Suggestion: Strange Diamond Botkiller Medi Gun Mk.I at 2.6–2.8 keys

Price Suggestion

~7.72 ref

164 votes up

16 votes down

Related Suggestions

This suggestion was accepted Thu, 04 Jul 13 06:51:47 +0000 by [GIRL] Mr. Bucket.

Comments can no longer be left on this suggestion.

Comments

Unsold for less than 3 keys:

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/11981872 2.8 keys (1 week)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12102642 2.8 keys (1 week)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12236269 2.8 keys (3 days)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12292995 2.6 keys (1 day)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12172898 2.36 keys (4 days)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12312565 2.36 keys

Unsold at 3 keys:

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/11615188 unsold at 3 keys (3 weeks)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/11622900 unsold at 3 keys (3 weeks)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/11902323 unsold at 3 keys (1 week)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/11947756 unsold at 3 keys (1 week)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/11961828 unsold at 3 keys (1 week)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12006593 unsold at 3 keys (1 week)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12187013 unsold at 3 keys (4 days)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12203388 unsold at 3 keys (4 days)

Some new ones at 3 keys:

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12265263 unsold at 3 keys (2 days)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12326620 unsold at 3 keys

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12329316 unsold at 3 keys

Just changed mine to 2.6. I'm the person in the second link.

Vincent's theory is infact valid, but it does not apply to every piece of proof. Someone might be away for a while, but others in unsolds might be on everyday, we never know.

I suggest you look at Vincent's past track record of closing suggestions with heaps of good proof, like in this suggestion, before justifying him. He has made a mess every time.

Moreover, if you are going to stick with a theory then stick to it completely, stop this tomfoolery. He closed every suggestion because he was just being adamant about his theory and totally ignored everything, everything includes all the reasons you might give to justify him.

I'm not saying it's completely justified, I'm not saying it's completely unjustified, I'm kind of in no mans land here, actually. Unsold is an uncontrollable factor, we can have it as acceptable proof at times, but we can't on others. There are the fellows who put up a trade, on autobump, but leave it for weeks at a time. We can never know which is which, as we do not have record of the amount of time the person is on, so Vincent played it the safe way and decided to rule it out altogether. I can see why he wanted to rule it out, but it doesn't apply to every piece of proof in every suggestion. Some might be unsold, but some might not be able to sell mainly because of the person being gone for a while, in conclusion.

Well I would agree that unbumps for 4-5 days, not online for 2-3 days etc etc are not valid proofs but that does not mean you ignore every other legit proof because you have a stupid theory, and that is what exactly he has been doing.

We don't know exactly when they are on steam and when they are not, it's impossible to know. Vincent is ignoring them for the sole purpose of not knowing which one is exactly which, which is saving us the confusion.

Well if you/Vincent are going to judge this suggestion on this statement then I would like to see Vincent closing this suggestion this instant, because there is no way you or Vincent can tell when these guys were on line or when they were not.

I came in fully prepared to close this if it was solely supported on unsolds. If there isn't a substantial amount of valid proof left after unsolds are removed, I close it. In this situation, these proofs remain after unsolds are removed:

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/11981872 2.8 keys (1 week)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12102642 2.8 keys (1 week)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12236269 2.8 keys (3 days)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12292995 2.6 keys (1 day)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12172898 2.36 keys (4 days)

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12312565 2.36 keys

Enough to support a new suggestion. If you believe I'm acting inconsistent, feel free to point out the problem suggestions to me rather than ranting in a suggestion I may or may not see before another mod handles it.

And to be clear, as I believe you have misunderstood what is meant by 'unsolds' in the past. An 'unsold', as used on this site, isn't just any incomplete trade. It is meant in reference to the use of trades at a price to take said price out of range. For example, reducing 1.33-1.66 to 1.33 by only showing 1.66 trades and arguing they aren't happening. Or reducing 4 refined to 3.66-4 refined by only showing 4 refined trades and arguing they aren't happening. In these examples, what's being shown is only 'unsolds', arguing that a reduction is needed on the basis of trades not happening- an invalid argument, we do not see all trades that are happening and there are all too many market unrelated reasons why a specific trade may be not completing in a timely manner. In the case of showing many available 1.33 trade to reduce 1.66 to 1.33, or showing a fair amount of available 3.66 trades to reduce 4 refined to 3.66--4, while these trades haven't completed, they aren't 'unsolds' in the sense that they are not being used to argue that they are failing to sell, but rather that their availability to sell is significant.

