Censoring Subscribers hinders discussion

[Ryu82]

From my oldman perspective, if you cant read between the lines and recognize the difference between a post with the intentions of being beneficial vs. slanderous, then something is broken in your perspective and to be honest the AAS game is not for you. I have no issue with a source posting outside their respective thread if the intention is the former.

 

[UncleBuns]

From my oldman perspective, if you cant read between the lines and recognize the difference between a post with the intentions of being beneficial vs. slanderous, then something is broken in your perspective and to be honest the AAS game is not for you. I have no issue with a source posting outside their respective thread if the intention is the former.

I have the same thought. People who are not able to distinguish between a source manipulating them or giving good info are just as likely to follow bad advice from random members because they simply lack critical thinking skills. I think sources should be able to post anywhere and let the consumers be responsible for themselves. Some sources are a wealth of knowledge and contribute greatly with their info.

 

[GuerillaPete]

Its a mixed bag of potatoes.
Some rules would be good like a middle ground.
Sources act cool and all but the only glimpse i got behind the scenes was not a good one.
Shills, Alt accounts, Manipulation, sources are good at this because its cash on the line for them .
The average new member can fall victim very easy.
Veterans not so much its the shills that get them or “friendliness” from a source.
You take care of me and i take care of you.
That being said i only know two sources that are constantly messing around and only one of them might have hidden agendas(not likely tho) so its not like every source does this.
At the end of the day messo has and is doing a lot of harm reduction.
Its not perfect but its the best i have seen so keep it up.
Keep improving when needed and accept it wont be perfect and that it does not have to be.

 

[tuffie]

Yin-yang

White-Grey-Black

However the overseer has the power, now repeat it several times ova and over again.

???

Profit

 

[Big_paul]

The average new member can fall victim very easy.

Not much anyone can do about it.
There is only one way to know if a source is good or not.

Competition is good for most of us, and it seems there's a lot more of that now than in the past. Maybe some sources do in fact care.

 

[Millard]

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.

I am opposed to sources using alt accounts to participate. This type of secrecy/dishonesty is bad for the harm reduction goals of the forum. And it has been used to manipulate members and potential customers.

Obviously, alt accounts that directly self-promote their corresponding source accounts have always been prohibited. However, the indirect ways in which alt accounts soft sell and otherwise manipulate potential customers is has been very problematic.

Theoretically, an alt account can be created with no connection whatsoever to the source account. And no one is aware of the connection. The alt account would be used for the sole purpose of helping others with no possibility that it is being used as a marketing tool.

In actual practice, there are always people that are aware of the connection between the alt account and the source account. It may slip out. The source may tell some of the well-known members or better customers - people tend to feel special and important if they are trusted with a secret.

So, the next part is where it gets worse.

Supposed an alt account who sells let's say a popular fat loss drug is providing an extraordinary amount of assistance in a thread about the same popular fat loss drug. Most readers will not be aware that the alt account providing all this information about how effective the drug is and how to use it is actually selling the same drug. Only those "in the know" will be aware of this connection. If people were aware of the conflict of interest, they would value the alt source's information less and rightly so.

Furthermore, all of the members who are "in the know" allow this dishonesty to happen.

Most members know, especially well-known members, that it is strongly discouraged and looked down upon to promote sources. But some well-known members have no problem openly supporting and liking and befriending alt accounts of sources.

As the secret grows and more people know, they see how all of the well-known members are buddy-buddy with alt accounts and logically assume that they support the corresponding source account.

And once they are "in the know" too, they feel special and important too.

Most tellingly is that some of these members make an effort to hide these connections from the forum administrator.

 

[GuerillaPete]

Maybe some sources do in fact care.

Well they should especially if they where members themselves before becoming a source.
The problem is things where working before so people are afraid to let a Trojan horse in the castle on or watch .
The dummies that messed a good thing up.
But times are changing so is there really a stoping to this?

 

[Millard]

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.

If you look again, members are holding sources accountable just the same as before. Members are aggressively encouraged to share their experiences good and bad with sources. And they do.

