your own research to know your item's value.". So I don't know why you are convinced that it is different.

The hat selling for 10 dollars is not a coincidence. Even less of a coincidence than finding a wallet on the ground. That buy order was not a coincidence, it was intentional. Listing the hat for cheap was almost certainly not intentional and was a mistake.

This wallet example is very dishonest imo, there's a massive difference between placing a buyorder in a virtual, free market, speculative economy and finding, in real life, someone's wallet. Legality means nothing in this scenario, but again morality is subjective. If we're using theoreticals, which you seem to be doing someone who doesn't have money could have REALLY wanted an unusual lucky cat hat and put a buy order for 10 bucks because thats all they could afford. There's nothing lawfully barring you from doing that, while with a wallet that's a completely thing entirely and has more laws and precedents to back that up. I get what you're trying to say, but its a bad comparison and very dishonest imo. 

 

My logic cannot be applied to sharking, as sharking requires the one thing this exchange could not have, deceit. The user (as far as we know) was not DECIEVED into selling his item for that low, he may have made a mistake yes, but there was no visible deceit. Meanwhile with sharking, someone deliberately lying about an item's value. Yes the seller is required to do resarch, but to pin all of that on the seller  where in ALL SHARKING CASES, the other party is much more educated on the suspected value and uses that knowledge to force a trade against a user's better judgement. With cash buy orders like this, this cannot happen. The seller is strictly responsible for that price listed and there is no other party that can influence that decision (unless the user in question in this case actually did influence them, but this happened almost 4 years ago so we'll never know at this point). 

 

I'll end my thread and my responses to this thread by saying this: I find it very funny that people are trying to police morals in this community when we've seen they don’t exist (i.e. Anti-Freeze Braniac for 385 keys which wasn't a snipe, just two people interacting and plenty more but this is already long so im not gonna keep going). Trying to change that fact is mute, you're better off just not associating with people and having a close group of friends, which i do now. 

[100 Degrees Leather Jacket]

1 hour ago, floppyfish390 said:

1: This wallet example is very dishonest imo, there's a massive difference between placing a buyorder in a virtual, free market, speculative economy and finding, in real life, someone's wallet. Legality means nothing in this scenario, but again morality is subjective. If we're using theoreticals, which you seem to be doing someone who doesn't have money could have REALLY wanted an unusual lucky cat hat and put a buy order for 10 bucks because thats all they could afford. There's nothing lawfully barring you from doing that, while with a wallet that's a completely thing entirely and has more laws and precedents to back that up. I get what you're trying to say, but its a bad comparison and very dishonest imo. 

 

2: My logic cannot be applied to sharking, as sharking requires the one thing this exchange could not have, deceit. The user (as far as we know) was not DECIEVED into selling his item for that low, he may have made a mistake yes, but there was no visible deceit. Meanwhile with sharking, someone deliberately lying about an item's value. Yes the seller is required to do resarch, but to pin all of that on the seller  where in ALL SHARKING CASES, the other party is much more educated on the suspected value and uses that knowledge to force a trade against a user's better judgement. With cash buy orders like this, this cannot happen. The seller is strictly responsible for that price listed and there is no other party that can influence that decision (unless the user in question in this case actually did influence them, but this happened almost 4 years ago so we'll never know at this point). 

 

I'll end my thread and my responses to this thread by saying this: I find it very funny that people are trying to police morals in this community when we've seen they don’t exist (i.e. Anti-Freeze Braniac for 385 keys which wasn't a snipe, just two people interacting and plenty more but this is already long so im not gonna keep going). Trying to change that fact is mute, you're better off just not associating with people and having a close group of friends, which i do now. 

I said it wasn't a 1 for 1 analogy. As for laws existing and not, it's complex, however it does not make the situation more or less moral just because it is or isn't legal. We make illegal a lot of what we consider immoral, but not everything, and that can be due to a variety of reasons that don't really have anything to do with the severity of the immorality.

Something I want to point out about the two cases: if it was deemed immoral to keep something another person forgot as you found it by coincidence, why would it be moral to intentionally capitalize on it as you see it happen? Surely we agree that you randomly finding a wallet is not the same as you watching someone walk away from their wallet and then taking it. That is also another reason why the medal situation cannot really be compared to this hat's situation, like I stated before.

Yes losing a wallet is not the same as putting an item for sale for an unintended amount, however both at their core are similar where it matters most: making an honest and unintentional mistake, and how you respond to it shows your level of morality.

As for only having 10 bucks for a cat hat, it doesn't really matter how much you want it and how poor you are, placing that buy order with the knowledge that the item is inherently orders of magnitude more valuable is definitely scummy and preying on someone else's honest mistake. It's not even that your superior grasp of the market got you a good deal (something that funnily enough could be applied to sharking), of course the nature of a typical good deal is fundamentally based on this to an extent. This situation isn't that however.

In regards to sharking, you're right. There was no deceit here. The point I was trying to make is that it's not as clear cut as "the onus is just on the seller" here. A moral person will not set a $10 buy order on an item whose value is many more times that. Saying that the seller should have been more responsible and not sold their item for $10 by mistake isn't really different from saying that someone should have been more vigilant so as to not lose their wallet, the difference is you are not willing to see the beneficiary under the same scrutiny because it's Steam Market and not "real life".

[Vrakos Anthrakir]

5 hours ago, 100 Degrees Leather Jacket said:

If you find a wallet someone dropped by mistake, in many countries you are not legally allowed to keep the wallet. Now this isn't a 1 for 1 example obviously, but my point is that someone is making a mistake does not automatically make it moral or even legal for you to capitalize on it. Also, your logic could just as easily apply to sharking:

"Why should it matter that the sharker deliberately misrepresented item values? You still had the responsibility to do your own research to know their value". So I don't know why you are convinced that it is different.

The hat selling for 10 dollars is not a coincidence. Even less of a coincidence than finding a wallet on the ground. That buy order was not a coincidence, it was intentional. Listing the hat for cheap was almost certainly not intentional and was a mistake.

The wallet analogy just doesn't fit.  A better analogy is finding rare art at a yard sale for dirt cheap.

[Flaim]

12 hours ago, floppyfish390 said:

Genuinely don't understand why people are getting angry here. The user in question had a buyorder up and someone fulfilled that said buyorder (granted it was a stupid one but it was one nonetheless). It's not the guy intentionally lowballed tf out of him or even added him to sell it on the community market. The onus in this case is FULLY on the seller, and as someone who has gotten some insane deals from the community market, stuff like this happens all the time so expecting the buyer to do something when he has no obligation to do anything is crazy, remember a couple days ago how that guy got that glitched service medal specifically given out to valve employees for market place, people didn't get angry in fact they congratulated the guy for the snipe (which i mean it was lmao) I don't see how this is any different. 

 

I just wanna make it clear I have no moral issue with what has occurred. Benefitting from user error is fair play IMO. I wouldn't have returned the hat personally. I... also wouldn't have max juiced a buyer for 2000 keys, but that's a separate conversation. I think my somewhat sad or neutral reaction to this came from a little bit of jealousy mixed with a little bit of just being sick of this trope. Seeing people make $3500 off some random internet loophole just seems common these days. When I scroll on Instagram I see YouTuber's spending $2m to finish videos, dropshippers make $100k/mo reselling Chinese toys, etc. I've just become kinda numb to it all, and then seeing that sort of hustle in action here in TF2 just made me... blegh. Sad about the fact that stuff like this is so heavily praised + a little jealous I haven't had such an oppurtunity lol. Total honesty here, might make me look dumb.