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

[Footfetishguy]

So it's OK for the rep to resort to childish name calling when caught with their pants down or when pissed, but not for members bringing up problems? And calling them Ding dong is racist? GTFO with this trash. Never should been allowed a free pass after this last stunt.

I don’t read his thread all day, because it’s mostly posts like yours. But can you point out a post they made a racial slur? I see you make them plenty. Probably because you can’t think of a more mature way to communicate.

 

[Millard]

Long story short, none of you fucks who are actively attacking any happy custy have ever bought, which discredits everything you say as I truly believe you are being paid by competitors
If all of you were speaking from experience then that would make sence but your comments are all onesided third party events , and coincidentally the third party has no interest in joining your fight which again stems back to your toxic narcissism

Ok, here's where you're wrong. While review sites with only participation from verified customers may sound like the ideal way to evaluate vendors in theory, there are problems with this approach.

The main problem is that the majority (and often a large majority) of the customer reviews are positive for most sources (even the "bad" ones).

How is this a problem?

4 out 5 customers could be satisfied with what many consider some really risky sources. (Rather than make a moral judgment of good/bad, I'll discuss in terms of risk)

Even 9 out 10 customers could be satisfied even if there is still considerable risk.

Maybe at 99 out 100 we could call the risk low or negligible.

So there is no such thing a perfect source with zero risk.

And this quantitative approach to assessing risk isn't sufficient in my opinion.

Members should be unrestricted in their ability to share particularly their complaints and negative feedback.

The qualitative feedback is very important too.

In the scenarios above where 20%, 10%, and 1% of customers were dissatisfied, it matters why they were dissatisfied.

Did the source make a packing mistake?

Was their communication poor?

Did they send underdosed or contaminated products?

Did they refuse to reship?

Did they penalize customers for posting negative feedback?

Did they threaten to report the customer to law enforcement?

Did they selectively scam?

The qualitative nature of the feedback matters - maybe more than the quantitative feedback.

I think it's good to judge a business not just by how they do when everything goes right, but by the nature of their fuckups and what they do in response.

And the businesses should always be held accountable. I think the MESO community does an excellent job of reminding new and old members alike of the fuckups/shady shit. The members here have a long memory and that is an asset to the forum.

 

[T&H]

I don’t read his thread all day, because it’s mostly posts like yours. But can you point out a post they made a racial slur? I see you make them plenty. Probably because you can’t think of a more mature way to communicate.

Come on man, are you of all people here seriously using the word mature against me? Everyone here can look at many of both of our recent posts and see the truth. You resort to uncalled for childish attacks on a number of members semi recently.

Anyway, I'm not going back and forth here as I want to keep this thread on track. I've stated my extreme disappointment with QSC being allowed back, so I'm out.

 

[Millard]

Please rate my cute cool catgirl money trick* by the Meso rules:

1. Establish a presence in the UG for a while by having your website / contact / pricelist posted repeatedly in your and other threads.
2. Inofficially incentivize a harem of simps to keep your thread on top without your presence.
3. Stop posting to comply with the "no promotion of harmful drugs" rule and add these harmful drugs (back) to your website/pricelist**

*not financial advice
**hypothetically

This type of thing wasn't really a problem in the past.

There were those who dealt exclusively with pharmaceuticals that were used as PEDs and there were those who only dealt with pharmaceuticals that were commonly used as recreational substances of abuse like opioids and benzodiazepine.

MESO is a website focusing on PEDs. It has no interest in entertaining discussions of how to get high and how to acquire psychoactive drugs.

So, those seeking to sell psychoactive drugs of abuse were always banned. And even now, your "cute cool catgirl money trick" wouldn't work as a simple ruse to sell such drugs.

However, there has been a lot more crossover in recent years, particularly in the last year or two, with PED sources adding a few narcotic drugs to their inventory. This is probably due to the rise of chemical companies selling raw powders and real-life pharmacies that have started catering to bodybuilders. Both groups have easy access to pharmaceutical often abused for their psychoactive effects.

So now, we've seen scenarios involving pharmacy-based and chemical company-based PED sources, which are very popular and have large customer bases, and are quietly adding these types of drugs of abuse.

The current rule on MESO is that any company who offers such psychoactive drugs of abuse for sale on MESO, on their website, or on any current publicly-available list AND refuses to remove them from all promotional materials is banned from further participation on the forum.

If the source is banned then what to do with the discussion thread on the topic of their products and services?

It's an easy decision to remove a thread if it's true intent was to promote sales of non-PED substances.

But what if the source was one of the largest vendors of PED powders? Is no further discussion allowed?

Obviously, when PED sources start selling other types of drugs like opioids, stimulants, and benzos, this adds an entirely new level of risk for the consumer and the bodybuilding community as a whole.

How do you warn and inform the community of such risks? Certainly, there should be discussion about sources who do this and the risks they present. But at the same, the message "boycott this source because they are selling oxycontin" might not have its intended effect.

Ultimately, I see the bigger problem being "satisfied customers" - incentivized or not - who really don't care about the individual risks or risks to the community -- as long as they get their stuff.

