Source code of conduct rough draft

[flenser]

Yeah thats quit a thread to read!

Inserting the redirect is what I'm talking about, not going after an uncooperative source.

 

[joe0035]

Inserting the redirect is what I'm talking about, not going after an uncooperative source.

Yeah I got what you were talking about! And I like seeing source getting some heat to step up. Got labmax questions for you pm when you got a sec.

 

[Millard]

I figured it would be... while it's on the table are you set up to take donations?

Thank you for asking about this.

Since the site is ad-supported, MESO hasn't pursued donations. If it did accept donations, perhaps donors would receive some value-added service like an ad-free forum or ebook, etc.

I've also thought the addition of a Bitcoin donation button could help encourage more members to get more familiar with Bitcoin.

Maybe even a Kickstarter campaign to fund a collection of steroid/PED articles from MESO experts?

 

[brutus79]

Thank you for asking about this.

Since the site is ad-supported, MESO hasn't pursued donations. If it did accept donations, perhaps donors would receive some value-added service like an ad-free forum or ebook, etc.

I've also thought the addition of a Bitcoin donation button could help encourage more members to get more familiar with Bitcoin.

Maybe even a Kickstarter campaign to fund a collection of steroid/PED articles from MESO experts?

Yes to bitcoin- and I am 100% interested in articles from experts... how about if you make a minimum donation of x dollars you can suggest what an article could be about? Pay for information.

Just bouncing ideas- I will be first in line to donate as I feel I have greatly increased my knowledge from this resource.

 

[Millard]

Yes to bitcoin- and I am 100% interested in articles from experts... how about if you make a minimum donation of x dollars you can suggest what an article could be about? Pay for information.

I like this. This would work well as rewards for donation to Kickstarter campaign. I appreciate any additional brainstorming ideas. I will do so as well. Thank you!

 

[beezil]

Thank you for asking about this.

Since the site is ad-supported, MESO hasn't pursued donations. If it did accept donations, perhaps donors would receive some value-added service like an ad-free forum or ebook, etc.

I've also thought the addition of a Bitcoin donation button could help encourage more members to get more familiar with Bitcoin.

Maybe even a Kickstarter campaign to fund a collection of steroid/PED articles from MESO experts?

millard,
i love the ebook or article ideas from experts. Something along the lines of PCT from Doc Scally would do be a wealth of knowledge on a topic that seems to be voodoo to most.

 

[joe0035]

millard,
i love the ebook or article ideas from experts. Something along the lines of PCT from Doc Scally would do be a wealth of knowledge on a topic that seems to be voodoo to most.

Now here is a man with his thinking hat on! Yes a article from Dr.Scally on his newest thoughts on pct. I know you can dig around and probably come up with what he would right if you scoured the threads but it all in one place to be read and re-read! Maybe even have members submit question before he writes it! I knew I liked you beezil!

 

[MickECV]

Now here is a man with his thinking hat on! Yes a article from Dr.Scally on his newest thoughts on pct. I know you can dig around and probably come up with what he would right if you scoured the threads but it all in one place to be read and re-read! Maybe even have members submit question before he writes it! I knew I liked you beezil!

I think you like everyone?

 

[beezil]

I think you like everyone?

its better than hating everyone!

 

[joe0035]

I think you like everyone?

I hate you! awwwwww who am I kidding with an avatar like that how could I! That made laugh when I saw it!

 

[stomps]

Mandatory requirements:

1. Pics and description of brewing process.

2.Secure email that that does not include safemail.
-a. Pgp encryption highly recommended

3. Full disclosure.
- a. Who are your reps/schills don't try to be sneaky we almost always catch
On
-b. If free gear is given name who it was given to

4. References. Do you source at other boards.

5. Sources limited to one thread pushing their product.

6. If source had a website it cannot be hosted in the U.S.

Highly recommended

1. Pgp encryption

2. Bit coin payment option

3. Set up an escrow service

4. Donate fund to labmax for random testing by members.

So I'm gonna make another thread title
source code of conduct finished
With the final draft being the one above so sources don't have to read through the who,e thread they can just look at the first page

What do you guys think about that

 

[beezil]

stomps....

i think you leave it all in this thread.

10 pages really isn't much to read through, Really.

If push comes to shove... which I'm guessing will be the case... we can link to the exact post if responding in a source thread.

thanks for spear heading this!

 

[stomps]

stomps....

i think you leave it all in this thread.

10 pages really isn't much to read through, Really.

