New MESO-Rx member ranking system

[Type-IIx]

My preference was the more egalitarian prior scheme, where it would seem that a post would sort of be judged by its merits without any attendant quasi-authority besides that arising out of a bona fide familiarity with the Meso community. However, I fully acknowledge that I'm not in the norm with these sorts of social incentives anyhow, as I just view the pursuit of a digital badge to be a kind of insignificant one.

One potential concern is that there is, with status societies, at root a "keeping up with the Jones'" effect, where one might with some likelihood seek to avoid being perceived as low status (perhaps frustrating and even leading to the displacement of some fast learners that might be treated as mere trolls for asking honest questions (that a Veteran would be unlikely to be on the receiving end of), that the new arrival is not yet equipped to bolster against by creating inspirational, informative, or helpful posts (yet) because they lack the raw ability, despite their potential to at some later point become excellent contributors. This system, then, might simply add more detrimental and persistent granularity to the old prejudiced lenses historically guided by the social cues of: a) no avatar, b) low post count, and c) beginner questions.

More importantly, though, I view any plan to disrupt or dismantle the concerned threats to the harm reduction community from source shilling and unsavory marketing tactics, were they permitted to flourish, as a paramount one. If that's an achievable goal with this system, I encourage investigating that possibility to its very conclusion. And if the price that I have to pay is a forum where status is considered as conferring some authority (in exchance for enhanced community harm reduction), then so be it.

 

[Rido]

My preference was the more egalitarian prior scheme, where it would seem that a post would sort of be judged by its merits without any attendant quasi-authority besides that arising out of a bona fide familiarity with the Meso community. However, I fully acknowledge that I'm not in the norm with these sorts of social incentives anyhow, as I just view the pursuit of a digital badge to be a kind of insignificant one.

One potential concern is that there is, with status societies, at root a "keeping up with the Jones'" effect, where one might with some likelihood seek to avoid being perceived as low status (perhaps frustrating and even leading to the displacement of some fast learners that might be treated as mere trolls for asking honest questions (that a Veteran would be unlikely to be on the receiving end of), that the new arrival is not yet equipped to bolster against by creating inspirational, informative, or helpful posts (yet) because they lack the raw ability, despite their potential to at some later point become excellent contributors. This system, then, might simply add more detrimental and persistent granularity to the old prejudiced lenses historically guided by the social cues of: a) no avatar, b) low post count, and c) beginner questions.

More importantly, though, I view any plan to disrupt or dismantle the concerned threats to the harm reduction community from source shilling and unsavory marketing tactics, were they permitted to flourish, as a paramount one. If that's an achievable goal with this system, I encourage investigating that possibility to its very conclusion. And if the price that I have to pay is a forum where status is a commodity (in exchance for enhanced community harm reduction), then so be it.

That's an interesting discussion if people are labeled as a "source" or "company".

However newbies may jump straight there. Unsure if that's good or bad

 

[Jin23]

My preference was the more egalitarian prior scheme, where it would seem that a post would sort of be judged by its merits without any attendant quasi-authority besides that arising out of a bona fide familiarity with the Meso community. However, I fully acknowledge that I'm not in the norm with these sorts of social incentives anyhow, as I just view the pursuit of a digital badge to be a kind of insignificant one.

One potential concern is that there is, with status societies, at root a "keeping up with the Jones'" effect, where one might with some likelihood seek to avoid being perceived as low status (perhaps frustrating and even leading to the displacement of some fast learners that might be treated as mere trolls for asking honest questions (that a Veteran would be unlikely to be on the receiving end of), that the new arrival is not yet equipped to bolster against by creating inspirational, informative, or helpful posts (yet) because they lack the raw ability, despite their potential to at some later point become excellent contributors. This system, then, might simply add more detrimental and persistent granularity to the old prejudiced lenses historically guided by the social cues of: a) no avatar, b) low post count, and c) beginner questions.

More importantly, though, I view any plan to disrupt or dismantle the concerned threats to the harm reduction community from source shilling and unsavory marketing tactics, were they permitted to flourish, as a paramount one. If that's an achievable goal with this system, I encourage investigating that possibility to its very conclusion. And if the price that I have to pay is a forum where status is considered as conferring some authority (in exchance for enhanced community harm reduction), then so be it.

You see @Millard, "a nother" veteran. There are people who offer far too much knowledge, and are just veterans. They are put in the same basket as users who are miles below knowledge and helpfulness. It's a bit discouraging being put in the same basket as "check your estrogen bro" crowd ... As @bornSkinny before noted rather eloquently, this might be demeaning for some, lessening their contribution, but non deserving for others.

