You don't see it a flaw that someone with a SteamRep caution flag for scamming is able to manipulate market prices? Especially on keys, when that price has an influx for 1000 keys right before he suggests the vote? I sure do and i can't imagine many others not seeing that as a flaw.
My point is that a player with a caution tag has as little significance in the ability to alter market prices as everyone else: his/her single vote is as "powerful" as any other players, upon which there can be well over a thousand on a single price suggestion; as we have already established, the vote of a player is relatively worthless seeing as the deciding factors to a price change is based upon the admin overseeing it; the players voting and the admins deciding upon a price suggestion made by a player with a caution flag are impartial compared to that made by a player without such a flag, thus the outcome of the price suggestion is no different than if that player was not flagged.
I would provide the evidence you requested if i thought it would make a difference. I know it won't and i am not interested in investing the amount of time it would take to prove such a thing when no positive outcome will come of it. I'm not the first person to say this.
The prices being influenced and decided upon by "certain individuals" is exactly the same function as how the original Spreadsheet worked. Accusing them of being "rigged and raised" is completely different. Rigging suggests fraudulent activity with the intent of personal gain. I wholeheartedly agree that the priced on backpack.tf are heavily influenced, if not based solely on the opinion and deciding factors of certain individuals. And there hasn't been any conclusive evidence, at least none that I have seen, that proves this to be true of the backpack.tf admins, else we would be in a similar situation as that of the original Spreadsheet, in which the same accusation was made with highly suggestive yet not conclusive evidence and the corresponding gaming community threw up in uproar.
I am not saying that EVERY admin on bp.tf is corrupt. That word was never used. However, to get a confession from an admin that he knows that things aren't right, aren't being approved properly, and that there are flaws in security and procedure speaks volumes.
I think that such a "confession" holds no volume without any meaning to back it. It certainly does hold significance, but his/her intentions and reasoning behind such a theory might be just as improper as the admins whom he is accusing. Of course, I'm sure confidentiality may be an issue with such an argument, it being understandable why he/she would wish to remain anonymous. But if you believe that the system is flawed, that some admins are not approving the suggestions properly (both of which I agree), and that the denial of this recent price suggestion is one of these improperly judges suggestions, then I'm deducing that you believe that the judgement made by the admin for this particular suggestion, Sir J-j-jon [Warrior of Redwall], is improper. And I'm asking you to explain why.
Of course, I'd like to make it clear that these premises I'm presenting are solely to judge the meaning behind the price suggestion in question. In no way do I intend to be irritable, argumentive, or hostile; my apologies if I appear that way. In questioning your argument I'm also questioning mine in trying to establish a conclusion here. This is just my method of evaluating the two.
