Originally posted by Sgt Feces Processor:

Originally posted by Champelliot:

No, that's wrong I'm afraid. If a person takes an offer directed specifically to another user, without it being extended to them, it's called trade hijacking and is a ban-worthy offense.

Yes, but what if a person sees the offer and directly adds the user without ever posting on the original trade page? I'm aware that actually posting on that trade is hijacking, but directly adding is a different situation.

Even if this is against the rules, there is no way for them to know that you did it. Sure you may have traded them for the same offer on a different hat but that doesn't mean they didn't make the offer to you elsewhere (different site, trade server, directly on steam) so it doesn't seem like there is anything that could be done, and if the other person rejected the offer then who is going to report you anyway? Plus it is kind of stupid to say you can't take an offer made to someone else if that person rejected the offer, I would hardly call it trade hijacking since there was never going to be a trade anyway you didn't really hijacking it.

Originally posted by F | CHARLIE:

Originally posted by The Once and Future King:

This is simply not true

I suppose the term is inflation of ref. I hav shown that ref has not lost buying power against many items for which it should if the current thinking is true.

This is because the way it is then those items went down in value with the refined. I would argue that some of those items should have went up as well but that is a problem with people not willing to pay any more in ref because they don't understand the simple fact that ref has went down in value and the fact that some are craftable (I know you are referring to some things like vintages that can no longer be crafted, but I would argue that those should be going up in terms of ref.)

Regardless, this argument should probably have been brought to the backpack.tf forums since if seems you are referring to their pricing, there's not really anything that can be done at Outpost unless you can get everyone who is selling Bill's to lower the value or everyone who is selling vintages to raise the value.

Originally posted by F | CHARLIE:

ref did not devalue

This is simply not true

Seems like if you are linking your external site then you are breaking the no advertising rule.

Originally posted by Uranium235:

For someone that claims to have 2 bachelors in economics, you seem to draw a lot of unfounded / wrong conclusions.

I find it interesting that almost any time this topic comes up, and it comes up a lot all over the place, that somehow at least someone or everyone in the conversation claims to have a degree in economics or some related field.

If trades were not closed for inactivity then there would be thousands of trades adding to the sites load that the owner is not even paying attention to. What if someone starts several trades and never comes back to the site? You would have their trades stay open? It is common sense that if the trade is not active it is going to be closed. Stop worrying about bookmarks so much, they don't do as much as you seem to think they do, if someone wanted one of those items they would have bought it instead of bookmarking the trade.

Originally posted by Not_Duck:

No

If the owner of the trade rejects the offer, then why can't someone else take it?

You have a lot of patience Samhudson for not just perma banning this guy.

A trade is up 24 hours a day. People are not up 24 hrs per day. What they mean is "Add me for a fast trade if I am online, instead of offering on here and waiting for me to get back to you and then waiting for you to add me."

If they only say it if they actually do it then absolutely no one could have that on their trades since we all sleep.

Holy shit the TF2OP symbol moves back and forth. that is so amazing, I never knew websites could be animated before.