With any such a system you have to look at the end results and then you'll plainly see what the algorithm favours. Now I see pro bb'ers who don't even know that rodent mg's aren't applicable to humans, and are acting like they own the place, arrogantly and needlessly leaving absolute comments anywhere, having two statutes higher badges then severely more educated and more balanced users. I see this as a clear detrimental fault of the system, which is only discouraging for true "elite vets" but encouraging for noobs who don't yet have any status. For them it's definitely encouraging yes.

As noted above, for noobs the system works, but beyond that, human moderation might be needed.

 

[Chuck Spears]

How about ranks like
Natty
Dyel
NGMI
Swole
Jacked
etc instead

 

[Millard]

I was part of the group years ago that voted against labels and statuses when it was done away with. It was nothing to get the “well known” member status and later a “awesome member” status was added but short lived.

The way Millard and Admin describes this new system it sounds great but it’s definitely flawed. Sources here are “veterans” when some haven’t done anything but promote their gear, so how did they put out anything useful that gained them their status? I also see members with a vet status when all they do/did is bash/spread hate and they are already belittling those with a lower rank which was one of the reason the old guard voted all this out. Makes you wonder what deemed them worthy of the status when they are already abusing it. If there is truly a way to incentivize those who post helpful educational post then great. All for it, but that’s not the case, yet.

The old system went off likes. How does this one work? Is someone sitting and reading post and determining if that member’s post are beneficial to the community? To me, one of the most worthy things that should boost a member’s status is promoting harm reduction by purchasing and sharing labs such has hplc or blood work but it seems this system has definitely over looked that.

Anywho, just my thoughts. I’ll fall in line with whatever as I’m just a member who is here for the content. I just hope history isn’t repeating itself.

Hi @B Ware, yeah I know. I was part of the group that support the elimination of the ranking system. I agreed with all the reasons behind the decision. And I still do - 100%.

But really did eliminating it make a significant difference? Honestly?

We didn't arrive at a meritocracy, that is for sure. People find ways to create their own status structure, often in very undesirable ways, with human behavior being what it is.

For example, I think the system that arose in its place resulted in some groups seek status by suppressing speech of other groups with insulting, hateful, derogatory bashing, and bigotry with the often explicit goal of eliminating the their forum participation.

So, I hear you when you say you "see members with a vet status when all they do/did is bash/spread hate". Well, in the absence of the ranking system, they were already rewarded with the likes system and a certain amount of resulting influence.

The most troubling aspect of this is how frequently the community rewarded and cheered the racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and otherwise hateful content with dozens of like. The behavior was incentivized.

Any system in which a post calling someone a derogatory racial, ethnic, or homophobic slur receives more "likes" than ANY post by, for example, @Type-IIx or @PeterBond is flawed.

A quick reply to your mention of sources benefitting from the ranking: Yes, agreed. This will be eliminated.(See my earlier post.) Again, any system where "I sell tren" or "Get 50% off the purchase of 5 vials" receives more likes than any post by @Type-IIx or @PeterBond is wack. The reaction system on a forum like MESO was not intended for these purposes.

I want to add that the new system (although much improved going forward) is initially based on data from the past. Rather than an endless series of do-overs after every tweak to improve on flaws, I think the best approach is just to move forward.

Make no mistake about it, this new system will be flawed. But the old system really isn't maximizing or best furthering the explicit harm reduction goals of this website. The goal of the new system is to introduce some social structure that will incentivize members to focus more on harm reduction and the harm reduction community.

Rather than repeat history, I hope we can learn from history.

 

[Millard]

I think the entire steroid underground forum should have no impact into the equation. Given that some members only hang out in specific source threads, limiting their participation outside of it.

Nothing is off the table. This is a consideration.

It would be nice for this new system to influence members get involved elsewhere around the forum.

This is an explicit goal. Too many people camping out in source threads continually bumping (promoting).

 

[Millard]

My preference was the more egalitarian prior scheme, where it would seem that a post would sort of be judged by its merits without any attendant quasi-authority besides that arising out of a bona fide familiarity with the Meso community. However, I fully acknowledge that I'm not in the norm with these sorts of social incentives anyhow, as I just view the pursuit of a digital badge to be a kind of insignificant one.

