Harm reduction in the Steroid Underground subforum - this is NOT a source forum

[scientifik]

I'm not sure I understand. That is the very purpose of the "Steroid Underground" subforum.
?

Yes but it's a mess, people posting all type of shit that is far away from the meaning of the section.but as I said this forum is not meant to be a "market" so it's gtg

 

[Millard]

Who are you?
It's your face?

这个疯狂的混蛋
你和青岛都准备死了
我会在这里报告一切

So @Millard I know that shit talking to the source is one thing. But these guys are threatening to dox the source to the Chinese law enforcement. Isn't this a bit much?

This is an interesting moderation issue.

The guy seems to have a legitimate complaint (and even if it wasn't, he wouldn't be restricted from bringing it up). The primary goal of the Steroid Underground subforum is to provide a platform for everyone to do this with as few restrictions as possible.

At the same time, we must have basic rules and regulations on how this should be done.

What crosses the line?

Wishing, hoping, or calling for physical violence - including threats of sexual violence and political - and self-harm is prohibited.

Spamming the same message/photo again and again; copying and pasting the message across multiple threads, hijacking unrelated threads with the same message is prohibited.

Doxxing (posting personally identifiable information about forum users) and also posting potentially personally identifiable information information about forum users is prohibited.

OTOH, threats to report sources to credit card companies, paypal, better business bureau, regulatory and law enforcement agencies have not been been prohibited. These seem like moderating actions aimed more at protecting the source than members. Thoughts?

 

[Millard]

Yes but it's a mess, people posting all type of shit that is far away from the meaning of the section.but as I said this forum is not meant to be a "market" so it's gtg

Yeah, I know what you mean regarding the mess and off-topic stuff. But that means a whole helluva lot of moderation. It's enough to get members to post experiences/complaints/feedback without violating the most basic of forum rules. I can't imagine what would be involved in trying to keep people on-topic.

 

[Weedup]

I agree with the rules, it's basically common sense. But I think members threatening sources to report them to law enforcement should be prohibited because it can put members in problems in case sources have data stored.

 

[mjolnirr]

This is an interesting moderation issue.

The guy seems to have a legitimate complaint (and even if it wasn't, he wouldn't be restricted from bringing it up). The primary goal of the Steroid Underground subforum is to provide a platform for everyone to do this with as few restrictions as possible.

At the same time, we must have basic rules and regulations on how this should be done.

What crosses the line?

Wishing, hoping, or calling for physical violence - including threats of sexual violence and political - and self-harm is prohibited.

Spamming the same message/photo again and again; copying and pasting the message across multiple threads, hijacking unrelated threads with the same message is prohibited.

Doxxing (posting personally identifiable information about forum users) and also posting potentially personally identifiable information information about forum users is prohibited.

OTOH, threats to report sources to credit card companies, paypal, better business bureau, regulatory and law enforcement agencies have not been been prohibited. These seem like moderating actions aimed more at protecting the source than members. Thoughts?

From my point of view this "Lotus Driver" guy is trying to set QSC up for some kind of crime related to disrespecting China's president. It looks like he's a guy that is willing to use every dirty trick in the book to (maybe) take out a competitor.

It's like, if I knew you were from an arabic country, let's just say Qatar, and I really wanted to take you out, I would try to pin you as a homosexual, as that is a very offensive crime in that country. That could very well mean that your life is on stake.

What I'm trying to say is that I think what we're seeing here falls under "Wishing, hoping, or calling for physical violence".

With that being said, I'm glad I'm not a moderator.

 

[Liska]

OTOH, threats to report sources to credit card companies, paypal, better business bureau, regulatory and law enforcement agencies have not been been prohibited. These seem like moderating actions aimed more at protecting the source than members. Thoughts?

As you allow sources to scam cause financial harm to members without repercussions even when sources admit to doing so, you should let members threaten to cause financial harm to sources without intervention as well.

