About those RED BOX notices highlighting customer complaints about sources

[Mr.AAJR]

I like the red box idea. I do not like the idea that someone can come on the thread and make a claim without evidence, pictures, explanation of questions asked, etc. and immediately get a red box. Just my two cents.

 

[desertwarrior]

I’ll say this again. Never in the history of MESO has any burden of proof been on the member when posting concerns. The only time something like that would happen is if they were seeking a refund and the source wanted to verify the issue on their end as to not be scammed. That conversation would be private and only between the source and their customer, no mod and certainly not Millard have ever been involved in verification of claims in furtherance of protecting a source’s reputation. This board does not protect sources its purpose is harm reduction. Members here are not to be badgered and harassed about evidence to protect sources. That makes members less likely to post legitimate issues that would be useful information for the board. Every source claims this bullshit about competitor sabotage, you guys are just the first to believe it.

There’s a lot of knowledgeable guys here, but information about which needles you use and if primo lowers e, definitely don’t belong in a source thread. If you’re worried your source is going to be made to look bad by the red boxes maybe try reading the forum rules and posting things where they belong and the red boxes wouldn’t be necessary. Potential issues should ALWAYS be posted, it’s up to you to use your own judgement and discern what is of value and what should be ignored.

 

[Athleticfreak]

I’ll say this again. Never in the history of MESO has any burden of proof been on the member when posting concerns. The only time something like that would happen is if they were seeking a refund and the source wanted to verify the issue on their end as to not be scammed. That conversation would be private and only between the source and their customer, no mod and certainly not Millard have ever been involved in verification of claims in furtherance of protecting a source’s reputation. This board does not protect sources its purpose is harm reduction. Members here are not to be badgered and harassed about evidence to protect sources. That makes members less likely to post legitimate issues that would be useful information for the board. Every source claims this bullshit about competitor sabotage, you guys are just the first to believe it.

There’s a lot of knowledgeable guys here, but information about which needles you use and if primo lowers e, definitely don’t belong in a source thread. If you’re worried your source is going to be made to look bad by the red boxes maybe try reading the forum rules and posting things where they belong and the red boxes wouldn’t be necessary. Potential issues should ALWAYS be posted, it’s up to you to use your own judgement and discern what is of value and what should be ignored.

Well said

 

[Mr.AAJR]

I’ll say this again. Never in the history of MESO has any burden of proof been on the member when posting concerns.

In this particular instance, how does a source prove that there are not rubber cores in the customer's product?

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

[crispybacon!]

I’ll say this again. Never in the history of MESO has any burden of proof been on the member when posting concerns. The only time something like that would happen is if they were seeking a refund and the source wanted to verify the issue on their end as to not be scammed. That conversation would be private and only between the source and their customer, no mod and certainly not Millard have ever been involved in verification of claims in furtherance of protecting a source’s reputation. This board does not protect sources its purpose is harm reduction. Members here are not to be badgered and harassed about evidence to protect sources. That makes members less likely to post legitimate issues that would be useful information for the board. Every source claims this bullshit about competitor sabotage, you guys are just the first to believe it.

There’s a lot of knowledgeable guys here, but information about which needles you use and if primo lowers e, definitely don’t belong in a source thread. If you’re worried your source is going to be made to look bad by the red boxes maybe try reading the forum rules and posting things where they belong and the red boxes wouldn’t be necessary. Potential issues should ALWAYS be posted, it’s up to you to use your own judgement and discern what is of value and what should be ignored.

I could care less about the fate of this source and am not trying to protect/defend them, but I’m skeptical of any and all extreme claims.

Photos of rubber particles floating in oil and melted capsules should be easy to produce, if the claim is accurate. This evidence would go a long way in clearly illustrating the issue and convincing any skeptics, such as myself.

This is the equivalent of getting bad results from Jano and coming here and just saying the gear was bad without actually sharing the test results. If someone made that kind of claim without producing the proof of the failed test, no one would believe them.

 

[desertwarrior]

You guys clearly didn’t understand me. It’s doesn’t matter what you find credible, and it doesn’t matter how the source verifies the issue on their end. Neither of those things are this boards issue to solve. You don’t get to come in as new members making demands. You’ll do as every other member has done here in the past and use your judgement on what you take seriously, which members are credible and which aren’t.

I understand we all want our hands held but that’s not going to happen here. The environment you are attempting to create is pro source and not pro member and that will not be tolerated. Learn to use your judgement when reading posts and stop white nighting for sources. Regardless of your reasoning these behaviors won’t be tolerated any longer.