How do you reach them and explain so they understand the potential risk of harm?

 

[Pantera]

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?

I haven't read past this part yet, so I'm not sure if any rule has been implemented, but someone who would snitch on a source would snitch on a fellow member. Also, a source getting busted could potentially leak a customer list, which I'm sure many people here, being customers, wouldn't like.

It only benefits all of us if someone who even threatens to snitch, whether they're a source of a member, gets permanently banned. Where I live, steroids are legal, but some guys here have a lot to lose if they get caught buying gear. And while that's their own personal choice to make, the vast majority of people here are in a similar boat, so we shouldn't foster an environment where snitches/potential snitches aren't harshly dealt with (via banning).

 

[dasistmane]

Any thoughts on sources actively encouraging off topic conversation in their threads?

Potentially drowning negative feedback when convenient and keeping thread at top?

 

[Liska]

Ultimately, I see the bigger problem being "satisfied customers" - incentivized or not - who really don't care about the individual risks or risks to the community -- as long as they get their stuff.

How do you reach them and explain so they understand the potential risk of harm?

I'll agree to focus on this boa currently constricting Meso to death.

These teenage grifters trading body & soul for mystery gear can't afford to bite the hand that feeds them, so that will be the only one who reaches them. The longer this goes on, the more sources will take notice and swoop in emulating the tactics that are successfully breaking Meso for profit.

If you can't stop this now, you certainly won't be able to then, so my idea is reverting the vet bans to give this community a better chance to defend itself with the help of some of the most knowledgeable & passionate members Meso has ever had. I'm aware you'll hate this idea, but perhaps not as much as what Meso is turning into without them.

 

[Btcowboy]

I'll agree to focus on this boa currently constricting Meso to death.

These teenage grifters trading body & soul for mystery gear can't afford to bite the hand that feeds them, so that will be the only one who reaches them. The longer this goes on, the more sources will take notice and swoop in emulating the tactics that are successfully breaking Meso for profit.

If you can't stop this now, you certainly won't be able to then, so my idea is reverting the vet bans to give this community a better chance to defend itself with the help of some of the most knowledgeable & passionate members Meso has ever had. I'm aware you'll hate this idea, but perhaps not as much as what Meso is turning into without them.

Already seen it start to happen with that other source that on day 1 said fuck testing, fuck Jano.

I believe we are on a slippery slope and nearing the edge

 

[Iron_Yuppie]

But what if the source was one of the largest vendors of PED powders? Is no further discussion allowed?

I’ve been wondering how you-know-who managed to evade a ban. Selling psychoactive drugs—domestically no less—seemed like a major change and it just came and went without a lot of discussion.

 

[Millard]

Any thoughts on sources actively encouraging off topic conversation in their threads?

Potentially drowning negative feedback when convenient and keeping thread at top?

Of course, I have thoughts about everything!

There are many challenges maintaining the harm reduction subforum devoted to the "Steroid Underground" while preserving free speech and allowing everyone to join with no barriers to participation.

It is crucial that members/consumers are completely free to post/share their questions, feedback, concerns, complaints, etc. regarding the risks presented by the use of a source's products and services and hold those sources accountable. At the same time, there can be value added when sources can participate in the conversation and address all of these issues. This dynamic has potential for improving harm reduction with regards to product safety and acquisition.

However, sources clearly have a conflict of interest. Their primary concern is sales and profit. Accordingly, given that their are currently no restrictions to forum participation, many sources, particularly small and new sources, see this forum as merely a billboard to promote sales.

The challenge of the MESO community is to force sources to take harm reduction measures seriously with concrete efforts towards this objective.

I am perhaps proudest of the MESO community for their insistence on regular lab testing of products by sources to the point that it is almost considered mandatory (and not just on this forum but across the internet).

So, I'm not too happy with tactics that are solely, or even primarily, implemented to promote sales. Tactics like in-thread contests, excessive graphics and sales promos, off-topic discussions, etc. deviate from the primary purpose of the subforum. These are not explicitly censored.

I prefer as little censorship as possible but if sources are moving to point of using the forum solely for sales, while dismissing attention toward harm reduction, then maybe some one-sided restrictions are necessary?

 

[Millard]

I haven't read past this part yet, so I'm not sure if any rule has been implemented, but someone who would snitch on a source would snitch on a fellow member. Also, a source getting busted could potentially leak a customer list, which I'm sure many people here, being customers, wouldn't like.

It only benefits all of us if someone who even threatens to snitch, whether they're a source of a member, gets permanently banned. Where I live, steroids are legal, but some guys here have a lot to lose if they get caught buying gear. And while that's their own personal choice to make, the vast majority of people here are in a similar boat, so we shouldn't foster an environment where snitches/potential snitches aren't harshly dealt with (via banning).

In sum, to protect individual AAS users, we should protect dealers (and potentially scamming dealers at that) and help them do their business?? I understand the sentiment but I strongly disagree with the logic. That's a backassward way of helping AAS users.

