I don't doubt he does considering I looked at his operation which is what bugs me all the more. Clearly his business decisions in this virtual market have worked, and success without knowledge of these things on that scale is incredibly unlikely. Didn't call him ignorant, called him stubborn. I assure you I know the look of it.

Though you do touch on the indicator for whats going on. Which is the apology. couple quotes from your post referencing his own post.

Originally posted by POOP TITTIES III:

This is terrible for many reasons.

Originally posted by POOP TITTIES III:

You have no right to say he is attempting to manipulate the price.

You literally call his post terrible and say that he has no right to make his claims. And receive and apology. My own post does not directly insult him though does feature the rather childish sarcasm at the end. It also says roughly the same thing (though again yours being clearer and more concise). And either way he would recognize either as true. Yet the apology goes to the more direct attack.

Now certainly if I were in his shoes the more mature post might prompt the same, but my guess is he read the top post, jumped to some conclusions, could of been in a bad mood, w/e and decided to be really peeved at me. Frankly I don't care, I do the same at times as I'm human. I don't even care if I had ended up in the wrong with something he knew that I didn't, but i just really can't stand the sullying of sound logic. Even if it doesn't impact any readers for TF2, they might reuse bad logic later for something similar or not so similar. Someone online saying 1+1=3 learned to add from somewhere and that propagation gets my goat. Don't care about being right, don't care about politics, economy, what's the best movie, cars, computer manufacturer, console, tf2 economy. Just don't leave bad logic laying around for others and I don't feel morally right reinforcing the behavior by leaving it off.

As example I have some posts on Reddit in responses to questions about new effects/rarity. I'm sure he knows lots more about it than I do. He is 100% welcome to point out mistakes I made though I tried to follow the best logic I could with information at hand and explain the reasoning. Very likely I am missing information he has. I will likely have some questions.

A lot of the above may seem overly elaborate, ridiculous, and seem like it comes with a tinfoil hat. As mentioned before I have no issues with sound logic.

My arguements:
1. "However I do have a technically better product." - Proven, logic stated prior
2. "Not all impressions given are done from a direct offer" - Logic stated prior, I at least check how much interest items see from quicksearches. I consider it reasonable to claim a semi-random distribution of methods for determining the worth of an offer.
3. "if a duped item is on there that technically rivals mine, my offer may appear like a worse deal even if they don't decide to pursue the market price." - While this isn't the case in this instance it is no less true. I only need 1% of potential buyers to be impacted for this to be true.
4. "A reactive response of "should have known better" or "now you know better" is like saying it's their own problem for not asking about something they didn't know existed" - No force pushes new traders to educational resources. Therefore expecting complete knowledge is faulty logic. As a side note this logic exposes the new trader to the pitfall. Yet in this instance the trader is protected who is either 1. the exposed new trader or 2. omitting information intentionally.
5. "It matters what the buyer wants and more importantly what he thinks HIS next buyer will want" - Verifiable by previous arguments. If even 1% of traders consider this it is valid.
6. "Even if a person sits on a hat, they usually keep a trade going for longshots or unexpected" - usually may be too strong, I don't have enough data. This is a weak point however the point it is helping has other statements fully capable of carrying the point themselves. The point being re-iterated in number 1.
7. "But I guess I'm trying to drive up price with a b/o at 4 buds" - This was sarcasm and not to be taken at face value. That was a joke, and not intended as snide. However it and what follows implies verifiable fact with numbers to back it up and can be checked independently.

The degree of vagueness may bother some but a reminder that only 1 deal is brokered. It is inconsequential if the percent of potential buyers impacted is 1% or 50%. It does not matter if those impacted are 1% less likely to buy my product or 99%. My argument is that if not making the information clear either prevents or delays sale, my trading has been impacted by reasonably verifiable details being withheld.

Facts from the guy who's name makes me wonder why whenever I go to respond to people on the internet they have these kind of names:
1. "If 1% of the market is willing to pay 1% more for an item due to any reason, that item is by definition more valuable." - Better put than my own arguments, someone with the knowledge could probably write a formula proving it.
2. "You concede they are "practically the same" which is exactly the same as "not the same."" - Employs direct definition of words used, verifiable, does not involve personal opinion.

Slightly depressing when someone with that name is more articulate :/

@Norby:

Frankly I'm tired of the stubbornness. You seem to think you are making arguments in a discussion. What you have provided is conjecture without basis and reliant on repeatedly ignoring facts that have been explicitly stated by others and implicitly implied by yourself. While many of the things I have said cannot be quantified and measured they are known to exist which is the foundation of the argument. So here is the final rundown of what has been said. Pardon the outtakes, and any reading this are encouraged to find and read anything quoted in full.