 

[Iron_Yuppie]

OTOH, threats to report sources to credit card companies, paypal, better business bureau, regulatory and law enforcement agencies have not been been prohibited. These seem like moderating actions aimed more at protecting the source than members. Thoughts?

If a source is using a traditional payment processor like Visa, MC, et al then they have a lot less room to complain if they get reported by a disgruntled customer or rival operation. Having their customers use a credit card to buy scheduled drugs is at the very least irresponsible and lazy. If they want the ease and comfort of a traditional, legal, regulated payment method then they also take on the risk of losing said method through traditional, legal, regulated channels. I don’t think this is terribly controversial. Is it kind of a bitch move? Yeah, I think it’s undignified to go at the guy’s knees like that. But it’s a global drug distribution company, are we really arguing about what is and is not fair to the vendor(s)?

 

[Rido]

This is an interesting moderation issue.

The guy seems to have a legitimate complaint (and even if it wasn't, he wouldn't be restricted from bringing it up). The primary goal of the Steroid Underground subforum is to provide a platform for everyone to do this with as few restrictions as possible.

At the same time, we must have basic rules and regulations on how this should be done.

What crosses the line?

Wishing, hoping, or calling for physical violence - including threats of sexual violence and political - and self-harm is prohibited.

Spamming the same message/photo again and again; copying and pasting the message across multiple threads, hijacking unrelated threads with the same message is prohibited.

Doxxing (posting personally identifiable information about forum users) and also posting potentially personally identifiable information information about forum users is prohibited.

OTOH, threats to report sources to credit card companies, paypal, better business bureau, regulatory and law enforcement agencies have not been been prohibited. These seem like moderating actions aimed more at protecting the source than members. Thoughts?

Zonezack as annoying as he is, does have an issue as he is a legitimate customer. The issue is spamming was unnecessary and littering the forum with his concerns. I think he already had a warning which is good.



Lotus is either crazy or a troll. Threatening to involve law enforcement or wishing death upon the source. I don't think that should be tolerable


idk if doxxing the source is as bad as the source doxxing the client.

 

[Millard]

As you allow sources to scam cause financial harm to members without repercussions even when sources admit to doing so, you should let members threaten to cause financial harm to sources without intervention as well.

This forum is not "allowing" sources to cause financial harm any more than it is allowing you (or any other source) to cause physical harm. You (and the other sources) are entirely responsible for that. This forum exists for harm reduction with regard to financial, legal, physical, etc.

 

[Omegistosalex]

This forum has saved me and my friends who I help order from health problems, fake gear and money loss. We as customers must protect ourselves, its stuff we put in our bodies and all other shilling forums dont help at all. They will promote everyone for some under the table money, even if people risk their health. They are disgusting.

 

[Millard]

I agree with the rules, it's basically common sense. But I think members threatening sources to report them to law enforcement should be prohibited because it can put members in problems in case sources have data stored.

All sources retain customer data. All sources will be under legal scrutiny at some point. If you don't assume these two premises as given before proceeding, you are creating a false sense of security for yourself.

You can never be sure whether a source's opsec is so poor that it can't withstand a disgruntled customer or a competitor's attack.

Having said that, is it worth permanently banning a disgruntled customer for this?

 

[Millard]

From my point of view this "Lotus Driver" guy is trying to set QSC up for some kind of crime related to disrespecting China's president. It looks like he's a guy that is willing to use every dirty trick in the book to (maybe) take out a competitor.

It's like, if I knew you were from an arabic country, let's just say Qatar, and I really wanted to take you out, I would try to pin you as a homosexual, as that is a very offensive crime in that country. That could very well mean that your life is on stake.

What I'm trying to say is that I think what we're seeing here falls under "Wishing, hoping, or calling for physical violence".

With that being said, I'm glad I'm not a moderator.

National security at the highest levels for many if not most governments monitors internet traffic for threats of violence against high-value political targets especially the leaders of world powers. So these type posts will appear on someone's radar and bring unwanted attention on the forum even though they may most likely quickly be dismissed as non-credible rantings.