What is different is that we don't have the same 10 members to repeatedly attack and insult sources (and all of the sources' customers and any other members who disagrees with them) on a daily basis if the 10 members deem the source "bad" or "unpopular".

The truth and accountability based approach of calling out sources for poor products, services, etc is alive and well.

The agenda based approach of trying to eliminate unpopular sources and their customers any means necessary isn't going very strongly.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Millard]

Seeing sources vet other sources definitely makes me cringe.

As long as sources are being upfront and honest and not bashing each other

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

Yes, this is the problem. Conflict of interest. This is unavoidable.

If Source A bashes Source B with a legitimate criticism or concern or otherwise instill doubt, the net result will be to benefit Source A.

Potential customers will be less likely to use Source B. They will be more likely to use another source and given Source A has become the most immediate and salient alternative, the probability of the potential customer using Source A increases.

But should MESO delete any potentially valid criticism of a source based on who posted it? It would be essentially protecting that source from that criticism.

 

[fooba]

lets be real here. this thread is 99.99% about liska as hes the only source here who posts in other threads "vetting" them.

 

[Millard]

From my oldman perspective, if you cant read between the lines and recognize the difference between a post with the intentions of being beneficial vs. slanderous, then something is broken in your perspective and to be honest the AAS game is not for you. I have no issue with a source posting outside their respective thread if the intention is the former.

I have the same thought. People who are not able to distinguish between a source manipulating them or giving good info are just as likely to follow bad advice from random members because they simply lack critical thinking skills.

Shills, Alt accounts, Manipulation, sources are good at this because its cash on the line for them .
The average new member can fall victim very easy.

Manipulation can be subtle or even invisible to most people. Everyone is susceptible. I don't think you or anyone else should consider themselves immune. So efforts to reduce such manipulation are helpful.

 

[GuerillaPete]

Manipulation can be subtle or even invisible to most people. Everyone is susceptible. I don't think you or anyone else should consider themselves immune. So efforts to reduce such manipulation are helpful.

Then trow the lightning from Olympus straight at them and banish them in the hells of they're prison thread and problem solved .
Or do you have in mind some better solution?

 

[Millard]

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 ….

This goes to the whole idea that some people feel the rules shouldn't apply equally to everyone - they should only apply to ignorant people and not knowledgeable people with no regard to the conflict of interest inherent with sourcing.

Should someone who makes valuable contributions to the forum be above the rules. Do their contributions give them a free pass to break the rules?

It's not like they don't have a choice - that they can only make solid contributions if they break the rules. If it is really most important to help others, it is very easy to comply with the rules of the forum. OTOH, if they are trying to exert control over the forum and bend it to their desires as some sort of power trip, then they have other more pressing priorities.

Similarly, every member considering trafficking PEDs has a choice when it comes to participating on the forum...

What is most important to them? Is it to exploit the MESO demographics for profit? Or is it to selflessly help other members without regard for financial gain?

Sure they can genuinely want to do both. But if they had to choose, which would be the most important to them?

 

[Fattyone]

lets be real here. this thread is 99.99% about liska as hes the only source here who posts in other threads "vetting" them.

This and I think cridi aka rido

 

[MindlessWork]

Yes, this is the problem. Conflict of interest. This is unavoidable.

If Source A bashes Source B with a legitimate criticism or concern or otherwise instill doubt, the net result will be to benefit Source A.

Potential customers will be less likely to use Source B. They will be more likely to use another source and given Source A has become the most immediate and salient alternative, the probability of the potential customer using Source A increases.

But should MESO delete any potentially valid criticism of a source based on who posted it? It would be essentially protecting that source from that criticism.

Really no need to delete things, as members would add context to a source's posts.

 

[B Ware]

I am opposed to sources using alt accounts to participate. This type of secrecy/dishonesty is bad for the harm reduction goals of the forum. And it has been used to manipulate members and potential customers.

Obviously, alt accounts that directly self-promote their corresponding source accounts have always been prohibited. However, the indirect ways in which alt accounts soft sell and otherwise manipulate potential customers is has been very problematic.

