Improving the "Steroid Underground" subforum - rules discussion

[Voltrader]

I am new but I do not plan on going anywhere and I do not think you should censor people by post count. I also know to how to weed out the BS know who is a shill and a genuine vet. I could see a source donation for a labmax test not that there are ways around that but one more step that will slow a scammer down. Outside of that I have been here since October watching and reading I know who is who. So to keep what the underground forum was designed to do I do not think you can change much. This is a serious game we play and to many guys come in here half cocked looking to score some gear with out putting in the time. I know for a fact they are warned time and time again you guys do what you are supposed to do and as long as the best interest by the vets on this board is for its members, themselves and new guys alike it is good to go the way it is. Only complaint is a couple of threads have really spun out of control and become hard to follow just because the thread has lost its way. I got my big boy pants on!

 

[Joeblack]

now im trying to remember. Back before the classifieds were close in 2005, 2006 ish. Was it moderated at all? I remember ppl getting ban but not sure if it was from post in the classys...Millard?

ps i think this forum is ran just fine. If ppl take the time to read and do a little research first before ordering, everything would be better. About the drama and stupid post. Thats why i love meso back in the days. Always something happening and that keeps me coming back. I wish i would have known this section was back open before last month!!! I missed this lol

 

[tstein]

What makes this place great is the lack of restriction and censorship. I wouldn't change a thing. Sure, there is deceit, dishonesty, and competition using smear campaigns to make a few more bucks. But the vast number of vets who probe, raise brow, and ask the hard questions allows a newb in time to find their way.

 

[Candyskull]

Not sure how this would really work but how about something along the lines of people below x amount of posts are not allowed to post in the Underground. It would help control the outbreak of new accounts that we have seen recently. Recently a ton of new accounts have been made and I am not saying it is just on the side of UGLs. All the back and forth is what has really made a mess and it is getting old.

The one problem I see with that is you'll have guys hold off on a negative review because they fear reprisal by a source. Not everyone has a secondary account with some post time handy is case that happens, and I don't think it's real wise to start up a war with the same username you order with. These sources make big money here. What would you do to a guy who just cost you $40,000 a month?

It's not necessarily about what user is bringing up issues, it's about the evidence and validity of the issue. Substantiating your claims. That is what should matter.

Just like new guys shouldn't put more weight in what us loudmouths with high post counts fast have to say vs. someone brand new.

 

[Test3_KD]

Keeping guys with less than 100 posts out of the underground is going to cause more of the random bs babble from guys who have been here 2 days to get 100 posts and get into the underground.

 

[Millard]

Not sure how this would really work but how about something along the lines of people below x amount of posts are not allowed to post in the Underground. It would help control the outbreak of new accounts that we have seen recently. Recently a ton of new accounts have been made and I am not saying it is just on the side of UGLs. All the back and forth is what has really made a mess and it is getting old.

Here';s my concern about this...

I suspect that 90% of people scammed, especially by selective scammers, are newbies with relatively few posts.

IMO, a simple "no posts allowed by members below x number of posts" rule primarily benefits selective scammers; newbies who were scammed would be prevented from posting negative reviews/feedback as a result. This allows scams to perpetuate.

It could be modified to apply ONLY to those who have commercial interests i.e. users who are actively selling something or promoting a company's products or giving a positive review of a company/product.

As far as I am concerned, newbies, even with zero post count, should always be allowed to post negative feedback.

I think members posting negative reviews/feedback should always be given the benefit of doubt unless proven otherwise.

 

[Millard]

Keeping guys with less than 100 posts out of the underground is going to cause more of the random bs babble from guys who have been here 2 days to get 100 posts and get into the underground.

Newbies who have been scammed probably won't take the time to make 100 posts just so they can post a negative review/feedback.

OTOH, sources hoping to empty your wallet would gladly take the time to do so.

This is a problem.

