Open Letter to Millard

[Mac11wildcat]

By my count 5 so far. We need our own sub forum. I fucking hate naps and will wear the ban as a badge of honor.

Thank you for your service

 

[TRT.]

@Millard/USER]

MESO is a great site. I love it. It’s a great place to post and exchange information. PEDs are unfortunately illegal in the US despite the minimal (or manageable) risks associated with responsible use. For this reason, MESO and the harm reduction philosophy that is incorporated is an invaluable resource.

I want to be very clear, this post is nothing against you or the forum. I accept my ban and I learned from it. I’m just offering discussion regarding a very real concern/issue. I believe a lot of the newer members that read this will get a better understanding of what occurs when dealing with underground labs.

There is the Steroid Underground, which is not intended to be a source board but rather an area for members to discuss sources. Again, absent legal regulation, this is an invaluable resource for the discussion of various PED manufacturers as it provides safety and self-monitoring of these sources.

There is a flaw in the system though and I believe sources should be held to a higher level of conduct than Average Joe Member.

For example... a source posted a thread advertising a contest with $160,000 in cash prizes. That’s pretty impressive at the surface, but it highlights exactly how much money is at stake for these black market vendors. Money that I am sure they would seek to protect, with little regard to the individual members of this board. When the average member posts, it is purely for individual reasons. However when a source posts it is primarily for profit. This is a big differentiation.

The representative refused to answer member questions regarding multiple past issues. Fair, reasonable questions. And when these issues were offered for discussion, the rep claimed he was being attacked and resorted to devious responses, initially consisting of encouraging other sources to pull resources and doxx multiple members (this is specifically why members should never link their screen name with any other personal information). Later, this included threats of a “swift surgical strike” against multiple members. When a black market source has enough resources to “give away” $160,000 in a contest, these threats are obviously serious.

A “threat” is a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done. This is usually an offensive attack.

A deterrent is a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.

I was banned for two weeks after receiving what I considered a serious threat. The rep encouraged other sources or members to provide my location and then later threatened a “swift surgical strike”. My banning was in response to my post of “Bring it, I have a long driveway so you better duck and cover”. Which I made to DETER the threatened attack. Absent the serious threat by the source, my statement obviously never would have been made.

In that situation, how is banning a member for attempting to deter a criminal organization from attacking their home (and family) indicative of harm reduction? The rep threatened me because I asked valid questions regarding their checkered past.

Sources are not members at MESO. They are here for PROFIT. The majority conduct themselves civilly as businessmen and that earns respect. However, sources should be held to a higher standard than members to encourage that professionalism. The community in general does not want gangbangers, thugs, and hardened criminals turned sources, as that would only contribute to the existing stigmas that are unfortunately attached to this lifestyle. The community WANTS sources that are professionals and actually care because they run similarly to legitimate businesses. These sources would obviously agree to be held to a higher standard than members because they already hold themselves to that level on their own.

Absent that change, it is very easy to envision a scenario where a group of sources could easily work together at MESO and change the uncensored forum to fit their own needs.[/QUOTE]Well said. What happened to the source? Banned I suppose.

 

[Skarpyona]

Thank you for your service

Remember the great Naps Shitposting wars.

All gave some,
Some gave all

 

[Millard]

I think that he’s basically trying to say that he actually violated the rules from an objective point of view, but from a subjective point of view

Well, in that case, thank you for applauding my objectivity in applying the rules.

 

[Millard]

For the record, that kind of logic holds up in court. I know from personal experience. Hypothetical if-then statements are circumstantial and do not constitute an actual threat. I'm not arguing this situation because I haven't read in to it.

This is not a legal issue. It's just a forum rule.

Please respect the rules: no violence.

This is apparently a very difficult concept to grasp.

I will try to clarify/expand and raise the standards for everyone.

 

[Millard]

I never edit quotes. I just hit the quote button and comment.

WTF? Why do you persist in saying things that are independently and verifiable false?

 

[Millard]

i dont see that on the website terms and conditions OR the underground rules.

Just because you didn't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[NLM36]

Just because you didn't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

It’s your forum and I like it here. I just won’t do it anymore.

 

[shackleford]

Just because you didn't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

can you direct me to it? is it in the terms and rules accessed by clicking the link at the bottom of the page? is it in the underground rules sticky? somewhere else?

 

[Navysquid]

WTF? Why do you persist in saying things that are independently and verifiable false?

It’s your forum and I like it here. I just won’t do it anymore.