One potential concern is that there is, with status societies, at root a "keeping up with the Jones'" effect, where one might with some likelihood seek to avoid being perceived as low status (perhaps frustrating and even leading to the displacement of some fast learners that might be treated as mere trolls for asking honest questions (that a Veteran would be unlikely to be on the receiving end of), that the new arrival is not yet equipped to bolster against by creating inspirational, informative, or helpful posts (yet) because they lack the raw ability, despite their potential to at some later point become excellent contributors. This system, then, might simply add more detrimental and persistent granularity to the old prejudiced lenses historically guided by the social cues of: a) no avatar, b) low post count, and c) beginner questions.

More importantly, though, I view any plan to disrupt or dismantle the concerned threats to the harm reduction community from source shilling and unsavory marketing tactics, were they permitted to flourish, as a paramount one. If that's an achievable goal with this system, I encourage investigating that possibility to its very conclusion. And if the price that I have to pay is a forum where status is considered as conferring some authority (in exchance for enhanced community harm reduction), then so be it.

Yes, I agree. Uncanny how you've captured by thought process - and its evolution - with regard to source-related threats to the integrity of the forum and harm reduction community.

I'll write more on this later but for now I'll say that I've been troubled for some time with the large number of new accounts that immediately (within couple of posts) that rush to post positive feedback and praise for a given source, and/or camping out in source threads.

Even if this behavior is not the result of explicit manipulation by sources -- I assume most of it is not and just newbies seeking to offer what contributions they can -- the old system may even, albeit indirectly, incentivized it in various ways with the likes system and the community's tendency to bash and ostracize these new members rather than meet them where they are at and bring them into the harm reduction mentality.

Consequently, we see various new members who show more outward displays of loyalty, if not sycophancy, to sources instead of loyalty to the harm reduction community.

This clearly needs to change. I think the addition of more social structure can help.

 

[Millard]

You see @Millard, "a nother" veteran. There are people who offer far too much knowledge, and are just veterans. They are put in the same basket as users who are miles below knowledge and helpfulness. It's a bit discouraging being put in the same basket as "check your estrogen bro" crowd ... As @bornSkinny before noted rather eloquently, this might be demeaning for some, lessening their contribution, but non deserving for others.

With any such a system you have to look at the end results and then you'll plainly see what the algorithm favours. Now I see pro bb'ers who don't even know that rodent mg's aren't applicable to humans, and are acting like they own the place, arrogantly and needlessly leaving absolute comments anywhere, having two statutes higher badges then severely more educated and more balanced users. I see this as a clear detrimental fault of the system, which is only discouraging for true "elite vets" but encouraging for noobs who don't yet have any status. For them it's definitely encouraging yes.

As noted above, for noobs the system works, but beyond that, human moderation might be needed.

I acknowledge the general truth of your observation.

Yet again, the "veterans" category is only 5% of the total active membership. Do you really think veteran members are really so offended and insulted because they were not recognized as better than others in the top 5%?

I chuckle at the thought of anyone being pissed because they feel they should be recognized at being in the top 99th percentile since they are so much better than many of those other people above the 95th percentile.

I know they exist. I just really can't see it being that big a concern.

Your point is recognized and duly noted.

Still, I suspect most of the members that are miles ahead in knowledge and helpfulness could really care less because they are too busy helping.

And I could be wrong but I think @bornSkinny was more concerned with the connotations of the word "rookie". That was easily resolved by changing it to a more neutral word like "member".

 

[janoshik]

I've grown on anonymous forums of the past, where the carrier of the message was not important at all and I liked it that way.

When I first came here, I was immediately assaulted with nonsensical attacks by the mob of WKMs who, given the experience I've had since, I believe simply didn't like their perceived influence threatened.

They abused their influence and tried to bully me off the board. Years passed and their influence waned or completely disappeared and time proved them wrong. But only a handful of members with their unchecked behavior almost succeeded. I remember that well back into 2015.

---end of sad story, jano wiping tears off his face--

This behavior, however, did not change with the removal of the WKM stati, so I don't think that system was entirely to blame, but I feel like it certainly helped.

I feel @Millard has become significantly less tolerant of, even very senior members, outright bullying others, so such abuse might theoretically be not possible nowadays and thus I can see a better environment for a ranking system now compared to before.

Times change and with aggressive and dishonest online marketing practices on the rise I believe the change of the forum practices might turn out good as well.

A word of a WKM is no longer sufficient to avoid scrutiny easily and a single WKM would see his influence wane very fast should anything go awry. With the status not easy nor simple to achieve I don't see people 'risking' it for a cheap grab-and-run schemes. I don't think there's an organized group of 'WKM's bullying people to submit to their will anymore either. And I mean, one account can only post so many touchdowns and positive feedback before he gets labelled a shill.