Let me know if the above makes sense or not, I can try to explain it in another way if not.

I traded my Diamond Medi Gun just now for a SF Ubersaw, which is worth more than 3 keys, but the reason that they paid that much is because my Medi Gun was level 1, so you should ignore my trade in the proof that I provided.

I tried discussing it with chief shoe and you on this, Unfortunately I could only speak to him in time, and he disagreed with your theory and he still does. But again the point is I was only given a diplomatic answer.

coming back to this:

If, in this case; just an example, the suggester clearly identifies shiploads of sales / willing sellers at 3.66 ref and shows only few unsold at 4 ref, I would be surprised to see if that suggestion is put down. The simple fact to comprehend is that y would anyone pay 4 ref if there are abundant 3.66 sellers, even in the ratio of 2:1.

We do not see all trades that are happening and there are all too many market unrelated reasons why a specific trade may be not completing in a timely manner.

This website would never see all the trades, and all those market unrelated reasons apply to all the 'unsolds', at whatever price. Just on the basis of 1-2 comments per trade or trade notes backpack.tf can never validate the authenticity of the trades.

In the case of showing many available 1.33 trade to reduce 1.66 to 1.33, or showing a fair amount of available 3.66 trades to reduce 4 refined to 3.66--4, while these trades haven't completed, they aren't 'unsolds' in the sense that they are being proven not to argue they aren't selling, but simply that they are available to sell.

Simply available for sale but not being bought at that price, and your fellow sellers, shiploads of them selling for less warrants a price reduction, in any book.

What all in your opinion are not valid, actually are very valid reasons. If any items warrants a price reduction from whatever range, in this website's history the moderators have catered to 'unsolds' as proof. To be frank what else would you want? the suggester gave you people selling for less and unsolds at that price, and yet to fail to acknowledge them.

Um...

Just unsolds is not enough.

If there are unsolds of an item at value X, but no one is willing to sell lower, then just unsolds isn't valid. However, Puddington provided unsolds UNDER the current price, so in this case it's valid.

Again there could be hundred and one reasons why they are unsold. The guy was not available to trade, the buyer was off-line, different time zones etc etc.

Let me clear it, I totally support this proof, my problem is with hippocratic people.

Either you stick to the fact that unsolds are not valid proof or not. If you have checked links and find them not a suitable evidence then that is the best thing, but to close every suggestion because of an idiot's theory?

The key word is just unsolds aren't valid proof. However, this suggestion is valid because he provided unsolds below the current price.

Lol dude tell this to Vincent not me. I know this already and I agree. As long as Vincent is happy with accepting any unsolds as proof, at whatever price, I am happy.

You were just arguing with what I was saying....

Um...

Just unsolds is not enough.

Dude Vincent's argument is that there could be a hundred reason why those unsolds , even at lower prices, are still unsolds. It may have been possible the buyer was not online, seller was not online, timings did not match, met a jerk, whatever. In this instance the prices does not matter.

Vincent in the past has fucked up suggestions which included proof of unsolds well beyond the current price of the article and yet because of his theory he closed them.

If this suggestion is accepted then I would like to see Vincent not fooling around with other valid suggestions with proofs exactly like this. Do you understand now?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Replying here for your comment below, ran out of space, if you need links then do it yourself, if Vincent asks me to link it I shall do it for him, but not for you. There is no point proving it to you. I have tired to prove many things to you in the past, on your key suggestions, which you have not understood and always argued over. And all of their results have been in my favour. So your arguments have lost their value to me.

Link me to a suggestion where Vincent closed it because the proof was unsolds less than the current market price.

not cleverpun

yes mod

upvote!

Sold at 3 keys

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/12269180

just one.