New Source Code of Conduct (Rough Draft)

[Kinikuman]

Over in the MS thread, there was a suggestion about adding a QA component, addendum, amendment, whatever to the SCOC. I thought bringing that up here would be worthy of discussion.

 

[Kinikuman]

Originally posted in the Underground:

Let's say the standard for Pharma grade is in the range of 8x to 12x, depending upon the individual, but that if we compiled all the numbers, we would average out to 10. This is based on observations by professionals in a clinical setting. When somebody comes along and publishes a paper that says otherwise that may change but for now it is the best science we have. We should see roughly as many 12s as 8s at doses of up to 1gm/wk. If we however see a large number 8s start popping up we would obviously begin looking at the potency of our medication as a probable cause. Pharma grade gear should be the standard by which the UGLs are held, with perhaps a small margin of error due to the nature of their business.

So what is an acceptable level for UGL gear? Are you happy with 5x, 7x maybe?
(I'm not)

Setting a minimum standard for suppliers to this board may be a good first step towards eliminating some of the ongoing and probably unnecessary controversy. If member bloods consistently come back below a certain threshold, you get an "under-doping" violation,get suspended, maybe banned for life, depending on the seriousness of the offense. What say you all?

 

[a0_]

So what is an acceptable level for UGL gear? Are you happy with 5x, 7x maybe?
(I'm not)

Setting a minimum standard for suppliers to this board may be a good first step towards eliminating some of the ongoing and probably unnecessary controversy. If member bloods consistently come back below a certain threshold, you get an "under-doping" violation,get suspended, maybe banned for life, depending on the seriousness of the offense. What say you all?

I like this a lot.

One thing you might want to try, instead of just saying "this source is legit" or "this source isn't", is to tier the evidence, like this:

Tier D: Source has multiple good reviews (say, 20+) who don't seem to gain financially from this
Tier C: Source has passed blood test
Tier B: Source has passed labmax
Tier A: Source has passed mass spec

I would be fine ordering from a Tier D+C source, and I'd make a D+C+B source my go-to in lieu of a Tier A source.

 

[Boilermech]

Originally posted in the Underground:

Let's say the standard for Pharma grade is in the range of 8x to 12x, depending upon the individual, but that if we compiled all the numbers, we would average out to 10. This is based on observations by professionals in a clinical setting. When somebody comes along and publishes a paper that says otherwise that may change but for now it is the best science we have. We should see roughly as many 12s as 8s at doses of up to 1gm/wk. If we however see a large number 8s start popping up we would obviously begin looking at the potency of our medication as a probable cause. Pharma grade gear should be the standard by which the UGLs are held, with perhaps a small margin of error due to the nature of their business.

So what is an acceptable level for UGL gear? Are you happy with 5x, 7x maybe?
(I'm not)

Setting a minimum standard for suppliers to this board may be a good first step towards eliminating some of the ongoing and probably unnecessary controversy. If member bloods consistently come back below a certain threshold, you get an "under-doping" violation,get suspended, maybe banned for life, depending on the seriousness of the offense. What say you all?

The only problem I see with this is banning the Source at question or suspending them. Millard has made it perfectly clear that he doesn't get involved with the underground sources here. He has more or less put us in charge of the underground. And none of us have the power to ban members. Of course there are a few circumstances where he does step in and take charge, but those are mostly to do with life threatening situations or personal information being exposed.
We can set the underground SCOC however we see fit but it is up to us to enforce it. So if we can't ban them what else besides what we already do can be done?

 

[Colt44]

I like this a lot.

One thing you might want to try, instead of just saying "this source is legit" or "this source isn't", is to tier the evidence, like this:

Tier D: Source has multiple good reviews (say, 20+) who don't seem to gain financially from this
Tier C: Source has passed blood test
Tier B: Source has passed labmax
Tier A: Source has passed mass spec

I would be fine ordering from a Tier D+C source, and I'd make a D+C+B source my go-to in lieu of a Tier A source.

