ATTN: OGs and other well known members. Source talk?

[readalot]

I received a DM the other day that really does a nice job capturing all of my thoughts on this. I'll ask the author if I can share anonymously. Was exceptionally well done.

I received this from member whose work I really admire. I received permission to share this. Said it much better than I could.

I hate QSC. It goes against everything that MESO once stood for. The customer service is apparently zero. They are “the most tested source” but all of those tests are meaningless. The OPSEC is best described as reckless abandon. They’re too big and will get busted - I’m surprised they’ve lasted this long. Their thread is filled with herd-speak and fanbois, many of the members ONLY post within that thread. The entire operation is dangerous. The fact that gear sold in multi-use sealed vials contains floaters so often that customers just settle for refiltering the gear is insane.

My goal is in-line with yours. We are not drug addicts. We do this as part of a healthy active and productive lifestyle. Cleaning it up may one day erase the druggy stigma leading to acceptance and decriminalization.

Thanks for sharing this Sir.

 

[RekTest]

I received this from member whose work I really admire. I received permission to share this. Said it much better than I could.



Thanks for sharing this Sir.

Tldr: #fuckqsc they are absolute trash

 

[iris]

Tldr: #fuckqsc they are absolute trash

Told you, with your new logo you have to go do a bit of marketing over there.

But look at the traffic that thread generates.
What the gentleman in that message wrote is true.
So many people that just post there.
And so many that are so engaged in defending the source, no matter what.

They have "set the standard", with all their promos, with the pricing strategies, with how they engage with people across platforms.
All the floaters and underfilling issues get promptly swept aside, often by the same people that posted about them, no matter how many times it gets brought up.
It's like an unstoppable bandwagon and people are reluctant to look at alternatives.
What could make things change?

 

[Zebedee]

Told you, with your new logo you have to go do a bit of marketing over there.

But look at the traffic that thread generates.
What the gentleman in that message wrote is true.
So many people that just post there.
And so many that are so engaged in defending the source, no matter what.

They have "set the standard", with all their promos, with the pricing strategies, with how they engage with people across platforms.
All the floaters and underfilling issues get promptly swept aside, often by the same people that posted about them, no matter how many times it gets brought up.
It's like an unstoppable bandwagon and people are reluctant to look at alternatives.
What could make things change?

1: competition - as @biggerben69 pointed out earlier in the thread. There’s other Chinese sources here that pretty much match them on price for a lot of things.

2: members who say they want a change / support harm reduction stop engaging in constant off-topic discussion & banter in QSC (& other source) threads. Questions about & feedback on that sources goods & service ONLY. @Millard has been asking members to do this for fucking ages & everyone ignores the request.

But #2 won’t happen.

 

[iris]

1: competition - as @biggerben69 pointed out earlier in the thread. There’s other Chinese sources here that pretty much match them on price for a lot of things.

2: members who say they want a change / support harm reduction stop engaging in constant off-topic discussion & banter in QSC (& other source) threads. Questions about & feedback on that sources goods & service ONLY. @Millard has been asking members to do this for fucking ages & everyone ignores the request.

But #2 won’t happen.

Hi Zeb,

Of course, competition.
They are trying to catch up with the behemoth that is Q but so many people still only gravitating mostly there.
You always see the same members, trying to support and giving a change to newer sources.
And they are also the ones that contribute with testing what they buy, which should give those companies even more exposure and credibility.
It will take time for things to shift, more consistently.
As things are, not much is moving in terms of people wanting to "vote with their wallet" in favour of better customer service and quality.
However, the options are there and some members' willingness to engage and make sure they are valid sources is positive.

Many the people complaining about Qsc actually do not go on their thread to do so or to support members that have been wronged.
Some think it is all in vain but then this reluctance also creates the right environment for what that source is allowed to get away with.
Some others, just like a bit of sarcasm and badmouthing Tracy in other threads, never on his, seemingly because they need their message count to go up.
Just a bit of show for thumbs up, but that's it.

They are against Q, but also against hassling sources for testing, against advising people to filter what they buy, even against trying to push sources to do better because it is "spam" (iirc, someone on GA's thread, saying us "bothering" sources continuously was exactly what made "sources stay away" from Meso).

As for the off topic discussion, I think you are right.
There is a whole forum dedicated to glps.
There are people talking about their cycles on a source thread when there are specific, fantastic threads just for that.
Yet, pages and pages of the same stuff on the most active sources threads.

I found that it makes the search function extremely "disfunctional".
Look for something, there are 1000 posts, all over the place, often in sources threads (where they should not be) about exactly the same question/answer, making it all quite confusing, unless one narrows things down to a specific location.

Off topic and banter will happen and sometimes it is nice it does.
But the vast majority of the pages there are not related to the vendor and that is wrong.
It often comes from the same people and they should know better, by now.
Once again, your assessment is spot on.

Thank you for your message.

X

 

[Zebedee]

Many the people complaining about Qsc actually do not go on their thread to do so or to support members that have been wronged.
Some think it is all in vain but then this reluctance also creates the right environment for what that source is allowed to get away with.
Some others, just like a bit of sarcasm and badmouthing Tracy in other threads, never on his, seemingly because they need their message count to go up.
Just a bit of show for thumbs up, but that's it.