Nowadays it's mostly low effort accounts providing meaningless (if not faux) feedback and discussions that spam over the real issues. Ever since PurplePanda came around it turned out that incentivizing meaningless talk in the thread hides any issues from the 95% of the members that are too lazy to read anything but first and last page. And god, did it catch on.

All in all, it's pros vs. cons, I just outlined my subjective opinion.

 

[Jin23]

Still, I suspect most of the members that are miles ahead in knowledge and helpfulness could really care less because they are too busy helping.

That certainly holds merit - to a degree as for some it still will be discouraging. Is that a minority or a majority? And is that minority "statistically significant" is another point of discussion. Also, how many will be offended but wont let it show because the argument would make them appear vain? We're on an aas forum where emotional honesty and/or emotional self awareness is not at the fore front so you have to take that in to account. I'm just discussing, not pushing anything, it's the reason why this thread exists right ...

Yet again, the "veterans" category is only 5% of the total active membership.

I recognize the first time you've said this, yes, but as I've said before, it seems that everybody is a veteran, meaning, when you browse a thread, most of the members posting in the tread will be veterans. At least in the threads where people are asking for help. It might be different in source threads but most other threads, it looks like 50% of replies are from veterans, so I presume this is partly the reason why it seems there are so many veterans.

So taking this in to account, it's another step in the direction of the veterans category being to broad and thus watered down. And it might just be a problem with nomenclature and also how quickly/or slow, the title is given.

Regarding the nomenclature, a veteran is somebody who has first an foremost been in the "battlefield" for a prolonged period of time. So imo veterans (officer cadets) should be most of everybody who have been present for some time and have had a good deal of postings. Now for the next step; you can be a veteran but still aren't the studios type and this is completely normal, you know how you react to substances you have moderation, etc. etc. and this should be a veteran, but if we expand on this, if we have a person who can read studies and apply that knowledge critically and intelligently, then that person is more then a vet, he is capable of "leading a squad" ie. is a captain or a major and then you have the doctor/researcher type who is colonel or something, idk, I have fuck all knowledge about the army.

So basically what I'm saying, I guess, is lower the % requirement for veterans - newbie and rookie is almost the same and thus maybe a bit redundant? and besides, somebody who has been in the aas game for a couple of years can not be called a rookie anyways as he is most probably not, he is experienced and thus a "vet" - and put "elite" in place of veterans. So putting it in simple terms, lower and change the veterans category to reflect more the time present on the forum and post count, so more people will be vets, then create a "lieutenant" category (where 90% should fall in) and then elite which should be somewhere at 95% and the pro's, etc ... It's no use if only 5% are vets if it seems like that the majority of active posters are vets. 95% should appear more exclusive then it does now. And as I said there are some categories missing in between and the ratios need to be adjusted as should be the naming's.

Hope this makes sense and holds some merit, writing kinda in a hurry, should be working ...

 

[Millard]

That certainly holds merit - to a degree as for some it still will be discouraging. Is that a minority or a majority? And is that minority "statistically significant" is another point of discussion. Also, how many will be offended but wont let it show because the argument would make them appear vain? We're on an aas forum where emotional honesty and/or emotional self awareness is not at the fore front so you have to take that in to account. I'm just discussing, not pushing anything, it's the reason why this thread exists right ...

Let's put this in perspective. if all of these members were previously content when they were in the same category as everyone else with only one category, do you really think they will all of sudden become pissed that they are in the veteran category with only 5% of everyone else?

I recognize the first time you've said this, yes, but as I've said before, it seems that everybody is a veteran, meaning, when you browse a thread, most of the members posting in the tread will be veterans. At least in the threads where people are asking for help. It might be different in source threads but most other threads, it looks like 50% of replies are from veterans, so I presume this is partly the reason why it seems there are so many veterans.

Well, yes.

If select forum participants are the ones regularly responding to threads by people seeking help, then it seems logical that any algorithmic ranking system would recognize this.

If some forum participants don't respond to people seeking help, then logically they wouldn't be recognized.

Not much of a shortcoming in my opinion.

So taking this in to account, it's another step in the direction of the veterans category being to broad and thus watered down. And it might just be a problem with nomenclature and also how quickly/or slow, the title is given.

