Suggestion: Scorching Flames Crocleather Slouch at 70–77 keys

Price Suggestion

~135 keys

scorch

72 votes up

5 votes down

Related Suggestions

This suggestion was accepted Sat, 01 Jul 17 17:26:27 +0000 by Marty Birdman.

Comments can no longer be left on this suggestion.

Comments

Clean ones haven't moved in AGES.

SALE:

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561197999542517#!/compare/1491350400/1491609600

Sold for Searing YWN (Outdated at 44.5, mini at 44) + TWatt Yellow Belt (Outdated at 33, mini at 31) + sweets (~2)

= 77

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/28800792

Unsold at 70 for ages.

YWN mini:

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198107520045#!/compare/1494979200/1495065600

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561198014600788#!/compare/1494979200/1495065600

37 pure + Peace Conq? Waaaay high.

http://www.tf2outpost.com/trade/28866938

Unsold for a month at 44, there's a 3-month unsold at the same price in classifieds.

Taking 44.

Belt mini:

http://backpack.tf/profiles/76561197999542517#!/compare/1495411200/1495497600

31 pure.

Let it ride.

Several of the clean owners are still actively playing and/or trading, and the previous price was based on clean sales, so this one is invalid by our criteria.

Even though it's basically a refresh? I've seen that get by, the Frostbite Baker Boy a while back springs to mind.

https://backpack.tf/suggestion/59395bdbe338774c8669a1c6 <- Based on a clean sale? Are you sure it was this hat?

And more importantly, is your example from after we changed our criteria?

Apologies, it wasn't Frostbite, it was GBH - honestly I'm surprised I was even that close

https://backpack.tf/suggestion/565f3c61b98d88b739e94bc9

I don't recall the criteria change being a set in stone time, and frankly that isn't how a criteria change should work, because that is to suggest that the old criteria was wrong or invalid in some way.

I'm surprised you remembered that at all, that's from forever ago.

Criteria change was first discussed a few days after I became a mod, so mid May sometime, and was formally introduced on June 14th. The change to the criteria was made because the old criteria WAS deemed wrong or invalid, namely in that it was unfair for owners of clean copies to have their hats prices hijacked by duped sales when they are still actively participating in TF2.

As far as whether or not this specific suggestion should be considered valid, "basically a refresh" =/= "literally a refresh" - a small drop is still a drop, so I'm not in favor of it.

EDIT:

In fairness to you, this was posted before we updated the guide though. I'll ask opinions.

Hah, Ive got a pretty good memory for these things :P

That's interesting - I don't disagree with it in principle, of course, but the fact it wasn't accompanied by any sort of affirmative action (like repealing the suggestions that evidently prompted it) worries me to a degree.

I'd be interested in a third opinion if its all the same to you Marty. It's not that I don't value your opinion, I do immensely, its just that I don't want to act rashly when there may be something here worth discussing within the moderation team. It's a unique situation in that the sale is actually ABOVE the old price, but using just that duped sale when there are duped seller below would be unrepresentative, and I just wanna feel out what a more general feeling on that situation is.

Sorry for the text wall ;)

Repealing the suggestions that prompted it would not be feasible. Imagine if we repealed every suggestion where overpay had been applied after THAT rule was scrapped - although this example would be more akin to trying to find needles in a haystack, either one would be a logistical nightmare. Moreover, if we were repealing old suggestions that no longer met our criteria, this one would've just been closed along with them - no grandfather clause for you.

Was told to give you the benefit of the doubt though - doing so by leaving this up for anyone else to handle as they see fit.

Yeah, I guess so. Sorry, I sorta a utopian idealist when it comes to these things, I don't often think about the practicality of these things :P

Sounds good, thankyou for the trust friend <3

Per Foamy's reasoning below, you get a pass. Lucky you. :P

If this werent so close to a refresh, I would have been against here, but on that ground I am okay with this here.

Another similar case:

https://backpack.tf/suggestion/562d6f80ba8d88a46da94aa5

Naturally, this was from before the recent duped discussion, but the rationale behind accepting that was similar to one applicable here, since the value here is "refreshed" within a reasonable margin of error. Whereas guidelines may have changed, I think the reasoning should still apply now.

[edit]

I should probably mention that at the time I made the suggestion, the outdated value was ~41.71, making that a drop, even though it displays as a raise now.