 

[Spyder]

The one problem I see with that is you'll have guys hold off on a negative review because they fear reprisal by a source. Not everyone has a secondary account with some post time handy is case that happens, and I don't think it's real wise to start up a war with the same username you order with. These sources make big money here. What would you do to a guy who just cost you $40,000 a month?

It's not necessarily about what user is bringing up issues, it's about the evidence and validity of the issue. Substantiating your claims. That is what should matter.

Just like new guys shouldn't put more weight in what us loudmouths with high post counts fast have to say vs. someone brand new.

I definitely see your point. That is why I said x post counts. This be could 50 posts or whatever it would be but it would put a stop to all the 1 posters. People below 50 would not be able to view or post in the subforum. This way if you want to order you have to have some posts under your belt even if it is your "burn" handle. Also, this would discourage new UGLs coming on board to create a bunch of accounts. It just would be a pain in the ass for them.

 

[Spyder]

Here';s my concern about this...

I suspect that 90% of people scammed, especially by selective scammers, are newbies with relatively few posts.

IMO, a simple "no posts allowed by members below x number of posts" rule primarily benefits selective scammers; newbies who were scammed would be prevented from posting negative reviews/feedback as a result. This allows scams to perpetuate.

It could be modified to apply ONLY to those who have commercial interests i.e. users who are actively selling something or promoting a company's products or giving a positive review of a company/product.

As far as I am concerned, newbies, even with zero post count, should always be allowed to post negative feedback.

I think members posting negative reviews/feedback should always be given the benefit of doubt unless proven otherwise.

I see your point - the problem that I have with this is what has happened just recently with an influx of new members for the soul purpose of shilling. I touched on this idea with my reply to Candy but what if you had to have a certain post count just to view - then there are no issues with zero post counts. The newbies who actually take the time to post and hit 50 count in a legit way then can view and post? This will put the kibosh on all the 1 posters.

 

[johnnyBALLZ]

After hearing Candy and Millard the post thing won't work.. We'll have the naps situation all over again with guys trying to get to that number..

Back to the drawing board..

 

[Spyder]

After hearing Candy and Millard the post thing won't work.. We'll have the naps situation all over again with guys trying to get to that number..

Back to the drawing board..

Yea I see the point. Just look at brucebanner75 - he joined just over a week ago and he is all ready past the 50 count. He is spewing his shit everywhere spamming multiple threads with same info and he hasn't been banned yet. So it would be fairly easy for a shill to achieve this.

 

[Millard]

I see your point - the problem that I have with this is what has happened just recently with an influx of new members for the soul purpose of shilling. I touched on this idea with my reply to Candy but what if you had to have a certain post count just to view - then there are no issues with zero post counts. The newbies who actually take the time to post and hit 50 count in a legit way then can view and post? This will put the kibosh on all the 1 posters.

Remember, we do want to actively encourage newbies with few posts who have been scammed to post and alert others. (We just don't want shills to post regardless of how many posts they have.)

I addressed this here:

Newbies who have been scammed probably won't take the time to make 100 posts just so they can post a negative review/feedback.

OTOH, sources hoping to empty your wallet would gladly take the time to do so.

This is a problem.

 

[Voltrader]

I see your point - the problem that I have with this is what has happened just recently with an influx of new members for the soul purpose of shilling. I touched on this idea with my reply to Candy but what if you had to have a certain post count just to view - then there are no issues with zero post counts. The newbies who actually take the time to post and hit 50 count in a legit way then can view and post? This will put the kibosh on all the 1 posters.

Then I will post garbage and then in turn lower the integrity of the whole forum and anybody viewing this forum will not join. Then the whole thing has gone to the crapper anyways. Not arguing there are just consequences for every action. Who knew the Steroid Underground is actually the great experiment in true open society, self regulated and at times pure anarchy I like it

 

[Spyder]

But we do want to actively encourage newbies with few posts who have been scammed to post and alert others. (We just don't want shills to post regardless of how many posts they have.)