Those are all batch dependent. You can't put a blanket statement out there as it can be misleading.

 

[2gunz327]

For instance like wats goin on with spetz. Us members who have common since and steer clear of shady and underdosed gear the newer members that are desperate are keeping spetz alive. Wile we arnt giving him our buisness they are and he can pop n and out and sell bs while make a killing and we have no control over this. We can encourage new members to find a beter source but when the better known sources arnt intrested in that kind of attention which is understandable leaves the impatient desperate members no choice in there minds to buy half dosed gear thus makin it ok for. sources to cut corners and sell junk because the gear is selling. Wat can. B done about this???

 

[a0_]

Those are all batch dependent. You can't put a blanket statement out there as it can be misleading.

*Anything* is batch dependent. Or more specifically, any source is vulnerable to bad batches. Shit, even regulated legal industries (beef) fall victim to bad batches (mad cow).

Basically, short of getting the source's raw supplier to send you raws for testing every 2-3 months, you're never going to be rid of doubt about batch dependency.

However, you could start a tally system for how many times a source has been validated on a certain level, and over what period. So if a source has 5 good blood tests over one year, that'd be weighted much more strongly than a source with 2 good blood tests over one year.

 

[a0_]

Flounder posted this elsewhere but it's related to the SCOC so it'd be better to have it here in one place:

[The tier list] doesn't address new sources since none of these tests will have been performed yet. Also we seem to be having issues with all of these tests currently. Labmax is routinely questionable, blood tests are not matching up with Dr. Scally's 8-10x rule and mass specs are almost impossible to find or are unreliable(depending on who's doing them). I like the idea you have, but some things need to be ironed out, I think, for it to work properly.

Hopefully it will become common practice for new sources to send out free samples for blood testing and labmaxing. The sources should pay for the tests too, honestly, but we're lucky to have sources willing to send out samples for testing as it is. Usually they expect a positive review in return, which is ridiculous.

You're absolutely right to mention that test results can always come under doubt.

Maybe the best solution would be a set of standards regarding labmaxing and blood testing. The lab testing forum DOES have a lot of posts along the lines of "I'm not sure I did this right..." -- so maybe there should be a standard. That way, when you tallied the number of labmaxes you can only tally labmaxes that comply with the standards for testing. (Same thing with blood testing and the 8-10x rule.)

Also, I think reviews are undervalued. You can easily fake 10-20 reviews, but some sources have 100+ reviews spread out over years. If enough people try one substance and experience great effects/results from it, there is *something* there worth buying. This should apply to the major injectables and orals, anyway, where the side effects are obvious. For more specific effects from milder compounds (primo for example), reviews are a more difficult thing to work with.

 

[Kinikuman]

For instance like wats goin on with spetz. Us members who have common since and steer clear of shady and underdosed gear the newer members that are desperate are keeping spetz alive. Wile we arnt giving him our buisness they are and he can pop n and out and sell bs while make a killing and we have no control over this. We can encourage new members to find a beter source but when the better known sources arnt intrested in that kind of attention which is understandable leaves the impatient desperate members no choice in there minds to buy half dosed gear thus makin it ok for. sources to cut corners and sell junk because the gear is selling. Wat can. B done about this???

It always comes down to a matter of free choice. If a newb comes along and wants to get ripped off, that is their right. All that can be done is to give them fair warning. However, those of us concerned with properly policing sources here can make it very difficult for unscrupulous sources to push their wares here, thereby reducing the chances that bottom-feeders can continue to survive in this environment. The economics of this hobby are what they are - the smart UGL entrepreneur knows that quality is tantamount to longevity. Occasionally things will happen to the most vigilant operators. That is to be expected. How we react and what is done about those occasions is important.

 

[jymis]

Flounder posted this elsewhere but it's related to the SCOC so it'd be better to have it here in one place:



Hopefully it will become common practice for new sources to send out free samples for blood testing and labmaxing. The sources should pay for the tests too, honestly, but we're lucky to have sources willing to send out samples for testing as it is. Usually they expect a positive review in return, which is ridiculous.