Theoretically, an alt account can be created with no connection whatsoever to the source account. And no one is aware of the connection. The alt account would be used for the sole purpose of helping others with no possibility that it is being used as a marketing tool.

In actual practice, there are always people that are aware of the connection between the alt account and the source account. It may slip out. The source may tell some of the well-known members or better customers - people tend to feel special and important if they are trusted with a secret.

So, the next part is where it gets worse.

Supposed an alt account who sells let's say a popular fat loss drug is providing an extraordinary amount of assistance in a thread about the same popular fat loss drug. Most readers will not be aware that the alt account providing all this information about how effective the drug is and how to use it is actually selling the same drug. Only those "in the know" will be aware of this connection. If people were aware of the conflict of interest, they would value the alt source's information less and rightly so.

Furthermore, all of the members who are "in the know" allow this dishonesty to happen.

Most members know, especially well-known members, that it is strongly discouraged and looked down upon to promote sources. But some well-known members have no problem openly supporting and liking and befriending alt accounts of sources.

As the secret grows and more people know, they see how all of the well-known members are buddy-buddy with alt accounts and logically assume that they support the corresponding source account.

And once they are "in the know" too, they feel special and important too.

Most tellingly is that some of these members make an effort to hide these connections from the forum administrator.

Geez, you act like you’ve been around here for a while and have seen a thing or two. Lol. You nailed it and present a good case against why a source with an alt account should be frowned upon. There have been several WKM members who later turned source but separated and hid that they were one and the same to all but a select few. I’ve personally seen the affects of this and see your point.

Due to the fact that you are stating it’s frown upon the source is most likely going to keep it private that it’s them behind the handle. This is what I was referring to as that account would have no power of persuasion or manipulation. At least not unless they put in the time and effort to build some street/board cred. I actually like that you are against it as it would force them to hide the fact and limit their power.

Honestly I figured you were opposed to it but wasn’t quite sure as I know you once encouraged members to have alt accounts to protect them from sources.

If you look again, members are holding sources accountable just the same as before. Members are aggressively encouraged to share their experiences good and bad with sources. And they do.

What is different is that we don't have the same 10 members to repeatedly attack and insult sources (and all of the sources' customers and any other members who disagrees with them) on a daily basis if the 10 members deem the source "bad" or "unpopular".

The truth and accountability based approach of calling out sources for poor products, services, etc is alive and well.

The agenda based approach of trying to eliminate unpopular sources and their customers any means necessary isn't going very strongly.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Ehh, the dynamics around here has changed. Enough so that you changed the system to put limitations on new accounts due to shilling, trolling and to weed out alt accounts. Although there is a little resistance against sources and vetting them there definitely seems to be more members that are defending the source than holding them accountable. This is new and what I was referring to that was a shame to see. It’s gotten to the point that most members are probably fearful to speak out.

It is nice not seeing the same 10 guys bashing every source that comes through the door with the same rants but the elimination of that has tilted the pendulum. Wish there was a middle ground.

I’m a bit biased as I’ve been here a minute and although I like most of the simmered down change I also played a part in the hell fire brought on sources and saw the need for it. I definitely see more now why it was needed then. Used to there was more of a brotherhood and the members ran the board. That power has changed hands to a few sources now

Yes, this is the problem. Conflict of interest. This is unavoidable.

If Source A bashes Source B with a legitimate criticism or concern or otherwise instill doubt, the net result will be to benefit Source A.

Potential customers will be less likely to use Source B. They will be more likely to use another source and given Source A has become the most immediate and salient alternative, the probability of the potential customer using Source A increases.

But should MESO delete any potentially valid criticism of a source based on who posted it? It would be essentially protecting that source from that criticism.

I refer back to if a source feels the need to vet another source they should do so from an alt account that has no power of manipulation and persuasion. Doubtful they would do so unless there was ulterior motives/hidden agenda. I feel that is most likely why source A would vet source B anyway. Also, again I know this is a shady business but there still needs to be some sort of code of honor and a few lines that aren’t crossed. No where else do you see a business bashing another business. It’s unprofessional.