In this particular instance, how does a source prove that there are not rubber cores in the customer's product?

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I could care less about the fate of this source and am not trying to protect/defend them, but I’m skeptical of any and all extreme claims.

Photos of rubber particles floating in oil and melted capsules should be easy to produce, if the claim is accurate. This evidence would go a long way in clearly illustrating the issue and convincing any skeptics, such as myself.

This is the equivalent of getting bad results from Jano and coming here and just saying the gear was bad without actually sharing the test results. If someone made that kind of claim without producing the proof of the failed test, no one would believe them.

 

[Mr.AAJR]

You guys clearly didn’t understand me. It’s doesn’t matter what you find credible, and it doesn’t matter how the source verifies the issue on their end. Neither of those things are this boards issue to solve. You don’t get to come in as new members making demands. You’ll do as every other member has done here in the past and use your judgement on what you take seriously, which members are credible and which aren’t.

I understand we all want our hands held but that’s not going to happen here. The environment you are attempting to create is pro source and not pro member and that will not be tolerated. Learn to use your judgement when reading posts and stop white nighting for sources. Regardless of your reasoning these behaviors won’t be tolerated any longer.

Ah, you've tipped your hand. My status as a new member makes my opinion somehow less valid. Got it.

I never asked to have my hand held. I never made any demands. To suggest otherwise is an outright lie. I simply stated that I think it is pretty ridiculous to give this (or any vendor) a red box based on a single post. 24 hours later the guy still hasn't answered a single question about his claim. I would think, in the interest of harm reduction, he should feel obliged to answer some questions people have about his accusation.

 

[crispybacon!]

You guys clearly didn’t understand me. It’s doesn’t matter what you find credible, and it doesn’t matter how the source verifies the issue on their end. Neither of those things are this boards issue to solve. You don’t get to come in as new members making demands. You’ll do as every other member has done here in the past and use your judgement on what you take seriously, which members are credible and which aren’t.

I understand we all want our hands held but that’s not going to happen here. The environment you are attempting to create is pro source and not pro member and that will not be tolerated. Learn to use your judgement when reading posts and stop white nighting for sources. Regardless of your reasoning these behaviors won’t be tolerated any longer.

Assuming your comment was directed at me, since you quoted me… If so, what behavior am I exhibiting, and for clarity - it won’t be tolerated by whom any longer?

It’s pretty ridiculous that just a few weeks ago I was being accused of plotting AGAINST Primal, now I’m being accused of white knighting.

 

[BigDadd7]

Ah, you've tipped your hand. My status as a new member makes my opinion somehow less valid. Got it.

I never asked to have my hand held. I never made any demands. To suggest otherwise is an outright lie. I simply stated that I think it is pretty ridiculous to give this (or any vendor) a red box based on a single post. 24 hours later the guy still hasn't answered a single question about his claim. I would think, in the interest of harm reduction, he should feel obliged to answer some questions people have about his accusation.

It absolutely makes your opinion less valid. You haven't established any credibility. You want to just show up and demand attention and unearned respect?

 

[Mr.AAJR]

It absolutely makes your opinion less valid. You haven't established any credibility. You want to just show up and demand attention and unearned respect?

I've not done either thing, but okay. If voicing a simple opinion in a respectful manner is demanding attention and respect in your mind, you have a twisted way of looking at things.

 

[Whistles77]

It absolutely makes your opinion less valid. You haven't established any credibility. You want to just show up and demand attention and unearned respect?

I disagree. His opinion is equally valid, but being a new member makes it harder to scrutinize and therefore introduces doubts. Taking an example framework (PROVEN) for evaluating a source, a new member is harder to evaluate over almost every dimension, whilst the long term (or even new but active) participants in Meso can be much easier to assess.

Purpose: How and why the account/post was created.
Relevance: The value of the information for our needs
Objectivity: Reliability. Thorough, strong, emotional, manipulative, or offensive language? Any particular political, ideological, cultural, or religious point of view? Fact or opinion? Is it biased? Missing info left out?
Verifiability: The accuracy and truthfulness and evidence of the information.
Expertise: The authority of the authors and the source.
Newness: Is the information current.

TLDR....new members opinions valid, but carry less weight in my book.

 

[DeafJam]

Ah, you've tipped your hand. My status as a new member makes my opinion somehow less valid. Got it.