Agreed. I don’t got the energy to be concerned with naps. Moving on.

 

[shackleford]

Just because you didn't see it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

Are there more rules somewhere other than 'term and rules' and 'undergroud rules sticky' is what im asking

 

[Millard]

It’s your forum and I like it here. I just won’t do it anymore.

I never thought it was too much to ask everyone to respect the few forum rules we have. I guess I was wrong. So thank you very much - I appreciate it.

 

[Millard]

Agreed. I don’t got the energy to be concerned with naps. Moving on.

This has nothing to do with naps.

It is about understanding and respecting the basic rules of the forum.

 

[Millard]

Are there more rules somewhere other than 'term and rules' and 'undergroud rules sticky' is what im asking

Yes, it is in the underground rules: Steroid Underground RULES

"Engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, misattribution and fraud is prohibited."

 

[shackleford]

Yes, it is in the underground rules: Steroid Underground RULES

"Engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, misattribution and fraud is prohibited."

Thank you

 

[Millard]

Thank you

You are very welcome. This was also explained here --> Project Get Shredded 2021 - Win $160,000 in CASH prizes!

 

[Forthewin1123]

@BigBaldBeardGuy This is the first I've heard of this.. I've been really busy passed few weeks with life. I agree with.you 100%.. this is a problem.. the source should be banned period!!!

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

This is the simple rule in question:

"Threats of physical violence, including threats of sexual violence, against members and/or their family members are prohibited."

I'm not going to change the rules to give special treatment to some people over others. Nor am I going to lower the standards for some groups over others.

Rather than being a flaw, I think the equal application of the rules to everyone is a defining feature of the MESO forum that makes it stand out from other forums.

It stills sounds like you are trying really hard to say you didn't violate the rules. The wordplay is confusing. A deterrent is not a threat when it is defensive? However, a threat can be a deterrent when it is defensive although it is usually it is offensive? But does a deterrent become a threat when it is offensive?

I suggest you try a different approach:

You should argue that it is more concerning when a source violates the rule than when a non-source violates the rule. I think you will find unanimous agreement on this point.

(Well, except when it involves TGI, then members think a source is perfectly justified in pursuing violence against a non-source. But that's another story.)

I wrote my little manifesto over my ban and honestly, I didn’t think I broke the rules at the start of my ban. I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of threatening defense. And “duck and cover” isn’t nearly as graphic as the little picture of a missile exploding the side of a building that accompanied my nemesis’s threat.

But I do understand “violence” so I gradually shifted away from trying to think of “threat” and when thinking of violence, I accept my ban. I’m not arguing that and I completely understand the rule and how you administered it. Very fair.

My real point that I was trying to convey today is that a source is far more capable of carrying out these threats than Average Joe Member. Which is why I’d prefer to see sources held to a higher standard when it comes to rules. That’s not going to happen I guess but I can dream.

Some sources are good but a lot of sources do this because it’s another area of the criminal world in which they excel in after prison records eliminate their options for normal employment.

 

[Sp2.0]

This is the simple rule in question:

"Threats of physical violence, including threats of sexual violence, against members and/or their family members are prohibited."

I'm not going to change the rules to give special treatment to some people over others. Nor am I going to lower the standards for some groups over others.

Rather than being a flaw, I think the equal application of the rules to everyone is a defining feature of the MESO forum that makes it stand out from other forums.

It stills sounds like you are trying really hard to say you didn't violate the rules. The wordplay is confusing. A deterrent is not a threat when it is defensive? However, a threat can be a deterrent when it is defensive although it is usually it is offensive? But does a deterrent become a threat when it is offensive?

I suggest you try a different approach:

You should argue that it is more concerning when a source violates the rule than when a non-source violates the rule. I think you will find unanimous agreement on this point.

(Well, except when it involves TGI, then members think a source is perfectly justified in pursuing violence against a non-source. But that's another story.)

Kind of a half truth with the tgi example isn't it? People despise rats and its been a while but if I recall correctly the member was threatening to rat him out. So source or not on the internet or not thats unacceptable in any setting.

Edit. Its been a while so if he didn't threaten to snitch then feel free to correct me.

 

[lifter6973]

I never thought it was too much to ask everyone to respect the few forum rules we have. I guess I was wrong. So thank you very much - I appreciate it.

Millard is one of the best I've seen at running forums. I agree on if he says not to do something, I just won't do it. There are so many shit board owners out there that are way worse than anything Ive seen here.