Readalots Enhanced Testing

[AlexDavis43]

Alex,
My post had nothing to say about any kind of testing. The topic was not about testing.

Millard's entire post was solely discussing bans for sources who engage in harmful behavior. The posts that led Millard to make his post were discussing bans for sources who engage in harmful behavior being "voted of the island."

Voting off harmful behavior and enhanced testing are separate topics. You're mixing the two... honest mistake... you're not the only one.

Well then I wish you would call it something else as the phrase harm reduction is largely tied to testing (but now I see that you meant banning a harmful source).

If I voted not to ban a source I wouldn't want it said that I voted against harm reduction.

 

[T-Bagger]

Well then I wish you would call it something else as the phrase harm reduction is largely tied to testing (but now I see that you meant banning a harmful source).

If I voted not to ban a source I wouldn't want it said that I voted against harm reduction.

I think the votes and who voted for what would need to be visible lol. That way when we see shills like @musclesiege or @narta voting to keep a source, we have all the proof we need.

 

[AlexDavis43]

I think the votes and who voted for what would need to be visible lol. That way when we see shills like @musclesiege or @narta voting to keep a source, we have all the proof we need.

I mean, it could also be voting to let the people choose - if they have all the information and understand the risks, they should still be able to order. Freedom and transparency or something.

I don't know how many noobs come here and place an order with zero source vetting. But I guess there could be quiet ones who send an email to the first source they find. Sucks if that's one of the shitty ones. That's what we're talking about here, right?

If a member has been following along and still chooses to order, that's on them. They have accepted the risk.

 

[T-Bagger]

I don't know how many noobs come here and place an order with zero source vetting. But I guess there could be quiet ones who send an email to the first source they find. Sucks if that's one of the shitty ones. That's what we're talking about here, right?

Lol, a lot of noobs would openly brag about it, trying to lend credibility to a new source.

Honestly, I have no idea what people are talking about when they bring up a voting system.

 

[bigMoJo]

Well then I wish you would call it something else as the phrase harm reduction is largely tied to testing (but now I see that you meant banning a harmful source).

If I voted not to ban a source I wouldn't want it said that I voted against harm reduction.

I understand exactly what you mean.

"Harm Reduction" and "Enhanced Testing" seem to keep getting conflated together.

They are two separate topics/ideas, but with near identical values.

When discussing one, the other becomes interjected as if they MUST go hand-in-hand. This is a false equivalency.

In furthering our discussions, we need to make sure the context surrounding either is adequately understood before making judgment on the view expressed... otherwise we fall down the slippery "shill" slope that has been erroneously constructed.

 

[musclesiege]

I think the votes and who voted for what would need to be visible lol. That way when we see shills like @musclesiege or @narta voting to keep a source, we have all the proof we need.

Yeah man. The only thing that gets me revved up more than tren or a hot chick is my votes and likes. @T-Bagger you’re so shilly. Shill.

 

[musclesiege]

I know I brought up @lonewolf54321 a few times. Sure he is a cunt, but he is a friend and has helped throw down for testing, peptides, HGH, etc.

It was his first offense. He definitely is a part of the harm reduction community(well private)

Just the particular community he is part of will be where I post my tests.

I second this about @lonewolf54321. He’s had been a valuable source of information and harm reduction. He was frustrated with some commentary and had the same frustrations with some of the trends lately and used not ideal language to communicate it. Seems rough to get banned for language when others seemed to get less punished for more direct personal attacks or worse as mentioned in the thread of sources threatening people.

 

[B Ware]

I second this about @lonewolf54321. He’s had been a valuable source of information and harm reduction. He was frustrated with some commentary and had the same frustrations with some of the trends lately and used not ideal language to communicate it. Seems rough to get banned for language when others seemed to get less punished for more direct personal attacks or worse as mentioned in the thread of sources threatening people.

This is the most troubling thing about sources being untouchable. Look at the very thing that got BBBG banned. A source (Naps) had put out a bounty out to anyone that would provide him with BBBG’s home address. 3BG responded with he had a long driveway and will protect his family and himself, and he was banned for it. What I’m getting at is we seriously banned the member over this and allowed the source back? Screw that. I’ve seen countless threats made by sources over the years. When we hold them accountable and fuck with their business they can get down right dirty. Why on earth would I or anyone go hold a source accountable when a source can make threats and dox members and only get a temp ban for it? But if a member were to make the same threat or dox they are gone like a fart in the wind. This is harm reduction?

 

[musclesiege]

This is the most troubling thing about sources being untouchable. Look at the very thing that got BBBG banned. A source (Naps) had put out a bounty out to anyone that would provide him with BBBG’s home address. 3BG responded with he had a long driveway and will protect his family and himself, and he was banned for it. What I’m getting at is we seriously banned the member over this and allowed the source back? Screw that. I’ve seen countless threats made by sources over the years. When we hold them accountable and fuck with their business they can get down right dirty. Why on earth would I or anyone go hold a source accountable when a source can make threats and dox members and only get a temp ban for it? But if a member were to make the same threat or dox they are gone like a fart in the wind. This is harm reduction?

I agree. I’d love to see at @phenomenal34 back as well. He lost his cool at read and got banned. He also was active in harm reduction and posted helpful information and was also pushing against bad sources. At least a way to come back when the ban was from just losing patience.

 

[iris]

Nope, on that one, disagree 100%.

 

[musclesiege]

Nope, on that one, disagree 100%.

