New Source Code of Conduct (Rough Draft)

[Colt44]

To all members,

Myself and a few others have been working on a new SCOC to encompass the necessary requirements to ensure as little scamming as possible. We think these should be member driven requirements. We all enforce this together so all of us should have a say in what goes into it. If you have an idea to improve upon what we have so far, feel free to speak up. Let's not turn this into a pissing contest. We will all benefit from an open discussion but flaming each other will be counterproductive. Any ideas are welcomed.

**********DO NOT POST LIST UNTIL THESE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED**********

*****SOURCES WILL HAVE 24 HOURS TO COMPLY WITH ALL ITEMS*****​

1. Pics and description of brewing process. (Sterility equipment is a must)

a. Pictures MUST include your lab name with the date

b. Pictures will be taken from multiple angles

2. Communication.

a. Secure email is required. (Safe-mail will not be permitted)

b. PGP encryption is a MUST

3. Full disclosure.

a. Who are your reps/shills?

b. Do you have any other handles on Meso?

4. Testing

a. Source will donate products and pay for Mass Spec testing

b. Random testing and blood work should be compensated accordingly with store credit

5. References.

a. Do you source at other boards? If so, where and for how long?

b. Source may be grandfathered if they’ve had years in good standing and are vouched for by respected members. Item 4b. Will still apply to these sources.

6. Sources limited to one thread pushing their product.

7. If source has a website, it MUST be hosted outside the U.S.

Highly recommended

1. Multiple payment options

 

[Zaphod]

Damn, whos lawyer drafted that up? ...Nice!

 

[alphastrength50]

this is awesome man just awesone!

 

[tacohuman]

I like it. The only thing that I'm not sure about is other meso handles. I could see someone not wanting to reveal a handle that people may know personal information about. The people who we would be concerned about wouldnt fess up anyway.

 

[Colt44]

I like it. The only thing that I'm not sure about is other meso handles. I could see someone not wanting to reveal a handle that people may know personal information about. The people who we would be concerned about wouldnt fess up anyway.

Noted. Any suggestions to what you'd like them to disclose?

 

[showstoppa]

Yeah my only concern is the other handle thing. But if somebody is using two handles we will figure it out pretty quickly.

 

[juice_86]

What do we consider bunk gear? Some percentage less then the sticker value? Gear with a shit ton of fillers will low purity?

Obviously we cannot demand pharmaceutical quality but I think we should set some sort standard.

 

[Colt44]

What do we consider bunk gear? Some percentage less then the sticker value? Gear with a shit ton of fillers will low purity?

Obviously we cannot demand pharmaceutical quality but I think we should set some sort standard.

I would say anything over 80%. As you said, we can't expect pharm grade but if they are taking advantage of the MS testing, they will be able to dose their products accordingly.

 

[showstoppa]

Imo for orals I could give a shit about purity so long as the dosage is corrected for the purity. Oils I care only because I am afraid that the low percentages is more a by product of the powders being cut rather then a low yield. It it was just low yield no biggie.

Anyways got me orals need to be corrected for dosage only, not worried about purity, oils need to be better than 75%imo

 

[JackC4]

I agree with the grandfathering of a source if they have YEARS in this thing and rock solid refs.

It becomes a slippery slope with a Start up lab less than a year exp with refs, and they turn out to be the next BioLogic or worse.

 

[weighted chinup]

Damn this is sweet. This new draft looks so professional..very clear and concise. Good work everyone who was involved in finalizing this copy.

 

[Colt44]

I agree with the grandfathering of a source if they have YEARS in this thing and rock solid refs.

It becomes a slippery slope with a Start up lab less than a year exp with refs, and they turn out to be the next BioLogic or worse.

Agreed that's why I put years in good standing. We as members decide whether the references are solid also. It is all on a case by case basis.

 

[Colt44]

Imo for orals I could give a shit about purity so long as the dosage is corrected for the purity. Oils I care only because I am afraid that the low percentages is more a by product of the powders being cut rather then a low yield. It it was just low yield no biggie.

Anyways got me orals need to be corrected for dosage only, not worried about purity, oils need to be better than 75%imo

I will add those in if there's a general concensus.

80% oils
75% orals

The goal would be to have the sources send their powders in for MS first so everything can be adjusted accordingly, instead of just winging it and sending finished product to be tested.

 

[sc0rcher]

How does the pictures apply to resellers like naps and Gr? I don't think they would ever get the pictures of the labs producing their wares... In that case, resellers can forget about sourcing over here...

 

[Colt44]

How does the pictures apply to resellers like naps and Gr? I don't think they would ever get the pictures of the labs producing their wares... In that case, resellers can forget about sourcing over here...

This is why this is a rough draft. Any suggestions?

 

[sc0rcher]

This is why this is a rough draft. Any suggestions?

I suggest if in the absence of pictures, the source must be able to prove that their gears are from quality and reputable labs, and other form of proof that proper sterilization and brewing process were followed. ANd it will be better if they would able to rope in reps from the producing labs to stand by their statement.

Otherwise, the rest of the scoc shall be practiced, especially the testing and reimbursement.
I have no other opinions on the scoc that shall be implemented. This serves to protect all members here, and I have no objection if sources were dropped due to their noncompliance.

Sometimes i just post some of my views if i see things not right going on. Hope i don't offend you guys, and don't take me as a schill... I can always source at other board and take my own precaution and gamble... I frequent here just for the other info and sharing.. Thanks..

 

[duramax600]

How about adding something in about sources,reps,shills slamming sources on their treads. It creates a lot of junk that does not need to be there. It is buisness and every one wants to make that money, but if one source wants to vitrtual bang it out it should be a separate tread.
for example joes test shack. Only ppl using used or thinkof using joe test repots price pic etc on the tread.
johns aas wholesale tread same as above.
joes test shack sucks ass tread started by johns aas wholesale. Just a thought.

 

[S.B.C]

Why the hate for Safe-Mail.net ? when accessed via TOR and used with PGP I would hope it's ok.

How about some suggestions for good secure email providers ?

 

[tacohuman]

If they don't brew and are unable to get pictures I would imagine that would make mass spec all the more important for them.

As far as disclosure goes, I would imagine requiring disclosure that they have a personal handle and the year that handle was created would be good. Of course they could still lie, but it might help catch the dumb ones in a lie.

 

[Nitrobuste]

/sticky please