Regarding the nomenclature, a veteran is somebody who has first an foremost been in the "battlefield" for a prolonged period of time. So imo veterans (officer cadets) should be most of everybody who have been present for some time and have had a good deal of postings. Now for the next step; you can be a veteran but still aren't the studios type and this is completely normal, you know how you react to substances you have moderation, etc. etc. and this should be a veteran, but if we expand on this, if we have a person who can read studies and apply that knowledge critically and intelligently, then that person is more then a vet, he is capable of "leading a squad" ie. is a captain or a major and then you have the doctor/researcher type who is colonel or something, idk, I have fuck all knowledge about the army.

So basically what I'm saying, I guess, is lower the % requirement for veterans - newbie and rookie is almost the same and thus maybe a bit redundant? and besides, somebody who has been in the aas game for a couple of years can not be called a rookie anyways as he is most probably not, he is experienced and thus a "vet" - and put "elite" in place of veterans. So putting it in simple terms, lower and change the veterans category to reflect more the time present on the forum and post count, so more people will be vets, then create a "lieutenant" category (where 90% should fall in) and then elite which should be somewhere at 95% and the pro's, etc ... It's no use if only 5% are vets if it seems like that the majority of active posters are vets. 95% should appear more exclusive then it does now. And as I said there are some categories missing in between and the ratios need to be adjusted as should be the naming's.

Hope this makes sense and holds some merit, writing kinda in a hurry, should be working ...

I am a little confused on what you are suggesting. But I think, and correct me if I am wrong, it is this:

You feel it would be better if I adjust the inputs to modify the ranking distribution?

Currently, it is:

79.4% Newbie
15.2% Rookie
5% Veteran
0.36% Elite
0.13% Pro
0.07% Master
0.01% Legendary

I am not committed to this ratio. But by definition, the veteran category simply is not too broad given it is limited to 5%. And, of course, the elite, pro, master, legendary categories are even more so.

 

[janoshik]

Currently, it is:

79.4% Newbie
15.2% Rookie
5% Veteran
0.36% Elite
0.13% Pro
0.07% Master
0.01% Legendary

I am not committed to this ratio. But by definition, the veteran category simply is not too broad given it is limited to 5%. And, of course, the elite, pro, master, legendary categories are even more so.

Is it possible to see how would the numbers look if members who have less than 30 posts / post less than one post a month be excluded?

It might also be worth considering excluding inactive accounts ( < 1 post / mo ).

What do you think?

 

[bornSkinny]

I acknowledge the general truth of your observation.

Yet again, the "veterans" category is only 5% of the total active membership. Do you really think veteran members are really so offended and insulted because they were not recognized as better than others in the top 5%?

I chuckle at the thought of anyone being pissed because they feel they should be recognized at being in the top 99th percentile since they are so much better than many of those other people above the 95th percentile.

I know they exist. I just really can't see it being that big a concern.

Your point is recognized and duly noted.

Still, I suspect most of the members that are miles ahead in knowledge and helpfulness could really care less because they are too busy helping.

And I could be wrong but I think @bornSkinny was more concerned with the connotations of the word "rookie". That was easily resolved by changing it to a more neutral word like "member".

Yeah basically just butt hurt about that label given what I view the word to mean.
Rookie doesn’t mean good or bad, there’s plenty of rookies you’d rather have on your team than a veteran, however it does mean new.
I’m not new.
But I was only mad about that yesterday so no matter.

 

[138casanova]

Tough treading on the new rankings. I’ve posted my blood test results twice a year for the last two years, answered many questions, taken Opti’s greys, jinos, sinos, and blacks, provided my anecdotal experience on all of them, and I’m still considered a “Rookie.”

 

[bornSkinny]

Tough treading on the new rankings. I’ve posted my blood test results twice a year for the last two years, answered many questions, taken Opti’s greys, jinos, sinos, and blacks, provided my anecdotal experience on all of them, and I’m still considered a “Rookie.”

Not anymore look. Now we’re members. That’s better.

Need something else to complain about though. I think above someone mentioned the color scheme being too child like or something. I’m fond of the color green. I say this site is crap until everything is green.

 

[bigead]

I have been here 7ish years and I'm good being a newbie, as long as I can access the information.

 

[lukiss96]

@Jin23 is right that vets are everywhere now except some threads. Even though they are only 5%, they're very noticeable and pop a lot.

For example I only need to take a break from forum for sometime in order to get that vet badge too, only thing I don't have is minimum join date, all else considered and compared to other members with such badge, I have more than enough credentials to fit requirements.