I realize this isn’t something you’d sanction. I’m just rambling and stating my thoughts here.

 

[T&H]

I am opposed to sources using alt accounts to participate. This type of secrecy/dishonesty is bad for the harm reduction goals of the forum. And it has been used to manipulate members and potential customers.

Obviously, alt accounts that directly self-promote their corresponding source accounts have always been prohibited. However, the indirect ways in which alt accounts soft sell and otherwise manipulate potential customers is has been very problematic.

Theoretically, an alt account can be created with no connection whatsoever to the source account. And no one is aware of the connection. The alt account would be used for the sole purpose of helping others with no possibility that it is being used as a marketing tool.

In actual practice, there are always people that are aware of the connection between the alt account and the source account. It may slip out. The source may tell some of the well-known members or better customers - people tend to feel special and important if they are trusted with a secret.

So, the next part is where it gets worse.

Supposed an alt account who sells let's say a popular fat loss drug is providing an extraordinary amount of assistance in a thread about the same popular fat loss drug. Most readers will not be aware that the alt account providing all this information about how effective the drug is and how to use it is actually selling the same drug. Only those "in the know" will be aware of this connection. If people were aware of the conflict of interest, they would value the alt source's information less and rightly so.

Furthermore, all of the members who are "in the know" allow this dishonesty to happen.

Most members know, especially well-known members, that it is strongly discouraged and looked down upon to promote sources. But some well-known members have no problem openly supporting and liking and befriending alt accounts of sources.

As the secret grows and more people know, they see how all of the well-known members are buddy-buddy with alt accounts and logically assume that they support the corresponding source account.

And once they are "in the know" too, they feel special and important too.

Most tellingly is that some of these members make an effort to hide these connections from the forum administrator.

This goes to the whole idea that some people feel the rules shouldn't apply equally to everyone - they should only apply to ignorant people and not knowledgeable people with no regard to the conflict of interest inherent with sourcing.

Should someone who makes valuable contributions to the forum be above the rules. Do their contributions give them a free pass to break the rules?

It's not like they don't have a choice - that they can only make solid contributions if they break the rules. If it is really most important to help others, it is very easy to comply with the rules of the forum. OTOH, if they are trying to exert control over the forum and bend it to their desires as some sort of power trip, then they have other more pressing priorities.

Similarly, every member considering trafficking PEDs has a choice when it comes to participating on the forum...

What is most important to them? Is it to exploit the MESO demographics for profit? Or is it to selflessly help other members without regard for financial gain?

Sure they can genuinely want to do both. But if they had to choose, which would be the most important to them?

It's surprising to hear of some Well-known members being in support of some specific alt source accounts. If there are indeed some, I'm completely obvious.

I was going to respond last night, but glad I waited as some good things were said today from this discussion. And I do see the points you make regarding what can and does probably happen from a sources involvement around a forum.

The big two I remember even seeing regularly outside of the UG are Rido and Liska. Who both happened to also post around the forum before you implemented the new Subscriber tag. It's irrelevant what I think their intentions and motives are for posting.

However I do see an increase in the number of members posting for sale AAS. I count 7 threads in the first two pages of the UG. So going forward members now considering selling anything have to make a choice.

Question for @Millard. If a Subscriber messages you saying they value being a contributor to the forum more and gives their word they want nothing else to do with sourcing, would you remove the Subscriber tag and reinstate their membership status?

 

[tuffie]

I thought it was stated clearly before by Millard. Once a Subscriber will remain a Subscriber.

 

[Millard]

You nailed it and present a good case against why a source with an alt account should be frowned upon. There have been several WKM members who later turned source but separated and hid that they were one and the same to all but a select few. I’ve personally seen the affects of this and see your point.

Due to the fact that you are stating it’s frown upon the source is most likely going to keep it private that it’s them behind the handle. This is what I was referring to as that account would have no power of persuasion or manipulation. At least not unless they put in the time and effort to build some street/board cred. I actually like that you are against it as it would force them to hide the fact and limit their power.