If push comes to shove... which I'm guessing will be the case... we can link to the exact post if responding in a source thread.

thanks for spear heading this!

That's what I was thinking too
If they want to source here they can read [)]

 

[Millard]

So I'm gonna make another thread title
source code of conduct finished
With the final draft being the one above so sources don't have to read through the who,e thread they can just look at the first page

What do you guys think about that

It's premature. Leave it open for discussion longer. There are a lot of issues that have not been discussed.

For example, the ramifications of things like mandating sources to disclose the pseudonyms of their customers and details of the transactions (e.g. who's receiving illegal steroids, what they are receiving, price they are paying, free or discounted) need to be more carefully considered. Should it be the source who "outs" reps and spokespersons? Or should the reps be the ones forced to come out?

Also, while 1 source thread may be better than 2 or 3, is it better than 0?

 

[Kubrick]

It's premature. Leave it open for discussion longer. There are a lot of issues that have not been discussed.

For example, the ramifications of things like mandating sources to disclose the pseudonyms of their customers and details of the transactions (e.g. who's receiving illegal steroids, what they are receiving, price they are paying, free or discounted) need to be more carefully considered. Should it be the source who "outs" reps and spokespersons? Or should the reps be the ones forced to come out?

Also, while 1 source thread may be better than 2 or 3, is it better than 0?

I agree with Millard. The source should NEVER disclose who paid what for gear, even if it's free. I like the list but it's unlikely that every source will follow suit. For example, we've all torn PEP a new asshole but he's still here. While most members would appreciate this list and follow suit, there's always the desperate noobs who will purchase regardless. All in all, thanks for putting this together. I hope most sources Jim inboard and most members respect the code of conduct an stay safe.

 

[flenser]

What hasn't been discussed is just what will happen if a source doesn't follow the "mandatory" rules, and what a source gets for doing so. Watching the ripped thread has been entertaining, but ripped is still here and will probably be making sales soon if his gear turns out to be legit. As Kubrick pointed out, no one has been able to run Pep off either. Fouling a source thread with a ton of insults, goofy pics and other trivia only goes so far.

Should respected members establish a list of sources represented here, and what measures they have taken to ensure their products and our security? New members, as well as lurkers, could consult that list and be warned away from unsafe sources without wading through 100 pages of BS (with the first 75 pages being mostly glowing reviews). And they won't automatically place an order with a source just because the most outspoken members happen to be having a party on that source's thread.

 

[brutus79]

What hasn't been discussed is just what will happen if a source doesn't follow the "mandatory" rules, and what a source gets for doing so. Watching the ripped thread has been entertaining, but ripped is still here and will probably be making sales soon if his gear turns out to be legit. As Kubrick pointed out, no one has been able to run Pep off either. Fouling a source thread with a ton of insults, goofy pics and other trivia only goes so far.

Should respected members establish a list of sources represented here, and what measures they have taken to ensure their products and our security? New members, as well as lurkers, could consult that list and be warned away from unsafe sources without wading through 100 pages of BS (with the first 75 pages being mostly glowing reviews). And they won't automatically place an order with a source just because the most outspoken members happen to be having a party on that source's thread.

I think you would run the legal risk of endorsing or essentially advertising sources in that scenario. Good idea- yet shot through with chances for fraud (people would have said stretch was one of those guys) and heightened interest from le as we basically ratified these as labs with pics, tests, etc. We would be doing the legwork for them.

 

[flenser]

I think you would run the legal risk of endorsing or essentially advertising sources in that scenario. Good idea- yet shot through with chances for fraud (people would have said stretch was one of those guys) and heightened interest from le as we basically ratified these as labs with pics, tests, etc. We would be doing the legwork for them.

I suspect LE would go after the more comprehensive lists of UGLs on actual source boards first, but I agree it's pretty blatant advertising. Not that we aren't already foolishly public as it is.

I also agree we have to avoid endorsing any labs. But there is a de facto endorsement of some labs now just by us hanging out on their threads shooting the shit. It's probably the biggest obstacle a new member has to face when looking for a good source. Listing whether a source complies with what we consider the minimum requirements seems like less of an endorsement than that, but I could be wrong. I think we should specifically warn against sources we think are dangerous. I've seen administrators on other non-source boards do that to great effect.

 

[Juice n Goose]

It's premature. Leave it open for discussion longer. There are a lot of issues that have not been discussed.

