Improving the "Steroid Underground" subforum - rules discussion

[Candyskull]

I've been thinking a lot about all the things to go on in the underground lately.

Some of them really bother me, but none are against the rules. I NEVER want to see this place censored for MEMBERS, but should that same privilege carry over to sources?

I'd like to open a dialog on everyone's thoughts on the current rules (shame on you if you haven't read them!), and any changes we may wish to purpose to Millard, or just our thoughts and feelings on what we have, and what we can do to keep it and make it better.

So, I urge you, nay implore you as a member; take part in this discussion. Have a voice here on what you would like the underground to be, and what if anything you would change about it.

Thank you Millard, and all of you for providing me a place where I feel safe voicing my opinion, and may it remain happily uncensored and free of source control forever.

CS

 

[MESO-Rx Administrator]

Several members have shared their concerns about recent issues in the "Steroid Underground" sub-forum. What have been some problems with the subforum? What can be done to improve them? Should we modify the rules? If so, how?

Remember, one of the best things about this forum is this:

"Opinions and experiences - good and bad - regarding steroid sources and underground labs (UGLs) will not be censored at all... Members will not be banned for anything that is said about sources."

MESO would like to avoid restricting member free speech unnecessarily.

MESO does want to ensure that the power remains in the hands of members/consumers and is not corrupted by commercial influences.

 

[Fckit]

I'm not sure what could be done to improve the Underground without compromising the integrity of what makes this place great.

That being said, one thing you could do is ban Bruce Banner and I know my life would improve a little.

 

[flenser]

I don't like rules. I want things to stay the way they are. I don't mind the shills and sock puppets. I believe strongly the members will minimize their effect and become more adept at identifying them over time.

A possible improvement would be adding a thread level ignore list, maybe built into the tool bar. I had one for Firefox that worked on other forums, but not this one. It's amazing what you can find in a thread when you remove the most prolific posters from it.

 

[flenser]

Oh yea, and secure PMs. I really hate that everyone relies on clear text messages for privacy.

 

[Spyder]

I don't like rules. I want things to stay the way they are. I don't mind the shills and sock puppets. I believe strongly the members will minimize their effect and become more adept at identifying them over time.

A possible improvement would be adding a thread level ignore list, maybe built into the tool bar. I had one for Firefox that worked on other forums, but not this one. It's amazing what you can find in a thread when you remove the most prolific posters from it.

I agree 100% about not changing a thing. I do understand why members are wanting change but that would mean censorship and it just wouldn't work.

I really like the idea of the thread level ignore list!

 

[Millard]

A possible improvement would be adding a thread level ignore list, maybe built into the tool bar. I had one for Firefox that worked on other forums, but not this one. It's amazing what you can find in a thread when you remove the most prolific posters from it.

I will look for a "thread level ignore" list hack.

The forum already has "forum level ignore" list capabilities:

This is a list of users you wish to ignore. To add a user to your ignore list, go to your User CP and in the left Nav Panel under Miscellaneous, select [Edit Ignore Lists], type the username you wish to ignore in the Ignore List blank and click [Update Ignore List]

Posts from users that you are ignoring are hidden from view when logged into the forums.

 

[flenser]

I use the ignore list a lot, actually. But sometimes I forget to remove someone who's posts I would normally want to read.

 

[drockspang1]

I have an idea, and it's probably not a popular one? Start charging sources to list on Meso. Even if only a modest fee? It would eliminate the bottom feeders looking for a "quick hit". From what I've heard, just about any other board charges something... So why not Meso? I understand Millard doesn't want his forum to be viewed as a "source board". But it is anyway. As a matter of fact, I see more ugl's pop up here then the other 2 boards I read(I'm sure hEhmROIDS, PM & the like have more? But they're garbage boards).

And if your worried about sacrificing the integrity of Meso, you could have these sources donate thier fee into some type of "community pot" to pay for labmax & spec testing? Probably a pipe dream but it would be nice.

Other then that, I wouldn't change a thing.....

 

[drockspang1]

^^^ and before I get flamed. There's a bit of sarcasm in my post. But you get the jist.

 

[viking23]

I think this place is great as is. At the end of the day you will never please everyone. Its just the way people are, they always want what they don't got and once things change they want it back the way it was. At least in my experience that's how it goes.

 

[Test3_KD]

If we could REQUIRE sources to post pictures of their setup and go into detail about their sterilization practices. This would be for safety of the members and weed the "bottom feeders" out as well.

