First of all I want to point out that even the reporter mentioned
Not sure if it's TWC worthy but it's for sure sketchy.
However... both sypherz and video believe my alleged actions are TWC-worthy.
Now on to actual evidence, not just speculation...
In the report, BSGPSeller notes:
Here's the first thing. When talking to Sarune, a $200 donator, he says that due to the whole thing with that 5b and the gun, he doesn't do IRL trades. This was stated on the 11th of august.
http://gyazo.com/9600bdfecab730361ef4264ef0a90711
After I heard about the news, it really scared me in to reconsidering my idea of conducting IRL trades. If there is a way to view all the edits made to my thread, a moderator will notice that I edited my original post REMOVING the fact that I would do an IRL meetup. I did this edit a few days after the post denying an IRL meetup with Sarune because I forgot I still had that as a payment option.
BSGPSeller then notes:
However, then tells a newcommer that he's willing to discuss an IRL meetup.
http://gyazo.com/7885253b8f98a6da2e885f9c1b21664a
I did add svf.og on skype and we did end up reaching an agreement. More about this in my next few points, continue reading about svf.og and our deal.
BSGPSeller continues to say:
Then tells ME that he's actually got a leading offer of .485 via IRL meetup, and that if I'd like to purchase any, I'd have to go higher onto that offer. He then refused to tell me/show me proof of that offer being made. Also keep in mind that MANY large gold traders, myself included sell amounts via his same methods for under .45, some even around .42. Here's proof that this was also said to me after the 11th where he told Sarune that he doesn't do IRL meetups.
http://gyazo.com/1276e1be9de2956fd01c45d01af24162
http://gyazo.com/1276e1be9de2956fd01c45d01af24162
First of all, digressing from the main topic a little, if I were trying to scam, why would I be asking for .485 and not budge a single fraction of a cent lower when other sellers were allegedly selling for cheaper. No hard evidence here though... moving on.
Secondly, here is proof that svf.og (the guy mentioned in the quote above) DID add me on skype AND offered me the .485. I did NOT feel a need to prove myself to BSGPSeller that I had received a legitimate $.485/mill offer. Seriously, how does that support his case for issueing me a TWC. BSGPSeller thinks "He isn't proving that he actually received a .485/mill offer, must be a scammer." What I'm thinking "First of all, this guy won't be able to pay high enough because he's a flipper. Second of all, if I prove myself like he is requesting, he may just take my buyer..."
My proof that svf.og actually was offering me this:
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7769/55278239.png
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6788/42638166.png
http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/1973/16702172.png
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/1907/75727610.png
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9313/39477298.png
What to understand from those screenshots:
1. It is on the 14th of August, the same date that the evidence was taken by BSGPSeller convincing the issuing mod that I was being sketchy/lying about my leading offers.
2. svf.og and I agreed on $0.485/mill, as evidenced in the links.
3. svf.og and I also discussed meeting up IRL, also showing my willingness to consider a meetup even after I said I wouldn't (also why I added the guy on skype that posted about an IRL meetup).
4. We continue to talk about a date for the meetup.
5. I mention "in light of the article i read from the nypost, kind of nervous, that's why im having us meet like 30 seconds away from the police station." Another imperative piece of proof in my favor.
6. Overall, verifies my legitimacy in my statements to BSGPSeller noting that I had a .485 offer and that he would drive down to me and do an irl trade with all cash.
Next, BSGPSeller writes:
Lastly, he claimed that his leading offer was .485, and that was what needed to be beat. Recently, after I spoke to him, someone asked for the leading offer on an xmas cracker. He responded that it was $1550.
http://gyazo.com/86b1572ccbe81083f873309806d79c40
Well, I looked into the price of christmas crackers and this is what I was told, 3.4-3.9B. 3.4 being a MINIMUM, which means it can easily be sold for around 3.6B. At a MINIMUM, so 3.4, at .485 he's looking at around $1649, at a normal price on the cracker, it's about $1746.
Here's the price of the cracker:
http://puu.sh/W8NJ
First of all, RSGP and a christmas cracker are two WAY different things. RSGP is easily obtainable while a christmas cracker is not buyable from the GE instantly, nor is it easy to obtain from players in-game. Realizing this, I was hoping that I could sell my cracker for a bit higher than the current rate at which it would trade for RSGP due to its rarity. Obviously, BSGPSellers and the issuing mod oversaw this and my posts on my thread clearly stating this notion.
Please review the following pieces of evidence in my favor:
1. This confirms I mentioned I was keeping a leading offer on plain RSGP and another on my rares:
http://www.sythe.org/showpost.php?p=11353227&postcount=45
2. On the right of this screenshot, the leading offer on cracker is proven to by legitimate:
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/6286/40395902.png
Of course you notice his offer is a combo offer, but that screenshot is to prove I didn't just pull offers out of my ass.
3. BSGPSeller is right on the fact that crackers were price checked at 3.4-3.6b at the time he researched it. As mentioned before, I was hoping someone would give me a better deal to the fact that the cracker is so rare.
4. BSGPSeller also does the math for a $.485 deal and helps deduce why I did not accept a $1550 offer on cracker... because if I was going to accept .485 at a minimum, that would come out to $1649-$1746 for the cracker. So.. $1550<$1649 and $1550<$1746 so of course I wouldn't sell it.
In conclusion, BSGPSeller says:
I just think that with everything he's lying about, and the fact that he's stating he's selling for the same amount more well-known sellers are selling for but is basically only talking to newcommers and brushes off any well-known users is a bit off.
Again, not sure if it warrants a TWC, but I thought I might post.
1. This thread proves that I did not lie about anything. The original report did NOT prove that I lied about anything to begin with...
2. I also think that through logic we can understand why one may feel like I brushed off the market flippers/"trusted" and mainly dealt with the newcomers. If you can't figure it out, it's because all of the market flippers weren't offering enough to meet my price range! (Note: please review my original post where I noted that I was going to sell to Rohail, mod at the time, helping prove my case that I would sell to a trusted person if they offered enough)
In Conclusion:
1. I have proven that all offers noted were legitimate.
2. Behavior falsely interpreted as "sketchy" should now not be seen in that way because of the evidence I have provided.
3. I was willing to trade with trusted buyers if they were willing to pay enough, as evidenced by my correspondence with Rohail.
4. My IRL meetup anxiety is explained and proven with screenshots of the same day BSGPSeller's evidence was taken from. This proves that everything I told him was the truth to the best of my knowledge.
5. Overall, I am sure you now agree that all behaviors previously interpreted as deceiving/sketchy all have a legitimate, truthful explanation.
Lastly, I used BSGPSeller's name a lot in this dispute... this is not because I am trying to bash him or hurt his reputation. I did this because it was his evidence that got me a TWC, so I decided my strategy to get rid of my TWC is to debunk all of his evidence. Sorry BSGPSeller for using your name so much in this dispute...
I also want to thank Video for finally responding to my dispute 13 days after I posted it :s I do appreciate it Video
Hopefully we can get this case closed once you read through my essay I wrote haha
Thanks again.