That’s probably because there’s no point really, because so often whatever they say is either dived on by the fanbois & resellers on a mission to run interference, or it just gets ignored & buried - again with the help of off-topic discussion.

I mean look at this:

Post in thread 'Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic'

Apr 24, 2024

I will make it clear from now on, anyone who mentions the products he orders in a bank transfer reference, or mentions the word QSC, or Qingdao sigma, or sigma chemical, or any stupid shit related to banned products, I don't care if it's legal in your country, you will not get neither the product, nor the money back.

That’s your prerogative, but you need to state this clearly on your PasteBin / list. This post is very quickly going to get buried & people won’t be aware of this rule.

Failing to do that & not making everyone aware of this before ordering...

• Zebedee

I was hardly asking a lot of QSC, it’s not an unfair request, but look at the usual suspects saying how anyone who unknowingly breaks that T&C deserves to get scammed.

People get tired of fighting uphill battles on behalf of others.

 

[iris]

That’s probably because there’s no point really, because so often whatever they say is either dived on by the fanbois & resellers on a mission to run interference, or it just gets ignored & buried - again with the help of off-topic discussion.

I mean look at this:

Post in thread 'Qingdao Sigma Chemical Co., Ltd (International, US, EU, Canada and Australia domestic'

Apr 24, 2024

I will make it clear from now on, anyone who mentions the products he orders in a bank transfer reference, or mentions the word QSC, or Qingdao sigma, or sigma chemical, or any stupid shit related to banned products, I don't care if it's legal in your country, you will not get neither the product, nor the money back.

That’s your prerogative, but you need to state this clearly on your PasteBin / list. This post is very quickly going to get buried & people won’t be aware of this rule.

Failing to do that & not making everyone aware of this before ordering...

• Zebedee

I was hardly asking a lot of QSC, it’s not an unfair request, but look at the usual suspects saying how anyone who unknowingly breaks that T&C deserves to get scammed.

People get tired of fighting uphill battles on behalf of others.

Thank you.
Yes, your request was so simple, reasonable and easy, but..
I know it is frustrating and often pointless.
For people like yourself who have seen so much of it, I understand your point.
But there are also newer members, apparently so against qsc yet unwilling to acknowledge others that recognise problems there and harm reduction on any level.
Someone tests what they bought from qsc (whatever you think about that) and even that is shot down with sarcasm and nothing productive to say.
That's what I was referring to.
Just being confrontational for the sake of it, away from there, with nothing leading to constructive engagement.

I have read your older posts and know you have always tried to proactively expose failings, but the tide was always against you.
True.

 

[Zebedee]

They are against Q, but also against hassling sources for testing, against advising people to filter what they buy, even against trying to push sources to do better because it is "spam" (iirc, someone on GA's thread, saying us "bothering" sources continuously was exactly what made "sources stay away" from Meso).

I don’t see it as that myself mate.

Not everyone is totally convinced by the need for “enhanced” testing - myself included. That’s not the same as being “against testing”, not by a long shot IMO.

Again with those arguing against filtering UGL oils, I see it more that their argument is you shouldn’t need to be filtering out visible floaters from UGL gear in the first place & the main reason members are doing this is because Meso’s acceptable standard for UGL products has dropped massively over the last 2-3 years thanks to those prioritising cost over everything else.

Eg search for Symbiotic’s thread & “floater gate” that appeared towards the end of his time here. It finished him as a source.

In short, we’re coming back round to “old Meso” vs the influx of newer members who are here just to buy gear & the cheaper the better. Different values & priorities.

Just to add - I don’t think “old Meso” was perfect, not by a long shot & if you can be arsed to go back through my post history, you’ll see I’ve criticised the rosey-tinted glasses view of some quite a few times. But IMO there’s no doubt whatsoever that community standards & prioritise have nosedived over the last 2-3 years.

 

[iris]

Not everyone is totally convinced by the need for “enhanced” testing - myself included. That’s not the same as being “against testing”, not by a long shot IMO.

Again with those arguing against filtering UGL oils, I see it more that their argument is you shouldn’t need to be filtering out visible floaters from UGL gear in the first place & the main reason members are doing this is because Meso’s acceptable standard for UGL products has dropped massively over the last 2-3 years thanks to those prioritising cost over everything else.

Agree.
It appears that many of those tests are unnecessary.
But the simple request or discussion as to whether providing proof of sterility is reasonable being derided is a bit much.
Even someone paying for it themselves has to be made fun of.

As for the floaters, of course they should not be there.
I can't even believe we are saying this.
BUT the same people posting pictures of them are the first ones to ask when the next promo will be.
You also recognise that members will continue buying that stuff from Q.
Saying don't buy does not work.
If filtering is conducive to generate some harm reduction, should it be denied?

Again, I agree with you, I think this stuff should never be offered.
If it were up to me they should be stopped from selling, until the problem is resolved.
But here we are, still.

I find myself in two minds.
Recommending fitering is not the right thing to do because you condone the source and what they sell.
But saying nothing helpful, considering the situation, also feels wrong.