I addressed this here:

Trust me Millard I get what you are saying and agree. I guess what I was trying to get across if somebody with low post count can't see the subforum (it is locked) then they can't get the info they need to order from the UGL. Once they put a little time and effort into posting, the subforum would be available to them and then if they place an order and if they get scammed they then also can post what is needed. This would also lock the subforum from being publicly viewed and I am not sure if this is good or bad.

Anyway it was just an idea to kick around.

 

[CensoredBoardsSuck]

I've been thinking a lot about all the things to go on in the underground lately.

Some of them really bother me, but none are against the rules. I NEVER want to see this place censored for MEMBERS, but should that same privilege carry over to sources?

I'd like to open a dialog on everyone's thoughts on the current rules (shame on you if you haven't read them!), and any changes we may wish to purpose to Millard, or just our thoughts and feelings on what we have, and what we can do to keep it and make it better.

So, I urge you, nay implore you as a member; take part in this discussion. Have a voice here on what you would like the underground to be, and what if anything you would change about it.

Thank you Millard, and all of you for providing me a place where I feel safe voicing my opinion, and may it remain happily uncensored and free of source control forever.

CS

I don't know how or if the underground could be improved via a rule change. I think it could be greatly improved by the members themselves if they would stop using these new sources and decline their offers for free samples, as well as discourage others, particularly noobs, from doing so. Is that idea realistic? I don't know.

 

[Voltrader]

Trust me Millard I get what you are saying and agree. I guess what I was trying to get across if somebody with low post count can't see the subforum (it is locked) then they can't get the info they need to order from the UGL. Once they put a little time and effort into posting, the subforum would be available to them and then if they place an order and if they get scammed they then also can post what is needed. This would also lock the subforum from being publicly viewed and I am not sure if this is good or bad.

Anyway it was just an idea to kick around.

I actually get your point there Spyder maybe by the end of this thread I can get my post count up.

 

[stallion]

While I don't think any "rules" are needed to improve the underground forum, we the members can improve this forum on our own. The recent experience with Biologic and Stretch is evidence of that. Stretch became "one of the guys" way too easily on this board.

We need to be wary of allowing a source to become a "spokesman of the board". As I look back, I saw Stretch lead the attack on some sources and embrace another. Stretch was protecting his territory. Perhaps Meso missed out on some good sources as they didn't want to compete for Stretch's territory?

We may never know but I think we will all be wiser for having witnessed how it went down. We can use that wisdom to our advantage.

 

[beezil]

I don't know how or if the underground could be improved via a rule change. I think it could be greatly improved by the members themselves if they would stop using these new sources and decline their offers for free samples, as well as discourage others, particularly noobs, from doing so. Is that idea realistic? I don't know.

CBS is spot on.... it needs to be policed by its members! its not too hard to pick a shill.

pressuring the sources to be legit in a market that is illegal is the task at hand.

and as stallion eludes to... not allow someone to become a cult leader again.

 

[ebkallday]

^ Agreed! No rule will make the underground better. It like trying to make America the free better by laying another law down. I love this section because Millard allows US to police most of the happenings. So lets come together and lay down some member enforced rules. We can start by discouraging free samples and demanding setup pics.

 

[viking23]

I have to say I really like what spyder is saying come to think of it. That way the public can't just jump on and see what everyone has to say in the underground. It also makes it for new guys to put in time on the main forum making sure they actually know what they are doing by the time they are able to order from sources. I mean sure there will be the Bruce banners still but some guys will be asking good questions and learning what to do so by the time they order they already have a solid base of knowledge on the subject. I'm sure there are other pros and cons but those are just the ones that come to my head ATM.

And I like what CBS has to say too! Unfortunately I don't think it will happen because there will always be those few guys that will take the free gear at moments notice. I personally hate these sources because so far every time I decided they are solid and I should pull the trigger they went bad and honestly I wish to see no other members go through that.