I never asked to have my hand held. I never made any demands. To suggest otherwise is an outright lie. I simply stated that I think it is pretty ridiculous to give this (or any vendor) a red box based on a single post. 24 hours later the guy still hasn't answered a single question about his claim. I would think, in the interest of harm reduction, he should feel obliged to answer some questions people have about his accusation.

As a new member, our opinions are less valid in the context of this forum. This forum is about spreading knowledge and harm reduction. If we cannot validate someone’s knowledge level, we cannot know if we can trust it. In another thread, a member was telling another one a grossly wrong amount of GH to take. They were rightly called out. We can all trust, but we need to verify, That’s what post history helps with.

When a good number of senior members speak up, I can validate their experience. I can read their other post, their cycle logs, and get a feel for what their strengths, weaknesses, how they are biased, or if they are just a complete dumbass. It doesn’t matter how much we know or think we know. It doesn’t matter how long we have or have not lifted, If no one can validate that over time, there is an inherent distrust. I don’t want them to trust me. If I’m asking a question, or commenting on an experience and I’m wrong, I’d rather a “hey dumbass, you may want to look over here instead” than quiet observation of watching me fail.

My advice is to get some thicker skin. If they are responding, they care. You may not like how they care, but it is likely in your best interest.

 

[Mr.AAJR]

As a new member, our opinions are less valid in the context of this forum. This forum is about spreading knowledge and harm reduction. If we cannot validate someone’s knowledge level, we cannot know if we can trust it. In another thread, a member was telling another one a grossly wrong amount of GH to take. They were rightly called out. We can all trust, but we need to verify, That’s what post history helps with.

When a good number of senior members speak up, I can validate their experience. I can read their other post, their cycle logs, and get a feel for what their strengths, weaknesses, how they are biased, or if they are just a complete dumbass. It doesn’t matter how much we know or think we know. It doesn’t matter how long we have or have not lifted, If no one can validate that over time, there is an inherent distrust. I don’t want them to trust me. If I’m asking a question, or commenting on an experience and I’m wrong, I’d rather a “hey dumbass, you may want to look over here instead” than quiet observation of watching me fail.

My advice is to get some thicker skin. If they are responding, they care. You may not like how they care, but it is likely in your best interest.

I understand what you are saying. Thicker skin is certainly not the issue. I am not giving advice. I am not asking for advice. I simply gave an opinion on the concept of wanting ANY sort of corroboration when making an accusation against someone (you know, something that is commonplace in every single other aspect of life) before automatically assuming the accusation is correct and accurate. Literally the slightest bit. The person making the accusation hasn't even responded to this post since he made it, and I am the one under scrutiny? What kind of mindless backward thinking is that?

For doing so I have been accused of "demanding attention," :demanding respect," "wanting your hand held," etc. I understand the concept of a new member's opinion not holding the same weight in most contexts. In this context, I said something a couple of people didn't like (for God only knows why), and they threw every new member insult at me that made absolutely no sense. Demanding respect by giving an opinion? Wanting my hand held for respectfully voicing an opinion? Get the fuck out of here. It's mindless troglodyte behavior and thinking at VERY best.

 

[trynagains]

I’ll say this again. Never in the history of MESO has any burden of proof been on the member when posting concerns. The only time something like that would happen is if they were seeking a refund and the source wanted to verify the issue on their end as to not be scammed. That conversation would be private and only between the source and their customer, no mod and certainly not Millard have ever been involved in verification of claims in furtherance of protecting a source’s reputation. This board does not protect sources its purpose is harm reduction. Members here are not to be badgered and harassed about evidence to protect sources. That makes members less likely to post legitimate issues that would be useful information for the board. Every source claims this bullshit about competitor sabotage, you guys are just the first to believe it.

There’s a lot of knowledgeable guys here, but information about which needles you use and if primo lowers e, definitely don’t belong in a source thread. If you’re worried your source is going to be made to look bad by the red boxes maybe try reading the forum rules and posting things where they belong and the red boxes wouldn’t be necessary. Potential issues should ALWAYS be posted, it’s up to you to use your own judgement and discern what is of value and what should be ignored.

I understand that this board is used to promote harm reduction. It’s why I’m here. I have also contributed by writing several OPSEC articles as I’m an expert in the field. Also to learn from y’all as I’m pretty new to the forum. I have an honest question for you: What if a false claim against a source producing decent gear convinced members to go buy elsewhere from a shadier source? I agree members should be able to post what they want and especially their concerns. But what is wrong with other members asking clarifying questions so we can discern what is real or not about a source? Isn’t that the end goal? Is that also not harm reduction? Perhaps it doesn’t belong in the source thread? I’m honestly curious and want to learn.

