Censoring Subscribers hinders discussion

[pigeonhed]

In a thread that does not honestly deserve this discussion, an important conversation was being had.

Should @Millard censor SUBSCRIBERS from posting outside their own thread?

There was a time when this was a rule, it was quite some time ago and the makeup and culture of the board was far different too. Also important at this time is to remind everyone that this board is owned by @Millard, we are his guests. In having this discussion we are owed nothing.

@Freakmidd while I initially agreed with your desire for censorship out of tradition, when I sat down to write my thoughts to Millard I realized I had no good reason for this desire. My wishes were only out of desire for rules from the past. @janoshik and the way he was treated was unprofessional, unproductive and anti-discussion. He was the first Subscriber I actively valued to read the opinion of regardless of thread. His inability to post throughout the board favored only ignorance.

There is no argument I can think of why a Subscriber should not be able to post without censorship.

As for the past, members who vetted subscribers are gone. Yes it happens. The names keep changing and my desire to live in the past is constantly being challenged by my desire to stand by principals I believe in. Honestly hope people share some real ideas and wish everyone only the best.

 

[Rido]

As you know. I am considered a source. I personally feel that my intentions or posting outside of my thread have never been the intent to lead people toward a purchase from me.

I won't deny the fact that me posting around makes people wonder what my avatar is and may have them look into my thread.

My posting style hasn't changed as a user to a source either. I like to think I still talk shit and I still try to help people in need.

I am a lifter, user, and learning just like everyone else here. The only thing I excel in far past some other people is GLP dosing and instructions.

We all have seen people who try otherwise. Bumping threads about certain substances and promote their primary products

I do agree with the janoshik part where we discuss possible issues of testing, product degradation. We have asked him multiple times outside of his thread for his input.


Then the other question is if subscribers are isolated to their there....

If I want to be a contributing member should I make an alt?

 

[Millard]

Hi @pigeonhed , thank you for starting this discussion. I know we talked privately about this topic in the past.

There are a few sources that post regularly, some even prolifically, outside of their thread on MESO.

A LOT of people have complained about this.

But there has also always been this long-standing rule on MESO that criticism of a source will not be censored.

So does that change when one source (posting outside their thread) criticizes another source?

No, MESO has permitted ALL criticism of sources even if it comes from another source.

Now, people will say that it may be unprofessional or bad form for one source to attack or criticize another source. Or that the source is only doing this to create doubt about the competition and steal customers.

This may or may not be true. But what if there is merit in the criticism more often than not? Should valid criticism ever be censored regardless of who does the criticizing?

Thus far, MESO encourages and protects everyone's right to criticize sources.

Should we change? Should we stop sources from criticizing other sources?

 

[Millard]

There are valid reasons why similar forums have traditionally banned sources from "participating outside their thread".

These reasons are all related to spam where sources try to promote products/services in other threads. This type of blatant spam is and has always been prohibited on MESO.

Yet, there may be much more subtle ways to spam...

Sources (who are allowed to participate outside their threads) often try to befriend New Members. This is sometimes done openly by explicitly welcoming New Members who post New Member Introductions. Sometimes this has been done privately by welcoming New Members with Private Messages. The latter has always been prohibited on MESO.

Furthermore, there are sources who do their best to provide assistance by sharing knowledge, information, suggestions, support with other members in an effort to befriend them.

The motives of the sources that are being helpful are not always clear. Some sources are obviously very knowledgeable and provide useful information.

Are they befriending members because they truly care about improving user knowledge and harm reduction?

Or are they doing it because they know the more good will they generate among the membership, the easier it is to manipulate the members to their advantage?

It has become obvious that members will be less likely to criticize and/or otherwise hold them accountable, more likely to support/promote them, and more likely to give them the benefit of doubt should things go wrong.

Or could it be both?

The conflict of interest is indisputable.