You're comments:
1. "Why is your item a "better product"? They're practically the same." - Self defeating argument. A battery that holds 1% more charge than another and is otherwise identical is superior.
2. "Admit that the only reason you'd want others to know is so you can sell your item for more than it's actual worth." - Slander presented without evidence which could be readily found. The truth of the matter could be discovered in under 2 minutes time.
3. "That perception is only carried on by people like you." - I await the trade I mentioned. Again unverified slander. Furthermore if advising new traders who wants to continued trading I would not only be wrong to not mention the beliefs on duping but actively deceiving them. If they said they wanted X hat and I believed it was their "end game" hat, I would advise searching out a dupe at a lower price to help them, again to at least not even mention the option would be morally inappropriate.
4. "As a matter of fact I've sold many duped hats for full price and nobody even mentioned that they're duplicates." - Assuming truth, still vague as to whether or not anyone ever did care. Does not mention if they were publicly stated as duped, does not mention anyone who explicitly stated they knew it was duped and did not care. These facts do not defeat this argument but the argument can't be made without this clarity.
5. "I'd say the number of people who care about dupes is minimal, the majority of them being quickbuyers/sharks which makes a lot of sense" - Unverifiable conjecture. Fact that after years of duping existing that it will almost never be mentioned in trade information leaves doubt on it being true.
6. "I mean if your hat is cheapest on the market and is "the superior product" then it shouldn't impact your ability to sell." - another comment not made to you in this thread would suffice to counter this argument. If you wish to repeatedly insult me for the argument I'm making (numbers 2 and 3) it can be expected for you to read all new comments in such a short thread and consider previous comments when making new claims.
7. "I and a select few others are a collector of lv89 hats and I'm willing to pay 2 ref for one just so I can complete my collection faster that does not make the item more valuable." - Verifiable incorrect, self defeating regardless, incorrect definition of value. Every hat has a level, every level could theoretically have a collector(s), therefore when comparing a lvl 24 hat to a level 89 hat if they have the same odds of a collector and assuming same value to collector, they are equal. Self defeating in that if your statement was true you have just stated that it is possible for someone to get more for that version. If there were red and blue crates, and red had a 1% chance of unusual, and blue had a 1.0001% chance of unusual, would they have the same price? If so which would you be buying? Value is incorrectly defined as how much you get for it. If an aspect reduces interest to 95% of normal levels, you've increased average time for sale. In this time an item that moved faster for same profit could be on to the next trade cycle. This alters value.
8. "He might not be manipulating the price directly" - Implies malicious intent, I can guarantee you have 0 evidence of this despite this username dating back roughly 12 years. Two instances in my life I'll freely admit to. Lying in deals in Ultima Online (most cutthroat community I ever encountered and was 12-13 at the time, still no excuse), and in Ragnarok Online purchasing all instances of an item in a city 2-3 times, and establishing a new price about 5-10% higher than normal. There, you have my skeletons.
9. "saying derogatory statements targeted at the other owners might or might not affect their ability to sell. It's not cool." - Take a look at literally every number here besides 6 and 8, which includes two direct insults. Each one claims either implicitly or explicitly that duped status does not impact worth. Either 80% of your arguments you don't believe, or you don't believe this one. Frankly I think you just want me to be a bad person.

Originally posted by Blue Screen of Dea†h:

If the buyer cares for this they will check the item's history regardless of this statement being present or not.

The rules apply to everyone. If we make an exception on this case then we would have to allow all kinds of indirect trade references.

Fair enough that it can set precedence, but I still disagree. Granted I think a major motivator in this instance is the number of dupes vs real. The only other non dupe on sale is someone who was "cashing out" and never logged back into steam since posting, nor bumped. Adding "if it's enough of an issue" to the mix won't help dealing with other cases.

That being said I think the logic is slightly flawed that it is considered badmouthing a trade if I was to make a checkable claim regarding my item compared to others, when this is essentially admission that such a claim would be detrimental and yet not posting the information is considered fine. I wouldn't want to put this in my post if the information was readily available or required on the site. That being said I do not know the finer points of checking/verifying dupes.

It doesn't matter if I want it clean or not, it matters what the buyer wants and more importantly what he thinks HIS next buyer will want. Perception that a tainted item is harder to sell or sells for less is going to impact it even if it wouldn't in the end.

If there are 4 of an item on outpost all selling for normal value it impacts my ability to sell. And yes if 4 items all likely to be resold and functionally equivalent but 3 of the 4 may be considered less desired by 20% of traders, the one that is more desirable is a superior product. Even if a person sits on a hat, they usually keep a trade going for longshots or unexpected. If something impacts those chances that impacts value.

But I guess I'm trying to drive up price with a b/o at 4 buds when the dupes have a B/O of 4.5 and 4.25 buds with one also being sold on market simultaneously for 198 dollars. Someone better watch out it's a shark attack.

Removed but I don't agree with the logic. Direct callouts? Certainly. Saying "be sure to check for duping as there are some offers on here for duped versions" I think should be fine. I'm not saying the others selling the item are "guilty" of anything, as they could certainly not know. However I do have a technically better product. Not only that but I know I personally research a deal before committing to it including interest seen in other trades, level of competition, and relative pricing. Not all impressions given are done from a direct offer, as what I mentioned is a good way of gauging value. Same goes for the market (though granted the guy is asking for way high), if a duped item is on there that technically rivals mine, my offer may appear like a worse deal even if they don't decide to pursue the market price.

Regardless of above, the market may be cutthroat but reminders to be watchful are always a good idea. A reactive response of "should have known better" or "now you know better" is like saying it's their own problem for not asking about something they didn't know existed, and it's things like that that still have me in a panic on larger deals since the only help you get is when someone posts a message detailing their own screw-up. and you think to yourself "yeah would have gotten me"

The problem is your inventory is private. Two settings, one for game stuff, one for steam stuff. Go to your settings

Added a general warning to trade post, if it's against the rules alert me and I'll take it down.

Type in the box that says "Type an item name or type and press enter" what you want to look for. Then hit enter. A list of items you may be referring to will appear. Click the one you want to look up, it will appear in the series of boxes on the left side. This means you want to look for people selling that item. Alternatively you can click on an empty box on the right side and it will highlight that, then click on the item in that lower search box and it will fill that empty box. This indicates you want to find trades where people are buying that item. After one, the other, or both sides have content, THEN hit search at the bottom. If you want to add modifiers to an item like "strange" or "genuine" then click the item within the search boxes (so the left or right side) and a menu will appear you can make changes from.

I'm not referring to posting on THEIR trades, just my own. Currently the hat has two copies on outpost and one on community market. They all exist and share history. Backpack.tf lists them as possible dupes, no info on tf2items.com

I just want to list on my trade to beware other sellers on outpost selling dupes without saying what they are