This is why the forum cracked down on posts "wishing, hoping, or calling for" political violence and violence against politicians following January 6th Capitol attack. More than a few people indicted were allegedly posting on unnamed bodybuilding-related forums. This is obviously unwanted attention.

 

[Eman]

Yeah, I know what you mean regarding the mess and off-topic stuff. But that means a whole helluva lot of moderation. It's enough to get members to post experiences/complaints/feedback without violating the most basic of forum rules. I can't imagine what would be involved in trying to keep people on-topic.

Meso's stock price sure would take a hit in the process.

Having said that, is it worth permanently banning a disgruntled customer for this?

If I called LE and gave them information that lead to the arrest of a Meso member for possession of AAS, drug paraphernalia, etc but nothing related to intent to distribute - and then I posted on the board that I had done so, would I be breaking a Meso rule? I'd certainly be an asshole, but I don't think there is a precedent for this is there? Admittedly, I can't find the rule thread to read it verbatim to see if any rules would apply.

I guess my point is, if there isn't a rule that covers something like this for member:member, then I'm not sure if the question regarding member:source could be answered.

I don't think it should be happening either way though, for the reason you mentioned above - the attention from it would be a slippery slope.

 

[Millard]

Zonezack as annoying as he is, does have an issue as he is a legitimate customer. The issue is spamming was unnecessary and littering the forum with his concerns. I think he already had a warning which is good.



Lotus is either crazy or a troll. Threatening to involve law enforcement or wishing death upon the source. I don't think that should be tolerable


idk if doxxing the source is as bad as the source doxxing the client.

That he was a real and legitimate customer with a legitimate complaint was tacitly acknowledged by the source in question. That he had the right to lodge his complaint publicly on the MESO forum is without question. This is the entire purpose of the Steroid Underground subforum.

However, spamming the same images again and again in the source threads and across other tangentially-related threads even after he was warned, and creating an alternate account to dox the source, wish death upon the source, and suggest the source was planning to assassinate a world leader shows a blatant disregard for the forum rules.

 

[Millard]

If I called LE and gave them information that lead to the arrest of a Meso member for possession of AAS, drug paraphernalia, etc but nothing related to intent to distribute - and then I posted on the board that I had done so, would I be breaking a Meso rule? I'd certainly be an asshole, but I don't think there is a precedent for this is there? Admittedly, I can't find the rule thread to read it verbatim to see if any rules would apply.

I guess my point is, if there isn't a rule that covers something like this for member:member, then I'm not sure if the question regarding member:source could be answered.

I don't think it should be happening either way though, for the reason you mentioned above - the attention from it would be a slippery slope.

There is precedent on this forum. Not for one member getting another member arrested but for one member threatening to report another member (actually several members) to the FBI/DEA/etc. It involved a lot of harassment via PM and email too. He was banned for doing this. He also threatened to report a source to the FBI/DEA/etc. The source admitted seeking to hire someone to physical assault him in retaliation.

 

[Millard]

Meso's stock price sure would take a hit in the process.



If I called LE and gave them information that lead to the arrest of a Meso member for possession of AAS, drug paraphernalia, etc but nothing related to intent to distribute - and then I posted on the board that I had done so, would I be breaking a Meso rule? I'd certainly be an asshole, but I don't think there is a precedent for this is there? Admittedly, I can't find the rule thread to read it verbatim to see if any rules would apply.

I guess my point is, if there isn't a rule that covers something like this for member:member, then I'm not sure if the question regarding member:source could be answered.

I don't think it should be happening either way though, for the reason you mentioned above - the attention from it would be a slippery slope.

I think there's some nuance when it comes to the differences between member-source and member-member.

The main difference is that most sources' entire existence is based their ability to evade law enforcement. That is their business. The forum has zero interest in helping and protecting sources with regard to their business.