If any individual customer has the ability to provide evidence to law enforcement that will compromise an internet drug dealer's business, the dealer is already fucked and has no business running an illegal enterprise.

If existence of that internet drug dealer's business is in such a perilous state that all it takes is one customer to make a transaction to result in their arrest, they certainly should not make themselves known on the clearweb on a public website that can be readily accessed by everyone.

MESO should directly focus on protecting the customer from the harm and risks of dealing with such internet sources. Absolutely not on the protection of sources

Believe me, I understand the widespread distaste of "snitches". However, I recognize that customers that have been harmed (whether physically with bad product or financially with undelivered goods) are often angry and will make threats such as this. I don't think this should necessarily result in a permanent ban.

I'm also aware that there could potentially be some shady source-on-source efforts to undermine competitors that could take this forum as well. In no circumstance, it it desirable for the MESO platform to serve as a battleground for these type of issues.

 

[janoshik]

So, I'm not too happy with tactics that are solely, or even primarily, implemented to promote sales. Tactics like in-thread contests, excessive graphics and sales promos, off-topic discussions, etc. deviate from the primary purpose of the subforum. These are not explicitly censored.

I prefer as little censorship as possible but if sources are moving to point of using the forum solely for sales, with dismissal attention toward harm reduction, then maybe some one-sided restrictions are necessary?

Well, sharing 20 Instagram posts to bury anything negative has been a pretty straightforward and annoying tactic of particular suppliers for years and pretty much the only way to fight that is to keep bringing a particular point over and over again, which, on the other hand is explicitly verboten.

What is your opinion on that?

 

[Millard]

Well, sharing 20 Instagram posts to bury anything negative has been a pretty straightforward and annoying tactic of particular suppliers for years and pretty much the only way to fight that is to keep bringing a particular point over and over again, which, on the other hand is explicitly verboten.

What is your opinion on that?

View attachment 173433

Agreed

 

[janoshik]

So, I'm not too happy with tactics that are solely, or even primarily, implemented to promote sales. Tactics like in-thread contests, excessive graphics and sales promos, off-topic discussions, etc. deviate from the primary purpose of the subforum. These are not explicitly censored.

I prefer as little censorship as possible but if sources are moving to point of using the forum solely for sales, with dismissal attention toward harm reduction, then maybe some one-sided restrictions are necessary?

Frankly, to continue on the above, this all is the censorship in favor of the sources, to bury anything negative that's been around a while.

The lowest effort is straight out lazy, dumb and painfully obvious (insert picture of jacked Russian), but higher effort, such as in-thread contests, excessive graphics and sales promos or organic discussion blur the line a lot.

Especially when it's almost impossible to tell organic and artificial discussions, especially when those are intertwined. We've seen that happen first with interestingly coloured animals and homeshooters, however now it feels like a problem even more widespread.

So where will the line be drawn? Or will there be a line?

Agreed

So you agree it is a problem when sources have inorganic posts to cover up the negatives and the only way to counter that is posting about it all over again, but then the users will be penalized for doing that, so it's a rule that in a way protects the said sources.

So is it really appropriate to have a rule protecting sources?
Or how is that issue to be dealt with?

 

[Millard]

Frankly, to continue on the above, this all is the censorship in favor of the sources, to bury anything negative that's been around a while

I think you misunderstood.

I am against these tactics.

Members are NOT penalized for calling these out.

On the contrary, MESO encourages members to do so.

Why would you think otherwise.?

 

[janoshik]

I think you misunderstood.

I am against these tactics.

Members are NOT penalized for calling these out.

On the contrary, MESO encourages members to do so.

Why would you think otherwise.?

I was under the impression that calling out the same issue out, even if it is due to it being buried with blabber is a behavior that is against the rules.

So right now I'm not 100% clear on whether it is or it is not okay to bring out the same issue over and over again.

 

[Millard]

So is it really appropriate to have a rule protecting sources?
Or how is that issue to be dealt with?

No one is discussing creating a rule to protect sources. I am suggesting the exact opposite.

What exactly are you reading?

As far as members posting reminders of shady shit vendors are doing or have done, there are no penalties - even if it happened once over 5 years ago.

You of all people should know there are no repercussions for members who do this. I am baffled why you would suggest otherwise.

 

[Millard]

I was under the impression that calling out the same issue out, even if it is due to it being buried with blabber is a behavior that is against the rules.

So right now I'm not 100% clear on whether it is or it is not okay to bring out the same issue over and over again.

I think you've been listening to the wrong people. You should listen to my guidance.

 

[janoshik]

No one is discussing creating a rule to protect sources. I am suggesting the exact opposite.

What exactly are you reading?

As far as members posting reminders of shady shit vendors are doing or have done, there are no penalties - even if it happened once over 5 years ago.

You of all people should know there are no repercussions for members who do this. I am baffled why you would suggest otherwise.

I get your point, that's why I am confused.

Perhaps it was more about posting the exact same post, not about the same thing.

 

[MadBret]

I believe he was alluding to members who have been banned for spamming in source threads. Naps thread comes to mind. Maybe spamming relevant information should be acceptable behavior for members but not sources?