Censoring Subscribers hinders discussion

[Millard]

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

The big two I remember even seeing regularly outside of the UG are Rido and Liska.

This discussion applies to them as well as all sources. But the issue is much bigger and far-reaching. It is overly simplistic to think this is only about them.

 

[Millard]

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.

This is part of the bigger problem i've been discussing.

There has been a rash of new wannabe drug dealers flooding the forum.
In many cases, they were just regular members who may already chosen allegiance to specific sources. But they were essentially unpaid shills. Now they have stocked up on cheap source product and realize the barriers to entry are low and they can easily become paid shills by reselling to other members.

They want to be treated as regular contributing members with their own friend networks so they can be immune to the normal expectations of accountability for sources.

This forum shouldn't be an environment where everyone wants to become a drug dealer with a way to escape accountability.

Members need to make a clear choice as to what is most important to them:

To exploit this unique demographic for their own self-interest or self-profit, or

To contribute and help and support community members in furtherance of the harm reduction goals of this forum.

I'm not saying they can't necessarily do both. But they need to choose to avoid the conflict of interest.

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?

In most cases, no. There does exist the possibility depending on how long and how involved they were.

 

[GuerillaPete]

When is someone considered a shill?
If a member orders from a source and has a good experience and shares it with the forum is he a shill or is he helping others by pointing them to a source that is not a health risk or has accurately dosed gear?
If one has a positive experience probably he will stick with said source so the reviews will continue.
Nobody wants to mess a good thing up so a good source is rarely switched out if always stocked well.
So at some point this member will be considered a shill but is he really?
I think many people have alliances with sources because they had good experiences and naturally want to share this sometimes becoming to protective of said source its true.
I think Shills are the ones that give fake reviews for discounts or free gear.
What is everybody's opinion on this?

 

[B Ware]

- 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)?

The more I read your thoughts the more it makes me simply realize what truly drew me to this place back in 2013 was that it was pretty much an uncensored board. Administration only got involved in the serious threats and matters where they were needed. The members (old guard) ran this place and although it seemed like a bunch of angry apes were running things it just simply worked. The primary focus was harm reduction. If a member got burned the pitch forks came out and that was the end of that source. No need for admin to intervene unless someone got doxed in the process. I do miss that. What I’m getting at is I understand times are different now and some interference and restrictions are needed before this place goes full blown source board but I think the less interference the better. Sadly some basic interference I feel is needed. Like the topic at hand. For pretty much the existence of Meso it was common practice that a source stayed to their own thread and they definitely didn’t bounce around acting as a member. Now that they are it’s changed this place and sadly a few restrictions are necessary.

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.

Very well said. Can you say this louder for the members in the back? I will be stealing that last line for future use.

It makes absolutely no sense why a member would idolize and put drug dealer on a pedestal, but they do. Due to no logical explanation is why it’s believed alt. Influencer accounts must be behind some of them.

 

[Big_paul]

When is someone considered a shill?

Nothing wrong with an honest review made on the open forum or in private.

It becomes an issue if that member is compensated.

 

[ハカク]

in general, i don’t believe in censorship, hate it, but in regards to subscribers (vendors) being able to participate in threads outside of their own, i think they should be allowed as long as they are staying on topic of the specific thread and not tryna push their products in any way

 

[Millard]

When is someone considered a shill?
If a member orders from a source and has a good experience and shares it with the forum is he a shill or is he helping others by pointing them to a source that is not a health risk or has accurately dosed gear?

I have a much broader definition of what is considered a shill.

If a person has a good experience with a source, how many times do they need to share it? If a single customer out of hundreds or even thousands of customers has a good experience, do they really need to share it more than once or twice?

As far as I'm concerned, absolutely not. It's one insignificant data point. Why would anyone want to amplify it by spending weeks and months telling everyone how great that source is?

This is especially true if the reviewer is repeatedly promoting the source while dismissing other users (legitimate) complaints or concerns against that source.

That sounds like a shill to me.

I think Shills are the ones that give fake reviews for discounts or free gear.
What is everybody's opinion on this?

It becomes an issue if that member is compensated.

Those are just paid shills. Those are bad especially is they fail to disclose the compensation.

But those who do it for free may be even worse. And honestly, even if they are not directly compensated, they still benefit from more favorable treatment by the source.

Any source that knows anything about marketing will always give preferential treatment to those customers who give positive reviews and repeatedly steer potential customers in their direction. This incentivizes a lot of the positive feedback and referrals.

So, in sum, no more than a couple positive posts about a source experience should suffice in most instances. If someone has promoted a sources dozens, or god forbid hundreds, of times on the forum, I'd seriously reevaluate the motivations of that person.