Honestly I figured you were opposed to it but wasn’t quite sure as I know you once encouraged members to have alt accounts to protect them from sources.

Sources can surely use several strategies for alt accounts. But no matter which strategy they use, it will have significant power of persuasion and manipulation.

The first strategy is the open use of alt accounts. The only good thing about this from an administrative perspective is that the conflict of interest is fully transparent. The source's open use of an alt account gives them unfettered access to all potential customers throughout the forum, where they can engage/discuss topics involving products they happen to sell as well, and can criticize and instill doubt about all of their competitors in other source threads. We can all sit back and watch it happen, in real-time. And just because we know what's happening, this doesn't make it any less effective.

The second strategy is the use of an alt account that is completed private and absolutely no else knows about. This strategy definitely requires a lot more work as you say to develop street rep and board credibility. And while it initially limits power, the payoff could be even higher. It's all the benefits of the first strategy but no one is aware of their conflict of interest. It's an incredible amount of power that can be used to guide and recommended members to use a specific source(s).

The third strategy is the use of an alt account with the secret shared among a few other members. This one may have the highest payoff of them all. It's all the benefits of the first and second approach with the bonus of recruiting other members to conspire in this deception further validating the alt account and their sourcing venture.

None of these are good for the harm reduction community. There are probably sources with alt accounts who have no intent to purposely manipulate in their own self-interest. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible for sources not to do so when they utilize alt accounts.

I feel that is most likely why source A would vet source B anyway. Also, again I know this is a shady business but there still needs to be some sort of code of honor and a few lines that aren’t crossed. No where else do you see a business bashing another business. It’s unprofessional.

I realize this isn’t something you’d sanction. I’m just rambling and stating my thoughts here.

I agree with you. The conflict of interest is extremely problematic.

You are not alone in your complaint of sources "vetting" other sources. Several other members feel similarly.

But something that gave me pause, and may you as well, is that most of the complaints about this practice come from other sources, specifically the targeted sources.

So, in effect, any potential administrative action would involve:

- Banning or deleting criticism of a source
- Banning a user for criticism of a source
- Protecting a source from criticism

MESO has made fundamental point of not doing this at all. Should it start now deleting potentially valid criticism of sources (based on who made the criticism)?

This is problematic as well.

 

[Millard]

Ehh, the dynamics around here has changed. Enough so that you changed the system to put limitations on new accounts due to shilling, trolling and to weed out alt accounts. Although there is a little resistance against sources and vetting them there definitely seems to be more members that are defending the source than holding them accountable. This is new and what I was referring to that was a shame to see. It’s gotten to the point that most members are probably fearful to speak out.

It is nice not seeing the same 10 guys bashing every source that comes through the door with the same rants but the elimination of that has tilted the pendulum. Wish there was a middle ground.

I’m a bit biased as I’ve been here a minute and although I like most of the simmered down change I also played a part in the hell fire brought on sources and saw the need for it. I definitely see more now why it was needed then. Used to there was more of a brotherhood and the members ran the board. That power has changed hands to a few sources now

I agree with your assessment.

It is quite surprising to so many members defend sources for things like lack of testing, poor customer service, and otherwise deflect accountability. It would be easy to dismiss them as alt accounts or paid shills, but after closely following this trend, it seems they are mostly just regular customers.

With MESO and a community that is supposed to be united around harm reduction and accountability. This is whole reason for the forum's existence. Yet, there are surprising number of users who choose allegiance to a source over allegiance to the forum community and the forum principles.

MESO could just ban users who have chosen allegiance to the source and even ban sources who do anything shady (or you have a group of 10 people to insult and harass them to effectively try to accomplish the same thing). Then it's just another source board like all the others.

But trying to promote harm reduction means we must continue to inform and educate and work to change those misguided allegiances.

Yes, sources have too much power and influence. MESO has already implemented several changes earlier this to help shift the balance. And more are coming.