 

[Tore22]

I understand that this board is used to promote harm reduction. It’s why I’m here. I have also contributed by writing several OPSEC articles as I’m an expert in the field. Also to learn from y’all as I’m pretty new to the forum. I have an honest question for you: What if a false claim against a source producing decent gear convinced members to go buy elsewhere from a shadier source? I agree members should be able to post what they want and especially their concerns. But what is wrong with other members asking clarifying questions so we can discern what is real or not about a source? Isn’t that the end goal? Is that also not harm reduction? Perhaps it doesn’t belong in the source thread? I’m honestly curious and want to learn.

I see your point and agree to an extent I’m not dogging on primal everything else was great it was the gear I got I can post picks of what I’m having removed but who wants to see those and the vials

 

[Whistles77]

I see your point and agree to an extent I’m not dogging on primal everything else was great it was the gear I got I can post picks of what I’m having removed but who wants to see those and the vials

I’d say everybody does, along with all the details of dosing, injection sites, frequency, injection protocol.

Edit: I’d suggest most people don’t leave alcohol on their skin long enough to sterilize effectively, so I wouldn’t make assumptions that it’s the gear without ruling out human factors first.

 

[desertwarrior]

The framework of this board doesn’t allow for it. That’s all it really comes down to brother. Millard and the mods here aren’t involved in those activities. Who would be in charge of verifying claims? Who would appoint these people? How could we make sure these individuals were unbiased? There isn’t a system in place that would satisfy the masses and implementing one would be difficult and arduous to say the least.

As I stated previously, demanding proof of members has never been the norm here. It creates a pro source environment where members are less inclined to share concerns. Which is the sole purpose of the underground forum.

I understand that this board is used to promote harm reduction. It’s why I’m here. I have also contributed by writing several OPSEC articles as I’m an expert in the field. Also to learn from y’all as I’m pretty new to the forum. I have an honest question for you: What if a false claim against a source producing decent gear convinced members to go buy elsewhere from a shadier source? I agree members should be able to post what they want and especially their concerns. But what is wrong with other members asking clarifying questions so we can discern what is real or not about a source? Isn’t that the end goal? Is that also not harm reduction? Perhaps it doesn’t belong in the source thread? I’m honestly curious and want to learn.

 

[BigDadd7]

The framework of this board doesn’t allow for it. That’s all it really comes down to brother. Millard and the mods here aren’t involved in those activities. Who would be in charge of verifying claims? Who would appoint these people? How could we make sure these individuals were unbiased? There isn’t a system in place that would satisfy the masses and implementing one would be difficult and arduous to say the least.

As I stated previously, demanding proof of members has never been the norm here. It creates a pro source environment where members are less inclined to share concerns. Which is the sole purpose of the underground forum.

I mostly agree with you, but providing pics of rubber bits floating in oil and melted caps would be reasonable.

 

[trynagains]

The framework of this board doesn’t allow for it. That’s all it really comes down to brother. Millard and the mods here aren’t involved in those activities. Who would be in charge of verifying claims? Who would appoint these people? How could we make sure these individuals were unbiased? There isn’t a system in place that would satisfy the masses and implementing one would be difficult and arduous to say the least.

As I stated previously, demanding proof of members has never been the norm here. It creates a pro source environment where members are less inclined to share concerns. Which is the sole purpose of the underground forum.

Solid answer. I suppose I may need more time to be around and understand firsthand how it creates a pro-source environment. In my experience thus far, members have done a great job of stomping out any pro-source commentary. It was my first experience here (my bad). Perhaps it’s tiring work for senior members continually reminding the newbs that this forum wasn’t designed to praise sources and that does more harm than good. What comes to mind specifically are posts such as the one from our friend the Stanford Gold Medal Chemist. Clearly it was a scam. To be fair it was not in this thread but it was regarding this source. If that post were dropped here would it be okay to critique? Again, I’m only trying to understand proper etiquette.

 

[Mr.AAJR]

I mostly agree with you, but providing pics of rubber bits floating in oil and melted caps would be reasonable.

Interesting that you tried to tell me I was demanding attention and respect for simply asking for this very thing. Just the slightest bit of evidence. Weird.