I would hope he’s learned his lesson to not be harsh and to let stuff go. And I’d guess to keep his distance from you . I vaguely remember a thread where he was let’s say not nice to you. If not he can easily get bitch slapped back to banned.

 

[RekTest]

@Millard
I would like some clarification on bans

How do bans affect a member's status and has this been formalised?

are there set rules about this or is it down to someone's discretion?

 

[QueenBee]

I second this about @lonewolf54321. He’s had been a valuable source of information and harm reduction. He was frustrated with some commentary and had the same frustrations with some of the trends lately and used not ideal language to communicate it. Seems rough to get banned for language when others seemed to get less punished for more direct personal attacks or worse as mentioned in the thread of sources threatening people.

What did he say? I agree he and Phenomenal are both valuable members in this community.

 

[QueenBee]

Not sure if everyone remembers the abuse I endured from Ryno the scammer and OS, But I can forgive.

 

[Millard]

So this is where me and others get confused. The members were permanently banned for breaking the rules multiple times. However when a source does it, it’s a temporary ban? So is there a set in stone number of times the rules need to be broken for a permanent ban? I’m not being sarcastic I’m genuinely confused on what that number is. We were all under the impression the “3 strikes you’re out” rule was a thing.

It is the willful and deliberate noncompliance that will always get a permanent ban. if you deliberately violate thhe same rules despite being warned, it is a pattern of behavior that can not be explained by ignorance or accidental oversight. This is a nonstarter on any rule based forum

If it involving breaking several different rules; it is still a problem but the consequences will be less severe because it takes into account lack of familiarity, unintentional behavior, lapse of judgment, and of course acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility:

 

[iris]

@Millard
I would like some clarification on bans

How do bans affect a member's status and has this been formalised?

are there set rules about this or is it down to someone's discretion?

Yes, interesting to know this one.
One gets banned and they lose the well known member status, end of.
Or does it require more than one ban?
It depends on the reason for it or just the ban itself is enough?

Did Readalot and Narta lose the WKM status after being banned for the first time?

 

[Millard]

Personally I don’t see how that is promoting harm reduction. To me, vendors now have the power the members use to have. I have personally backed off holding sources accountable out of fear of being banned for harassing or spamming and I’ve seen many others do the same.

No one has ever been banned for holding sources accountable. Ever.

Rather than try to convince people they will be banned if they dare criticize a source on MESO...

Why not encourage EVERYONE to criticize, and hold sources accountable for any and all issues of concern?

Why not make it a challenge?

Wy not start with those that sponsor the site?

And see what happens

That would seem like the most logical way to make your case.

If what I have been saying about member freedom to hold sources accountable is and has always been correct: Or it is not:

Please do not be afraid to find out.

Just keep in mind the minimal level of guidance when it comes to the Steroid Underground subforum. This involves things like no threats, no doxxing, no racism, and no burying threads with page after page of cut/paste of text messages or explicit pornography or anything designed to make the thread unreadable.

And i guess it needs to be said no discussion of raping and sexually assaulting source wives and mothers, alive or dead; or murdering their family members in a wood chipper for that matter. In case anyone thinks that is allowed

These minimal restrictions should not prevent any members from freely expressing their opinions and exposing bad source behavior.

One thing I learned from previous experiences is that warnings are probably the best approach if members do cross the line in the heat of the moment when criticizing a source, I have taken tis approach for the last few years with success:

So even if you do unintentional cross the line; you will not even be temporarily banned - you will just receive warning.

However, please heed any warnings. If any members (long-standing members notwithstanding) show willful noncompliance to these prohibitions even after numerous warnings, the refusal to comply undermines the forum as a whole. This will not be tolerated.

In case you missed my recent post about good ways to hold sources accountable. Here it is:

Post in thread 'Readalots Enhanced Testing'

Jan 21, 2025

Then came along QSC. The most shady source we have seen or will ever see. I could spend the rest of my day gathering links to where they have blankly admitted to scamming, making threats, doxing, etc and I still don’t know if a day would be long enough to gather it all, but yet they have 9 or an infinite amount of lives here. So guys like me adapted. You don’t see us vetting or doing much calling out any more. Now we even get called shills due to it when in reality we just have a what’s the point mindset.

I would like to promote the idea the holding sources accountable is its...

• Millard

• 

The power is in your hands

 

[T-Bagger]

Yeah man. The only thing that gets me revved up more than tren or a hot chick is my votes and likes. @T-Bagger you’re so shilly. Shill.

Shut up shill

 

[T-Bagger]

And i guess it needs to be said no discussion of raping and sexually assaulting wives and mothers of sources alive or dead; or murdering their family members in a wood chipper for that matter. in case anyone thinks that is allowed

Why?

 

[Millard]

I remember the MANWHORE thread well. @weighted chinup did a great job and put a lot of effort and time into exposing everything.

Unfortunately while it would be great to have a dedicated thread with links to all of QSC’s bad dealings I am not the guy to take this on. It would take someone weeks to read through that thread and link everything. After they were allowed back after their 3rd ban I left the thread and didn’t go back in there until just recently and that was just to gather info on what’s going on in China.

I do challenge someone to take it on and honestly feel @readalot is just the guy to do a great job with it. FYI… it’s a thread that will be remembered a decade or so later if done right like Weighted ChinUp did.

No worries: It would be a monumental undertaking. What @weighted chinup did was incredible and obviously took some time and effort,

It would be awesome if every source had such a dedicated thread: This forum serves as a permanent record to all source misbehavior but the details are largely buried. This would make it easily accessible: