Suggestion: Amaranthine Titanium Tyrolean at 39.75 keys

Price Suggestion

~39 keys

amaranthine

55 votes up

8 votes down

Related Suggestions

This suggestion was closed Fri, 12 Dec 14 03:43:24 +0000 by the submitter.

Comments can no longer be left on this suggestion.

Comments

Because I can't wait 3 more days.

------

http://gyazo.com/9c70eb410e9dc787ee838fc01c997e42

Uh no. I did not shark. Please don't assume things. See below for what happened.

------

Sold for 3 buds pure.

http://i.imgur.com/Lc3bKTt.jpg

Sale occurred on November 14th. It will be 1 month by the time this suggestion gets accepted… Probably. Current owner has not relisted the item anywhere and has mentioned that he intends to keep it.

Other 2 sales are outliers:

Sold for an Orbiting Fire Strontium Stove Pipe (.9 buds):

http://i.imgur.com/adwr94K.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Y5Wr6s6.jpg

Sold for an unknown amount (under 1 bud):

No noticeable change in the seller's backpack history:

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198148066278?time=1415347200

But it was listed for 1 bud on Outpost:

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/23645267

Proof that these are outliers:

During the week that I have had the hat, I have gotten an offer of a Kill-a-Watt Prince Tavish's Crown (3.3) and a Disco Beat Down Private Eye (3.2). I can provide proofs of these offers if necessary.

------

Feel free to leave your thoughts.

Fail to see how that's proof of not sharking, but it doesn't matter.

Looks alright.

http://i.imgur.com/adwr94K.jpg

How is this sharking?

Depends on your definition of shark, I suppose.

He himself clearly stated he was under-experienced and you played that to your benefit.

Anyway, why even bring it up, you could have just priced the thing and not mentioned it.

Where did he state that he was under-experienced?

Same thing can be said to you. Why even bring it up? You could have just commented and not mention it.

...Except you brought it up? The suggestion existed before my comment >_<

You didn't answer my question: Where did he state that he was under-experienced?

I brought it up so no one else would accuse me of sharking. Is there anything wrong with this?

Have you not heard of suspiciously specific denial?

Okay that's just ridiculous.

This was my original price suggestion:

http://backpack.tf/vote/id/5466a28db88d887d608b47f2

Yeah no. I gave no shit about "suspiciously denying anything". Until I saw this:

http://gyazo.com/9c70eb410e9dc787ee838fc01c997e42

Also: Where did he state that he was under-experienced?

Or the Kardashian effect, in this case.

Just let it die, the fact you're being so vehement suggests you have something to hide.

So it's wrong to defend myself for something that I have not done?

I don't care if you accuse me. But please, at least do it in the backpack.tf fashion: proof proof proof. You are basing everything off ASSUMPTIONS. Not to mention that I have PROOF against your words.

It's wrong to do it so violently and out of the blue that it makes you look like you HAVE done something.

And yes, you don't need to tell us that this is annoying you. It's kiiiinda obvious.

... Violently? Out of the blue? In what way have I done anything "violent"? And in what way have I done anything "out of the blue"? Please explain yourself.

And in what way am I making it look like I have done something? Are you sure that this is not just your own assumption?

And are you saying that it's not wrong for you to start accusing me of sharking? "Have you not heard of suspiciously specific denial? --> not accusing me of sharking? "Or the Kardashian effect, in this case. Just let it die, the fact you're being so vehement suggests you have something to hide." --> not accusing me of sharking?

How about you stop assuming anything and stop accusing.

He isn't yelling at you saying you're a sharker, he even agreed this suggestion looks good. You don't have to have a flame war with him to prove a point. .-.

Thing is that he is. As I have mentioned above, it's pretty clear that he's accusing me of sharking. "Fail to see how that's proof of not sharking,"

A flame war was definitely something I did not want. It's not worth my time. Unfortunately for me, I HAVE to respond to these comments, and make it appear like a flame war.

All that really matters is the suggestion, you already proved they're outliers. And I too fail to see how it's evidence of sharking, for he said he was under-experienced with new effects on unusuals, then you immediately went for it. But, then again he offered it to you, so I suppose it doesn't really matter. They're outliers, it's a good suggestion - so that's all that matters.

EDIT: Just realised I got the screenshots names confused. >-< - But like I said, I don't think it's strong proof of sharking, but it does prove a point that you didn't shark it since you got offered by it. So I guess you're fine. Honestly I feel it's irrelevant to the suggestion.

You have a few points there.

First of all, same question as above: Where did he say that he was under-experienced with the new effects? Are you sure that it wasn't ME who said that?

Secondly. I think that the suggestion is all that matters too - HOWEVER, clearly this was not MagnifiGent thought. Otherwise he would not have mentioned it.

Thirdly. Please explain why you do not see that as evidence of NOT sharking.

The whole point that I was trying to make - the point of the fact that I did not shark - is being challenged. As a defendant, again, I HAVE to respond to your comments.

Fuck. Things like this annoys the shit of me.

Also, for those downvoting my comments, I'd appreciate a comment from you. If you have something to say, say it to me and I will respond. If you think I have said something wrong and done something wrong, let me know and I will address it.

First off, I'm not around to downvote your comments, just clearing that up straight away.

This isn't the place to bring up this whole "shark not-shark" business. This is a price suggestion for an item, not the forums. Also, the person in your screenshot seems to only really be making an idle remark - the person in question is only a white belt, and no one even commented on the suggestion saying "omg that person is such an sharker i am agree!!!" so why make a big deal out of it? It flew under the radar as best as anything could, really.

Yeah. I suppose I should have never put it in the suggestion in the first place. I'll be careful with my notes in the future.

I never intended to make this as big of a deal as it seems. In my defense, I was doing nothing more than merely responding to the comments. Perhaps I should close this and resuggest, and this is what I'm going to do.