OTOH, the forum does have interest in reducing legal risk for consumers in order to discuss AAS-related topics.

 

[Rido]

That he was a real and legitimate customer with a legitimate complaint was tacitly acknowledged by the source in question. That he had the right to lodge his complaint publicly on the MESO forum is without question. This is the entire purpose of the Steroid Underground subforum.

However, spamming the same images again and again in the source threads and across other tangentially-related threads even after he was warned, and creating an alternate account to dox the source, wish death upon the source, and suggest the source was planning to assassinate a world leader shows a blatant disregard for the forum rules.

oh wow, I didnt realize it was the same guy. I guess it makes sense

 

[Weedup]

All sources retain customer data. All sources will be under legal scrutiny at some point. If you don't assume these two premises as given before proceeding, you are creating a false sense of security for yourself.

You can never be sure whether a source's opsec is so poor that it can't withstand a disgruntled customer or a competitor's attack.

Having said that, is it worth permanently banning a disgruntled customer for this?

I understand that there's always a risk in this kind of business. And it belongs to members take care of there own security.
Still I think that threatening a source to report them to the LE it's a bit too much and ineffective. Well the only situation that i see myself trying or thinking to talk to LE, would be if i got scammed and lost a lot of money or if i bought something and instead they sent me something dangerous to health... but in this cases the source should be banned and i doubt that LE would resolve anything, unless it's a domestic source perhaps.
In the end I guess it will always be a case per case analysis that should determine if the member should be banned or not. Because if there's a real, serious, problem with a source, then I understand that a member should have the right to use whatever he can to make the source responsible for there mistake. But there are other members that like to cry and create lots of drama and that ones maybe should take a day or two to think but not permanently.

 

[Liska]

This forum is not "allowing" sources to cause financial harm any more than it is allowing you (or any other source) to cause physical harm. You (and the other sources) are entirely responsible for that. This forum exists for harm reduction with regard to financial, legal, physical, etc.

That's correct, both are equally allowed (as opposed to forbidden) as there are no forum rules in place that serve to protect the community from being harmed repeatedly in either of those ways, and the community's only means of holding sources accountable regarding harm reduction is posting their experiences, which are easily drowned out via shill/alt account posts (impossible to detect effectively even by a company as big as Amazon, so you're not able to do so nor expected to).

 

[Millard]

That's correct, both are equally allowed (as opposed to forbidden) as there are no forum rules in place that serve to protect the community from being harmed repeatedly in either of those ways, and the community's only means of holding sources accountable regarding harm reduction is posting their experiences, which are easily drowned out via shill/alt account posts (impossible to detect effectively even by a company as big as Amazon, so you're not able to do so nor expected to).

You have your own agenda of course but I'm sure you understand the basic approach of harm reduction. It is strange for you to imply MESO is somehow a harm promotion forum.

This is generally the tactic taken by opponents of harm reduction (who take the approach of forbidding or prohibiting drug use).

MESO doesn't go around "forbidding" or prohibiting people from taking unacceptable health risks, legal risks, financial risks, social risks, etc. "You are forbidden from using trenbolone!" "You are forbidden from using DNP!" "You are forbidden from going on a cycle longer than 12 weeks!" "You are forbidden from using AAS if you don't monitor your health!" "You are forbidden from using that source!"

Rather, MESO hopes that the website and forums can provide information that will help visitors manage risk and minimize physical/social/legal/financial harms.

As far as the underground black market, the community's sharing of experiences is vital to minimizing the associated risks and the central component to the forum's harm reduction approach. This should not be trivialized.

With regard to the source cheerleaders, I have a lot to say about that.

MESO supports members leaving positive and negative reviews/feedback/complaints. But really how many posts does it take to leave a positive review? One or two? Maybe 5 max followups if anyone has questions. Anything beyond that suggests other motives and should be questioned.

So yeah, the motivations and agendas of the people leaving the reviews can sometimes be suspect.

I'll unpack more later...