 

[stomps]

I've been thinking a lot about all the things to go on in the underground lately.

Some of them really bother me, but none are against the rules. I NEVER want to see this place censored for MEMBERS, but should that same privilege carry over to sources?

I'd like to open a dialog on everyone's thoughts on the current rules (shame on you if you haven't read them!), and any changes we may wish to purpose to Millard, or just our thoughts and feelings on what we have, and what we can do to keep it and make it better.

So, I urge you, nay implore you as a member; take part in this discussion. Have a voice here on what you would like the underground to be, and what if anything you would change about it.

Thank you Millard, and all of you for providing me a place where I feel safe voicing my opinion, and may it remain happily uncensored and free of source control forever.

CS

Don't worry we still like you Skull the administrators made a thread just like this one that's why all the crickets
I will comment in yours though
I like your above post but if we censor what sources can post I worry that they will create even more schill accounts then they already do.

Edit: I see they combined them [)]

 

[Millard]

Don't worry we still like you Skull the administrators made a thread just like this one that's why all the crickets
I will comment in yours though
I like your above post but if we censor what sources can post I worry that they will create even more schill accounts then they already do.

Edit: I see they combined them [)]

I've been talking to Candyskull via PM about these issues. We thought it was a good idea to discuss them in open forum. Candyskull actually posted the thread first - so he wins

 

[Candyskull]

Don't worry we still like you Skull the administrators made a thread just like this one that's why all the crickets
I will comment in yours though
I like your above post but if we censor what sources can post I worry that they will create even more schill accounts then they already do.

Edit: I see they combined them [)]

Yeah, I just saw that too

I wasn't so much talking about censoring sources as trying to find some way to keep the underground from being nothing but a pitch market for the up coming. Such as, should sources be made to register as such? If someone is acting on their behalf should they be made to disclose that somehow in signature? Perhaps just a guideline as to how many active threads a source can run at any one time?

These are just ideas I'm throwing out. Like I originally stated, I do not want to restrict or stifle voices here, but firmer guidelines on direct source interaction may be beneficial.

 

[stomps]

Yeah, I just saw that too

I wasn't so much talking about censoring sources as trying to find some way to keep the underground from being nothing but a pitch market for the up coming. Such as, should sources be made to register as such? If someone is acting on their behalf should they be made to disclose that somehow in signature?Perhaps just a guideline as to how many active threads a source can run at any one time?

These are just ideas I'm throwing out. Like I originally stated, I do not want to restrict or stifle voices here, but firmer guidelines on direct source interaction may be beneficial.

I agree I don't think the underground section was ever meant to be a place for sources to push themselves.
I think limiting how many threads would help people get the info their after instead of having to look through 15 threads on the same source

 

[Spyder]

Not sure how this would really work but how about something along the lines of people below x amount of posts are not allowed to post in the Underground. It would help control the outbreak of new accounts that we have seen recently. Recently a ton of new accounts have been made and I am not saying it is just on the side of UGLs. All the back and forth is what has really made a mess and it is getting old.

 

[deadliftinghorse]

Several members have shared their concerns about recent issues in the "Steroid Underground" sub-forum. What have been some problems with the subforum? What can be done to improve them? Should we modify the rules? If so, how?

Remember, one of the best things about this forum is this:

"Opinions and experiences - good and bad - regarding steroid sources and underground labs (UGLs) will not be censored at all... Members will not be banned for anything that is said about sources."

MESO would like to avoid restricting member free speech unnecessarily.

MESO does want to ensure that the power remains in the hands of members/consumers and is not corrupted by commercial influences.

Lately I've seen alot of members changing the quote of other members. While it may seem funny at first its actually really annoying and confusing because now I'm not sure if quotes are altered or not - forcing me to reread every post by the quoted member in the thread. There should be a ban on altering quotes or maybe some type of preventative measure.

 

[Spyder]

Lately I've seen alot of members changing the quote of other members. While it may seem funny at first its actually really annoying and confusing because now I'm not sure if quotes are altered or not - forcing me to reread every post by the quoted member in the thread. There should be a ban on altering quotes or maybe some type of preventative measure.

Agreed! I think anyone caught doing this just once should be banned even if they were just trying to be funny. There needs to be 0 tolerance on this!

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

Yes!! No altering quotes!! Also 100 post minimum to post in the underground. That will eliminate 98% of shills..