 

[cdoubleu]

@pigeonhed, what would you say the current state of Meso does to cause conflict between your desire to live in the past and stand by your principles?

 

[pigeonhed]

As I read posts by members I naturally grow attached to them. Over time my favorites become so important to me that I stopped judging the comments from a neutral view. These posters stop being held to the same standard I hold for most.

At the end of the day, I am a guest. While my opinions and contributions are crucial to my enjoyment and place within this culture, there needs to be a balance.

Rules are not made to please us in individual cases. They are guideposts and pillars of a community, giving privileges to those I personally favor creates a poor environment.

While the decisions made by Millard I may not always agree or understand at the time, this community is important enough for me to challenge myself to grow. Sometimes life is not how we picture it.

Hope this helps shed some light on my feelings.

 

[cdoubleu]

Sheds light on what you mean, for sure. Because I remember the way meso used to be as well, I was curious of your thoughts because I’m not up to date on the thread you mention in the OP.

There was a strong community here at Meso, a brotherhood if you will.

You mention being a guest here, and that is true of all of us. At the same time I think the community that Meso was, and appears to have to potential to be again, is what makes it so great. A strong community will have a way of forming it’s own censorship, and that makes each member that cares an ambassador of what Meso stands for, not just a guest.

There seems to be an overall really great group of people here, like-minded and sincere. For that reason I wouldn’t be against subscribers posting. Meso has always looked out for its people (some periods of time, more aggressively than others) and I think the community has the capability of snuffing out any subscriber who is suspect.

I think the board has made some serious advances in the last number of months, and I think there is the potential for Meso to be a strong community again.

 

[Big_paul]

Should we change? Should we stop sources from criticizing other sources?

For the sake of argument, yes.

What is the motivation? Is it to protect the community? Or is it to eliminate competition?

If someone has information that is helpful, I don't care who provides that information. On the other hand, it's a terrible idea to have sources vetting new sources for obvious reasons.

So don't make it a habit.

 

[Whopperflopper]

Many sources I'm sure are not new to this game. You can tell who is. I welcome their experience, acknowledging the fact that they may have professional access to behind the scene information.

I have a choice to listen or not.

Leave it to me to read between the lines.

 

[laclark89]

As you know. I am considered a source. I personally feel that my intentions or posting outside of my thread have never been the intent to lead people toward a purchase from me.

I won't deny the fact that me posting around makes people wonder what my avatar is and may have them look into my thread.

My posting style hasn't changed as a user to a source either. I like to think I still talk shit and I still try to help people in need.

I am a lifter, user, and learning just like everyone else here. The only thing I excel in far past some other people is GLP dosing and instructions.

We all have seen people who try otherwise. Bumping threads about certain substances and promote their primary products

I do agree with the janoshik part where we discuss possible issues of testing, product degradation. We have asked him multiple times outside of his thread for his input.


Then the other question is if subscribers are isolated to their there....

If I want to be a contributing member should I make an alt?

Other people love u as a source and u posting around here Is good entertainment, I feel like you have the best intentions and just like bs ing around here with the rest of us bros.

 

[Rido]

Other people love u as a source and u posting around here Is good entertainment, I feel like you have the best intentions and just like bs ing around here with the rest of us bros.

Thanks brother, I know there still have to be rules and guidelines.

Order has to be kept to some degree. It's always a good discussion.

I know even when I first started as a member, there were some sources that would make educational posts as indirect way to advertise.

or they would like a post if a member was asking "Where to get DNP?"
-"like by DNP-BOSS"

 

[Big_paul]

Other people love u as a source and u posting around here Is good entertainment, I feel like you have the best intentions and just like bs ing around here with the rest of us bros.

I have nothing against Rido, but in 23 yrs on meso I have found that most times people act in their own best interest. It's just human nature.

 

[Rido]

I have nothing against Rido, but in 23 yrs on meso I have found that most times people act in their own best interest. It's just human nature.

Yes. This been proven and discussed in psychology.