You're absolutely right to mention that test results can always come under doubt.

Maybe the best solution would be a set of standards regarding labmaxing and blood testing. The lab testing forum DOES have a lot of posts along the lines of "I'm not sure I did this right..." -- so maybe there should be a standard. That way, when you tallied the number of labmaxes you can only tally labmaxes that comply with the standards for testing. (Same thing with blood testing and the 8-10x rule.)

Also, I think reviews are undervalued. You can easily fake 10-20 reviews, but some sources have 100+ reviews spread out over years. If enough people try one substance and experience great effects/results from it, there is *something* there worth buying. This should apply to the major injectables and orals, anyway, where the side effects are obvious. For more specific effects from milder compounds (primo for example), reviews are a more difficult thing to work with.

We do not like free samples as this only works to the sources advantage. If they know it's going to be tested of course it will be great gear. Testing has to be anonymous to work.

 

[Colt44]

Flounder posted this elsewhere but it's related to the SCOC so it'd be better to have it here in one place:



Hopefully it will become common practice for new sources to send out free samples for blood testing and labmaxing. The sources should pay for the tests too, honestly, but we're lucky to have sources willing to send out samples for testing as it is. Usually they expect a positive review in return, which is ridiculous.

You're absolutely right to mention that test results can always come under doubt.

Maybe the best solution would be a set of standards regarding labmaxing and blood testing. The lab testing forum DOES have a lot of posts along the lines of "I'm not sure I did this right..." -- so maybe there should be a standard. That way, when you tallied the number of labmaxes you can only tally labmaxes that comply with the standards for testing. (Same thing with blood testing and the 8-10x rule.)

Also, I think reviews are undervalued. You can easily fake 10-20 reviews, but some sources have 100+ reviews spread out over years. If enough people try one substance and experience great effects/results from it, there is *something* there worth buying. This should apply to the major injectables and orals, anyway, where the side effects are obvious. For more specific effects from milder compounds (primo for example), reviews are a more difficult thing to work with.

We have already been through this. Samples from the source do not work. They just send out known good samples for testing, then shit gear afterward. Did you read this thread and the old COC thread? You keep regurgitating the same shit that's been hashed out.

Why don't you try contributing elsewhere. We don't need some new guy that's been here for 2 days coming in and telling us how the board should be ran.

Put some time in and try helping some guys out and establishing at least a smidge of credibility before you try and point out how wrong we are doing things around here.

 

[a0_]

I've read both, yeah, and I do contribute elsewhere. I also contribute here. I post on more than one steroid board. I'll probably keep doing that.

We have already been through this. Samples from the source do not work. They just send out known good samples for testing, then shit gear afterward.

True, but stores face the same quandary: employees slack when their bosses aren't around and stay on their best behavior when their bosses are around.

That's why they invented Secret Shoppers and the like. But Secret Shoppers are paid by the company to do that. You have to pick one: sources give you free samples, or you anonymously test sources. They are contradictory wants. The very fact of sources giving away something for free means they have the option to select what they're giving away.

The only way to quality control this is to create some kind of crowd fund to buy anonymous samples. Maybe you've suggested this already.

 

[Marcus]

I've read both, yeah, and I do contribute elsewhere. I also contribute here. I post on more than one steroid board. I'll probably keep doing that.



True, but stores face the same quandary: employees slack when their bosses aren't around and stay on their best behavior when their bosses are around.

That's why they invented Secret Shoppers and the like. But Secret Shoppers are paid by the company to do that. You have to pick one: sources give you free samples, or you anonymously test sources. They are contradictory wants. The very fact of sources giving away something for free means they have the option to select what they're giving away.

The only way to quality control this is to create some kind of crowd fund to buy anonymous samples. Maybe you've suggested this already.

