"The fact that he was "inactive" is why this could (and should) get a range rather than a flat value of 150. Items have a range for many reasons; low ends are supposed to indicate a value you should be able to get out of your hats with relatively low effort, whereas high ends reflect what you can get out of it when you're selling actively. For many mid-high tiers, a range ends up reflecting a pure value (low end) and the value in hats (high end), so you can't just dismiss a sale like that "because it was sold for pure and no one pays pure" or "because he was not very active"."

No idea why you think this should have a range when the 176 sale isn't even valid... how in any way is having a sale within the range appropriate IF THE SALE WASN'T EVEN 176? In what way at all does that make sense...?

"

As for the 176 sale here:

As I said to you before, if you're rooting for your sale not to be used because you refuse to reveal the amount of paypal involved, then all we have left is the 150 sale. Disclosing the amount would affect the high end here - a high end that is at least 175 and therefore higher by default - and would mean that this could be 150-175+pp. Thats why I told you to just disclose the amount, as reluctance to comply definitely should not prevent this suggestion. I do not understand why anyone would say paypal was involved, show a screenshot of a shady transaction (I completely understand people questioning the transaction as it happened significantly later than the actual trade), and then remove the value. Its obviously not because you value privacy (as you did not censor his name). Skepticism towards the transaction aside, there is really no one benefitting from you telling the suggester he is wrong, to then refuse to tell what did happen."

"

Firstly, saying the sale was atleast 175 doesn't mean you should or even can use the sale. If the sale isn't disclosed, then what good is the sale? The sale obviously included paypal and if im not willing to disclose how much I added then the evidence provided for the sale is absolutely useless. As for the privacy, I included the name because I honestly didn't expect for it to have much of an impact, but rather as a way to verify that a transaction did in fact occur and it wasn't just a pre-rendered image of some sort. I also have no idea why you think that because he was inactive this should get a range. If anything, the sale shouldn't be used at all with such a fact considered.

I also didn’t tell the suggestor what he did wrong without providing proof that paypal was added. I in no way need to provide the specific amount added but the fact that paypal was added means that the 176 within the range isn’t even a valid sale. Are you telling me that 176 should be within the range when the price isn’t even the actual price of the sale…

“As for "huge gap in offers = inactive": 27 days is not a "huge gap"

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/28275564

Im autobumped and Im quite sure I have been for the full time I've been selling this. No one commented there in over a month. Thats not because I dont get any offers or because Im not actively bumping, but because people send me trade offers instead.

Sure, if he got multiple comments a week during the first weeks he was selling it, and then had a gap of 5 months with no offers, after which the offer frequency would go back to what it was prior to the gap (along with a low view count), then the 'inactive argument' would be well-founded. This person has well over 2k views, 10 bookmarks, has a bunch of offer comments fairly evenly spread over time (with the exception of the very start of his trade, where he seemed to have been more active). Even if his trade closed due to inactivity at some point, this would not be a reason for that value not to be in the range here based on the evidence allotted.”

If this person legitimately has 2,000 views on his trade, then why is there a 27 day gap within comments? Surely if the trade was as active as you have suggested it to be then he would easily get a bit activity within the comment section of the trade... I honestly would suspect that the owner got the significant amount of views before he sold his other items. After doing so, only having 1 item within the trade might have made it more difficult to accumulate views. Regardless though I can't understand at all why you think that the comments are evenly spread and fluent even. Your only real definitive piece of evidence is your trade which, in all honestly, can't even be considered as definitive. Firstly, your trade seems to have actually gotten more offers within the relatively short amount of time it has been up especially when compared to the absolutely minuscule amount of offers the stormy hazmat owner received. Even with that considered though, I believe the reasoning behind the hazmat owner not getting a lot of offers was mainly due to the fact that he probably didn't have the trade up for a large majority of the time he had the trade up, but even if he did he might've not have even been quickselling it. The only backlog we have of him supposedly quickselling the item was only provided about a week ago which, if he only had the trade up for a week, would definitely make 150 seem like an incredibly low price.

“I also want to point out that you are misleadingly displaying your offers here. You did not get an offer of a Gfetti noh for this; you got an offer of a dupedGfetti noh for this hat + a whole bunch of other hats. You list minis there, but theyre all bulk/complex deals (complex for pricing purposes) involving a whole load of items in each transaction. There's a seller for the noh at 500, and youre ignoring lower sales on the noh (if you look at the noh's suggestion history - all of them have been closed because the hat was duped, but the values there are reasonable estimates over time for the noh - you can see that there's an in-date attempt on it at 385). Getting that offered for the haz + the other hats is in no way a solid indication that this is too low. The rifleman offer was also for this + a whole bunch of other hats.

As you yourself have indicated on the previous suggestion, you are offering this hat around on stuff significantly lower than 400. To me, that supports that his needs a drop.”

Your accusation that the sales were too bulky/complex is absolutely ridiculous.

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198086605050#!/compare/1469836800/1469923200 3 hats for 1 (misty skull law http://prntscr.com/c91w81) is complex? Too bulky to use????

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198086605050#!/compare/1467504000/1467676800 http://prntscr.com/c91zwp 4 for 2 is too bulky to use???

http://prntscr.com/c923q0 3 for 2 is too bulky to use???

I don’t think so.

Admittably there are a few sales that would maybe be a bit lower than 595+. However, most of them are significantly older than the sales that I provided and likely outdated by now anyway.

I also have no idea what you mean by “you are offering this hat around on stuff significantly lower than 400.” What makes you even think that I would do that? You might think that the offers I provided were sent by me, but they were actually sent to me but again I really have no idea what you mean there :/

My conclusion

- I would honestly appreciate it if you could stop letting your bias towards people not willing to disclose paypal information influence the suggestion. Your opinion on the sales here shouldn’t invalidate the rules set in place to prevent such sales as the 150 and 176 sales from being valid.