It's always personal gain, humans are selfish.

Most of the time personal gain are finances, sometimes it's helping other people.

Some people do gain a sense of accomplishment from helping other people, or flexing their knowledge.

 

[Big_paul]

Yes. This been proven and discussed in psychology.

It's always personal gain, humans are selfish.

Most of the time personal gain are finances, sometimes it's helping other people.

Some people do gain a sense of accomplishment from helping other people, or flexing their knowledge.

I hope you are not offended. That's not my intention. If you have reason to believe another source is no good I want to know.

 

[Rido]

I hope you are not offended. That's not my intention. If you have reason to believe another source is no good I want to know.

Oh definitely not offended. Everyone should be skeptical of everyone.

Even me. No one here knows me.

For all you know, I am playing a game. Waiting for my big sale/exit scam.

I am still a source.

 

[Millard]

As I read posts by members I naturally grow attached to them. Over time my favorites become so important to me that I stopped judging the comments from a neutral view. These posters stop being held to the same standard I hold for most.

This is the part that gets me in trouble.
Should the forum be guided by principle?

Or should the rules bend for those that contribute more? Or are more popular? Or to which other members have naturally grown attached?

Most people will instinctively says it should be guided by principle and the same rules apply to everyone.

In actual practice, most people don't really want this. They are more loyal to the people they like, their friends, and I guess not surprisingly to the people who sell them drugs. So as long as the rules strictly apply to everyone else, they are good.

 

[Millard]

If you are trafficking drugs, this doesn't necessarily mean that your desire to help others is not genuine in matters not related to drug transactions.

One of the most successful ways for sources to manipulate (potential) consumers on forums such as this is to make them feel indebted. Answering their questions, giving them useful advice, supporting them in various ways... these contributions have value. Most members appreciate this and naturally feel indebted.

This is ok if there is no conflict of interest. But when you are a source, this has consequences that are inconsistent with the harm reduction goals of this forum.

Members who feel indebted to a source for whatever reason will be less likely to call them out for shady behavior, for poor business practices, for bad customer service THAN they would for other sources who they feel no debt or obligation. They will be more likely to give them the benefit of doubt or to resolve problems quietly THAN they would for other sources.

This is not an accusation for any particular source that offers help outside the normal course of business nor does it question their motives.

However, the end result is the same when it comes to customer manipulation. It is human nature. Basic psychology.

So there is merit in restricting source participation.

I just don't think there should necessarily be any restrictions when it comes to valid criticisms of other sources (competitors).

 

[phenominal34]

I don’t see how we can allow some of the most ignorant non self-educated members to post things ( past 3-4 month from Reddit) but restrict some of the more intelligent subscribers just cause they sell product? Makes no sense to me, In the end we all still have to do our own research no matter who says what in what threads or forums. My 2 cents ….

 

[B Ware]

Personally I don’t see the issue with restricting a source to their thread and the testing section and am for it. They are here to run a business and should focus on just that. If they want to participate in the whole community then they should use their alt accounts.

There is a lot I like about the direction Meso has taken in the last two years but allowing sources to run rampant has tarnished all the efforts that so many members worked hard to achieve here. So much has been undone which isn’t all bad but the days of really holding a source accountable are nearly gone. The power has shifted and it’s been a shame to see.

I get that this is the shady drug game so discussing rules kinda seems silly but there has to be a few lines in the sand that shouldn’t be crossed. Seeing sources vet other sources definitely makes me cringe.

 

[MindlessWork]

As long as sources are being upfront and honest and not bashing each other I am all for sensible rules. In my 13 years hanging around this board I feel free discourse is a good thing (albeit with a caveat or two) and that Meso's ideals of harm reduction should still be upheld. With all the scammers and frauds trying to rip members off in the community we all should be for fair sourcing. Members should keep in mind that old adage of buyer beware and that making informed decisions about what to buy from which source is key.

Just my 2 cents.