You say the same shit over and over... Everything you've said has been discussed, you're not enlightening any of the members here with your eloquent speech and semi-intelligent observations (I say semi-intelligent because they have been said a hundred times before). Every one of your posts seems to discuss your disdain with Meso and how we can fix it, your 48 hour tenure I doubt qualifies you to speak on this. Maybe start out at the member introduction section and go from there instead of the underground criticizing the status quo

 

[a0_]

Okay, you've read something before and like old accounts. I'm not really going to do much about that.

So, other than repetition, do you disagree that wanting free samples from sources and wanting samples anonymously tested are contradictory wants? And what do you think about crowdfunding for anonymous samples?

 

[Marcus]

Okay, you've read something before and like old accounts. I'm not really going to do much about that.

So, other than repetition, do you disagree that wanting free samples from sources and wanting samples anonymously tested are contradictory wants? And what do you think about crowdfunding for anonymous samples?

This has been discussed. We were LITERALLY talking about it in the mikestrong thread earlier today, check it out there man. My personal opinion: no free samples to anyone, sources should test their gear for their own good regardless of anything else, everyone should run their own tests for both personal peace of mind and to keep sources in check, I don't think there is a need for crowdfunding. Check out Strongs thread. Just read it though please

 

[a0_]

Oh, I had the impression that Mike Strong only sold to vets, so I never bothered reading it as I'm not one. I didn't know you ventured into that sort of discussion; I'll go read it in a bit.

 

[Millard]

One thing you might want to try, instead of just saying "this source is legit" or "this source isn't", is to tier the evidence, like this:

Tier D: Source has multiple good reviews (say, 20+) who don't seem to gain financially from this
Tier C: Source has passed blood test
Tier B: Source has passed labmax
Tier A: Source has passed mass spec

I would be fine ordering from a Tier D+C source, and I'd make a D+C+B source my go-to in lieu of a Tier A source.

This is a good observation.

The general tendency here and elsewhere is to dichotomize sources...

Either they are "GTG" or "scammers".

Or like you said, "this source is legit" or "this source isn't"

First of all, there is not a single source that is categorically GTG. It's the black market. There will always be problems with quality at some point for even the best-intentioned source. Why would anyone expect otherwise since they don't always do mass specs on every batch of raw and finished product if ever at all.

But that doesn't mean they are all "scammers" either.

I've generally been critical of what seems to be the tendency to call everyone a scammer. I've discussed again and again why this doesn't help very much because it fails to account for the qualitative differences. If we want to create genuinely useful information about source, these differences must be discussed.

For example:

For example, here is a non-inclusive list of reasons that vendors have fallen under the umbrella of the "scammer" designation. The availability of these reasons may allow consumers to make better decisions.

• Arrested by law enforcement
• Supply and/or distribution chain arrested by law enforcement
• Becomes confidential informant for law enforcement
• Takes money and never ships product
• Takes money and selectively ships product
• Very complicated/restrictive/ambiguous reship policy in instances of customs seizure
• Only re-ships once in instances of customs seizure notice
• Never re-ships in instances of customs seizure
• Ships product with microbial contamination or visible contaminants
• Ships underdosed product
• Ships product with androgen other than that listed on label
• Ships product with no detectable androgens
• Ships wrong product or does not ship entire order
• Misrepresents UGL products as FDA-approved
• Does not offer replacement products to dissatisfied customers
• Packages shipped in a sloppy manner that results in damaged product
• Packages shipped in insecure manner that increases risk of customs seizure
• Takes excessive amount of time to ship order
• Responds to negative customer feedback with threats of violence or other
• Responds to negative customer feedback with organized shill attack
• Responds to negative customer feedback with dismissive or rude responses
• Customer service is inconsistent
• Takes excessive amount of time to respond to inquiries
• Fails to provide secure email address
• Fails to provide pictures of paraphernalia used in production
• Sells overpriced product
• Source is new and has no feedback and/or history

It is equally important to STOP calling favorable sources "GTG" or "legit".

