The MESO way

[iris]

Reposting this here, because i have asked a similar question, but in the forum etiquette.
I am sure it was not seen, there.
Also, this thread is more appropriate that Readalot's, which is being completely derailed.

This is maybe a better place for our query, rather than where we originally posted it.

Maybe @MESO-Rx Administrator
Will get the chance to answer it.

Thank you

So this is where me and others get confused. The members were permanently banned for breaking the rules multiple times. However when a source does it, it’s a temporary ban? So is there a set in stone number of times the rules need to be broken for a permanent ban? I’m not being sarcastic I’m genuinely confused on what that number is. We were all under the impression the “3 strikes you’re out” rule was a thing.

"So basically members are temporarily banned for most rules violations and told not to do it again. If they keep doing it again and again, then they're gone.

I don't disagree that MESO has been too tolerant of way too many behaviors. Some things may very well deserve a permanent ban for the first violation."

i have come across this and was wondering whether anything has changed, in terms of how the permanent bans work.
Is there any type of rule breaking that warrants a permanent ban on first violation?
Can permanent bans be revoked and in which circumstances?

Also, is the length of a temp ban discretionary or does it depend on the type of infraction?

 

[iris]

Swolie, you and @readalot are members of a forum he has posted links about.
I keep reading that those other forums do not operate with transparency but that is all I know.

In one of the links, the gentleman there wrote:
"I would personally not choose QSC over one of the many vendors we have here on SST that have been vetted regardless of any amount of purported testing."

What does the vetting consist of, if you guys know?
What are the criteria for a source to gain access and are they discussed openly?
If not, is it presented simply as a matter of "opsec"?

Do sources get banned and are the process and the grounds for banning known?

How are members complaints dealt with by the ones responsible to administer the site?

Are there clear guidelines for the banning of members, too?

As you know, sources are not automatically banned here; there are rules in place but they seem to have been somewhat overruled, which was explained. However:

The bad sources don't disappear when you vote them off the island. They go to source forums where they are protected from criticism - and their customers follow them there where they are censored for criticizing or otherwise holding the sources accountable.

to keep all sources present when possible,

So I am just wondering what you have seen in the "bad forums" where they are protected from criticism by moderators, if that happens.
In that scenario it would make sense that, as long as they pay to be featured on the site, they are beyond members scrutiny and unbannable, maybe bar something drastic like doxxing customers.
Is that so?

 

[T-Bagger]

Swolie, you and @readalot are members of a forum he has posted links about.
I keep reading that those other forums do not operate with transparency but that is all I know.

In one of the links, the gentleman there wrote:
"I would personally not choose QSC over one of the many vendors we have here on SST that have been vetted regardless of any amount of purported testing."

What does the vetting consist of, if you guys know?
What are the criteria for a source to gain access and are they discussed openly?
If not, is it presented simply as a matter of "opsec"?

Do sources get banned and are the process and the grounds for banning known?

How are members complaints dealt with by the ones responsible to administer the site?

Are there clear guidelines for the banning of members, too?

As you know, sources are not automatically banned here; there are rules in place but they seem to have been somewhat overruled, which was explained. However:





So I am just wondering what you have seen in the "bad forums" where they are protected from criticism by moderators, if that happens.
In that scenario it would make sense that, as long as they pay to be featured on the site, they are beyond members scrutiny and unbannable, maybe bar something drastic like doxxing customers.
Is that so?

SST banned me because I had some lab results of a UGL that they tried to conceal. When I confronted them at SST, I was banned.

 

[iris]

SST banned me because I had some lab results of a UGL that they tried to conceal. When I confronted them at SST, I was banned.

That's awful.

In those links Readalot reposted, so many members that have left here said they would not return or spoke of this forum in disparaging terms.

In light of stories like yours, it's surprising.
I suppose for the ones that were banned here in a way that was not fair, they are still resentful and so it is understandable.
But not everybody prefer being there because they have been banned here.
Surely, they have seen what you have and yet....

Thank you for your experience.

 

[T-Bagger]

That's awful.

In those links Readalot reposted, so many members that have left here said they would not return or spoke of this forum in disparaging terms.

In light of stories like yours, it's surprising.
I suppose for the ones that were banned here in a way that was not fair, they are still resentful and so it is understandable.
But not everybody prefer being there because they have been banned here.
Surely, they have seen what you have and yet....

Thank you for your experience.

That’s what you’re dealing with at SST and other source boards - protecting sources, which is why I’m amazed that MSG and 3BG would be over there. I don’t blame them for not returning here, as I wouldn’t either. Furthermore, if they return here under a new handle and are discovered, they will be banned again. One loser was banned no less than 7X, as he kept coming back under new handles.

BTW - that source came here and we ran them off.