For example, the ramifications of things like mandating sources to disclose the pseudonyms of their customers and details of the transactions (e.g. who's receiving illegal steroids, what they are receiving, price they are paying, free or discounted) need to be more carefully considered. Should it be the source who "outs" reps and spokespersons? Or should the reps be the ones forced to come out?

Also, while 1 source thread may be better than 2 or 3, is it better than 0?

I do not know if approximately 270 something(somewhat decent posts) are enough to be included in this group of scholars, but if that is the case,I would like to offer one or two ideas for perusal.(it may be just as easy to say "to read" intently instead of perusal;to peruse,but some may wish to read it with conviction,whereas some may wish to merely skim these ideas)
Lord Acton,an historian(1834-1902) is amongst my favorite authors and I have been reading his works since childhood.Though Acton was a Historian proper it is the introductions to his works which many find most interesting."Nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publically" I was gone for a couple of days and upon my return,this thread,this kernel of a form of constitution,has captivated me as little else has done and to such an extent in some time. There was an enormous amount of strife happening on the Underground forum at that time and I was fearful that.. this wonderful seed of a rule by which members decided to"take back ownership" of the board from the sources now, instead, a number of members have begun to tell the sources how they must conduct themselves here,if they are not only to be allowed to "BE" but the manner in which they MUST behave in order to be allowed to STAY,even if only at the members pleasure, might simply be ignored by the sources,as it seems that what life often comes down to is a show of money and power(as if the two were not interchangeable!)
Well it seems a group of members have stayed the course and are quite serious that certain changes be made in order to source here on Meso! The sheer tenacity and intellect in this group,which it is hard not to liken to our countries"Founding Fathers" is palpable.
I do not think that once this constitution is hammered out,things will ever go back to the way they were prior.
I read the post to which I have attached this one and where it says (I paraphrase) that much has yet to be discussed..I felt a jolt.
Much as our countries tried,it soon became apparent that they might never look far enough into the future to make allowances for things that might come up,needing new action on, and no exclusionary or inclusive rule had been determined since the debate over what MUST be addressed forthwith and what could wait til later had to be laid down in order to get the wheels turning on the project and what could be addressed at another juncture.
What if this doccument had a preamble much like our constitution had,laying out the reason this action is being taken in the first place. Secondly a kind of "Bill of rights" be secured for ourselves like"we want "A" to prevent "B" from happening. OR it is necessary that "C" should be required so that "D" will be guaranteed to us"
There,it seems is, plenty of time to talk much of this over at whatever length is necessary in order to mostly complete"the Code of Conduct for Sources"

But what might be really important that some format be incorporated into the
CODE" that should an unforseen thing arise that hadnt been anticipated, there is a manner to include remedies unique to that topic and that topic alone.
One might also want to decide if a type of Grandfathering law" be made so as not to include all sources into the new mandate. I for one(and I know I have no more and hopefully no less weight as any other member in good standing) would like to suggest that ALL sources must abide by the same set of rules regardless of how long they have been here. This would prevent,even the argument that source "A" shouldnt have to comply with a new directive because "B" has only arrived! that might prevent both perceived inequality and /or favoritism.

Now again I know i may have only about 270'ish posts but I would very much like to participate in not only the development of this
Source Code of Conduct" as much as the next guy but as a member I would certainly wish to help "enforce them" once solidified much as Ive seen people do when questioning a potential source prior to their "probationary"period
Goose

 

[Millard]

What hasn't been discussed is just what will happen if a source doesn't follow the "mandatory" rules, and what a source gets for doing so.

I think this thread has created a little confusion. A distinction needs to be made between discussing:

(1) the recommended minimum standards for running a good (albeit illegal) business and;

(2) the guidelines for participation in this (sub)forum.

These are two different issues.

What is actually being discussed?

If it's #1, then the consequences are no different than any other marketplace: consumers won't order from vendors who don't meet the recommended minimum standards. But this only holds true to the extent that consumers actually demand and hold vendors accountable to these standards. As we've seen, not all steroid users are very demanding.

If it's #2, then discussion should revolve around guidelines that will minimize commercial influences e.g. steps to restrict/disincentivize source posting and (deceptive) marketing.

If you think #1 should equal #2, then you're basically suggesting for a pathway by which sources can be approved and "endorsed" by MESO or by its membership. Then, MESO starts resembling one of the many "source boards" with admins/vets/members/cheerleaders "vouching", "endorsing", "standing behind" the "forum-approved" sources.