I think the proposed tiered approach is clearly a step in the right direction. But I think one must approach the suggested tiered approach with caution and skepticism. Saying a source is "verified by blood tests / labmax" or "verified by mass spec" often does a disservice to consumers who basically see it as meaning GTG.

What does it really mean? Does it mean ALL 10 products sold by source were "verified"? Does it mean multiple, independent consumers conducted the tests? Does it mean multiple batches were tested?

Or does it mean ONE person allegedly tested ONE product from ONE batch?

This provides a standard by which a source if "verified". But that is a very low standard. I think it can be misleading to most consumers. It primarily benefits the source as a marketing tool.

Until independent analytic testing of all finished products from all batches is conducted a source's product line, you will never have a truly "verified" source.

 

[Millard]

Hopefully it will become common practice for new sources to send out free samples for blood testing and labmaxing. The sources should pay for the tests too, honestly, but we're lucky to have sources willing to send out samples for testing as it is. Usually they expect a positive review in return, which is ridiculous.

We do not like free samples as this only works to the sources advantage. If they know it's going to be tested of course it will be great gear. Testing has to be anonymous to work.

Samples from the source do not work. They just send out known good samples for testing, then shit gear afterward.

The only way to quality control this is to create some kind of crowd fund to buy anonymous samples. Maybe you've suggested this already.

As far as I'm concerned, no one does enough analytic lab testing. The more testing - by any means - the better for the community.

When sources do it, there is suspicion - and rightly so. But we should not dismiss it. Nor should we discourage it. Instead, we should demand that sources test their raws and their finished products for every single batch and post the lab results online.

When sources send free samples to members and compensate them for the lab testing, again the results should also be viewed with suspicion. But again, we shouldn't dismiss or discourage it. We should demand it as well.

Take it all with a grain of salt. But anything that encourages more analytic lab testing is a good thing.

Ideally, sources should be blind to whose samples are being tested. And sources should have no financial influence in the results (free samples or compensation for testing). This is infinitely better and more credible than any of the aforementioned options.

The problem is this means consumers will have to spend a lot of money on this. This could mean hundreds of dollars out of pocket for samples and lab testing. This could effectively double the cost of a cycle for most people. Not everyone can afford this. So, the number of independent samples that we see tested will be few and far between.

Crowd funding and secret shoppers are good ideas. I think some members have been discussing similar options. MESO has been looking at different ways to fund this as well.

An independent and credible testing program will make a big difference.

 

[brutus79]

Either a source starts out with good intentions or they don't. .. to me that is the only difference. They will always end up with people getting screwed- it is inevitable. Do you see how hard it is for us to find somewhere to mass spec samples? Do you think sources have some magical lab to mass spec their raws that we are unaware of? The fact is that there are multiple factors that go in to brewing on a large scale that make a properly dosed vial a virtual impossibility. The raw manufacturer has to have ethics and a flawless manufacturing process. The brewer has to feel the need to put out a quality product- and why would they? 50mg short on a cyp 200 increases profits by 25%. The remailers have to not want to cut the gear to increase their own profits. There are so many fingers in these pies it's a joke... and one siezed raw shipments means even a well intentioned brewer now has to face turning down mass cash or stretching the powder out. Hint- they usually stretch, and there are rhousands of customers who want something that will never complain. Sources get busted- you get fucked. Raws are bunk- you get fucked. Product is counterfeit- you get fucked. It's the furthest thing from a sustainable business model- as all illegal enterprise is.... and even if they start fucking people we can't get rid of them, and for every member who sees the signs there are ten more hoping for free gear or some sort of hook up by being the hero defending the scamming sack of shit because they haven't gotten a brisk enough ass fucking. It is a tiring cycle.

 

[Millard]

Either a source starts out with good intentions or they don't. .. to me that is the only difference.

That's the black market. Good intentions are not enough. Even if there were no bad players and all the sources had nothing but the best intentions of putting out good product, consumers would still be screwed. If only we could be so lucky.

The unfortunate reality for the consumer is that most of the sources probably DO have bad intentions.