Btw at least member is better than "rookie" as it was before, not so sure why the removal of reaction score.

Another thing, when member is being awarded vet and above status, imo it should request admin confirmation (not automatically slap on) just for admin to review whether that member is truly a vet or something else, if yes then click accept, if not then click deny. Something like this, since only 5% are vets it shouldn't require a lot of time.

 

[Jin23]

79.4% Newbie
15.2% Rookie
5% Veteran
0.36% Elite
0.13% Pro
0.07% Master
0.01% Legendary

I am not committed to this ratio. But by definition, the veteran category simply is not too broad given it is limited to 5%. And, of course, the elite, pro, master, legendary categories are even more so.

Newbie implies a new comer, so this title should really be only very transient, brief. 0 - 20%. And should be canceled out mostly by time present (70%) + post number (30%).

Rookie is very similar in meaning to newbie. So it might be a tad redundant, but let's say that this is also an intermediate step and thus also transient: 20 - 50%. Most non committed users should fall into this category and post reactions and such shouldn't really be much of a factor for advancement from newbie to rokie.

Veteran as I said is a bit problematic because of what the name implies it self and because to many people fall in this category who really shouldn't be in it. There should be clear delineation between a user who knows that primo lowers E2 and a user that understands it's effects on GR system and the effects on enzyme inhibition, etc. So the veterans should either be divided in to two categories; junior and senior (or something else that delineates users into their appropriate category) or just make it more easy for users to fall in to the elite category somehow. Either way, rookies should be phased out by veterans again primarily by time present on the forum (50%) coupled with post count (30) and post reaction score (20%) should be a bit more relevant here. This should be your base of long term semi educated users. 50% - 85%.

Elites or how ever you decide to name should be an upgrade from veterans and time spent on forum shouldn't be much of a factor any more. Transition into this category should be based primarily upon user knowledge coupled with helpfulness or some other metric that is based upon the users interaction with the forum. This is where studious and smart users fall into and maybe pro bodybuilders who are not complete idiots.

Above elites should be users whom are "officially trusted". This category can not be handed out by algorithm alone but must be transitioned by an admin. I'm sorry, but this is the way of all more serious forums. You can help your self with the algorithm, for instance, when an elite gathers enough points, it starts blinking on your radar an you start considering it for an evaluation for transition into the next category which is the "pro" category and that category then has the 3 upper levels which can be somewhat helped by an algorithm but the last step should also be given out by an admin imo. At the upper end of this category you should have researchers, doctors, etc. and at the lower end really committed "smart users", how far the doctors and researchers climb up the latter should be dependent upon how active and helpful they are.

The veterans category needs to be stretched out so there is a more delineation and some categories must be hand picked. This is not much work as there wont be a lot of people. I'd just be careful with the naming as it is no insignificant.

Idk, this are just some broad ideas and the % thing, I have no idea what it really means in terms of the algorithm currently used. But what is clear is that some categories should use different criteria altogether then others.

 

[Millard]

I feel @Millard has become significantly less tolerant of, even very senior members, outright bullying others, so such abuse might theoretically be not possible nowadays and thus I can see a better environment for a ranking system now compared to before.

I'm supportive of free speech but there have been many lessons learned from over 20 years moderating forums.

For example, some of the biggest supporters of online free speech are those members who primarily want the freedom to personally attack, insult, disparage, harass, bully, and stalk other members who they disagree with.

Needless to say, this often compromises the harm reduction goals of the website.

I honestly don't think those people truly understand what harm reduction is really about. For them, it is less about harm reduction and more about establishing/maintaining in-group influence/power structures and eliminating dissenting outgroups on forums.

 

[Deleted member 134759]

I'm supportive of free speech but there have many lessons learned from over 20 years moderating forums.

For example, some of the biggest supporters of online free speech are those member who primarily want the freedom to personally attack, insult, disparage, harass, bully, and stalk other members who they disagree with.

Needless to say, this often compromises the harm reduction goals of the website.

I honestly don't think those people truly understand what harm reduction is really about. For them, it is less about harm reduction and more about establishing/maintaining in-group influence/power structures and eliminating dissenting outgroups on forums.

Then why do you allow madbret and btcowboy to continuously insult other members who they disagree with. Literally half of their posts are calling people names instead of contributing to the discussion or problem. I’m curious why that is? But I’ve seen other members banned for this.

There is a difference in contributing to a discussion with your personal views and feelings, and continuously insulting other members as a form of belittling others they don’t agree with