why are people asking sources to donate to AL

[sin]

Why are some people asking the sources here to donate? This is bad for the board. If they want to donate fine but we shouldn't be asking them and we definitely shouldn't try to make it seem as some sort of way to be accepted by the members to source here. Them donating helps some yeah but then you have guys basically giving them the gtg, calling them stand up guys, etc. we know a source can turn south at any moment but new members and lurkers see these memes made by bob dole showing Darius donated and others chiming in to praise him( for what is chump change compared to how much he makes from this board alone )and think Darius must be the greatest guy who cares about our community and wont ever do wrong He doesn't. Him donating isn't to help us but to help himself.( note. I'm not saying any thing bout Darius character but the fact is, anyone can turn scammer real fast and his donation is business not charity) AL is supposed to be about harm reduction but when we have members doing things like this it can detract from that. This is just my opinion obviously but I think the subject is of need of discussion.

 

[Thenewera]

Well if you ask me.. If a source donates, he approves our goal. ( busting sources asses randomly ) if this source has nothing to hide.. He donates, helps the community, ( more money more product tested = better feedback on his product with good scores = win for the source, win for us )

Nothin wrong with it, not one bit.

 

[sin]

Well if you ask me.. If a source donates, he approves our goal. ( busting sources asses randomly ) if this source has nothing to hide.. He donates, helps the community, ( more money more product tested = better feedback on his product with good scores = win for the source, win for us )

Nothin wrong with it, not one bit.

His donating doesn't mean squat to his products as we wont test his products jist cause he donated. And his donating doesn't say he approves the goal, it means he sees a way to score brownie points with us. He doesn't give two shits about the results of any other source. Bad or good, doesn't matter to him.

al is harm reduction for consumers and we should keep the benefit of it to sources at a minimum. Random testing producing positive results and that's it. Letting them present themselves as charitable organizations is counterproductive to our cause as others will begin to approach these sources with less scrutiny.

 

[Thenewera]

His donating doesn't mean squat to his products as we wont test his products jist cause he donated. And his donating doesn't say he approves the goal, it means he sees a way to score brownie points with us. He doesn't give two shits about the results of any other source. Bad or good, doesn't matter to him.

al is harm reduction for consumers and we should keep the benefit of it to sources at a minimum. Random testing producing positive results and that's it. Letting them present themselves as charitable organizations is counterproductive to our cause as others will begin to approach these sources with less scrutiny.

It does matter. That was a pathetic post.
His donating means more money for more labs to be tested. If we find bad labs from different UGL through his money, and good labs with his UGL.... He just got his money's back. If it makes his product shine, and let's someone else's fail due to a random simec test, he wins. He is also risking his own UGL "IF" he was unsure of his product. So if UGL "A" donates 2 grand and that 2 grand is used for testing of 5 other labs test e that was only 83.9% and his 1 lab was 99.3% - he sacrificed his own money to separate the good from the bad and made his money back due to him having the best labs.

What do you not understand about that?

 

[showstoppa]

I understand where you are coming from but if you honestly think enough people are going to donate to fund al on a regular basis you are mistaken. sorry you just are. without source donations we are up shit creek and honestly them donating really shows they are willing to out their money where their mouth is. sure its a drop in the bucket for them, but still very few sources are doing it.

but i do agree that just because one donates doesnt mean they are gtg. but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying thank you to the source.

 

[Eman]

I think it's a good discussion to have @sin ... I don't think there is anything wrong with it though but I'm interested to hear what others think. I

I wish more individual donations were made from consumers on anabolic lab... Unfortunately the program is still new and it will take time to build that part of it up. Sources are the obvious next group to look to as a "bread and butter" income for the site to operate on in its young age. Sources donating is cheap advertisement although I'm sure a few of them do support the programs cause.

With all that said, I think we should always be looking to promote individual donations before source donations because of some points @sin made... That doesn't mean to refuse donations from them either though.

 

[showstoppa]

Yea i much prefer it be funded through consumers but i highly doubt that will happen.

i wish 20% of active members here would just donate 10 per week through bitcoin, this would be huge, but right now its not possible.


to make the program work, right now we have to have source donations. just the way it is.

 

[Wunderpus]

I understand who sources like Naps, Frank and Darius want to donate... Their products are tested....

However, I can't imagine a source that gains zero publicity from testing would want to donate.

 

[Eman]

Yea i much prefer it be funded through consumers but i highly doubt that will happen.

i wish 20% of active members here would just donate 10 per week through bitcoin, this would be huge, but right now its not possible.


to make the program work, right now we have to have source donations. just the way it is.

I think it eventually will able to be funded primarily through consumers... At least I'm hopeful it will be. But it's like a business, the first several years you will always see razor thin profit margins. AL needs more capital pumped into it than consumers can keep up with for now but I think things will stabilize eventually and we'll see a slow steady influx of donations combined with maybe one or two "bigger" donations hopefully never needing to be more than 500 dollars to achieve goals.

Over time it is possible Millard will see that some formats of collecting donations work better than others as well. Or that certain advertising or location thereof works better than another... Sources are keeping things going steadily until these kinds of questions are answered and the financial backing is steady.

 

[Devika]

I think I have to agree with @Thenewera
Unfortunately, if those sources didn't donate that good chunk of money AL wouldn't have had enough to fund May's round.
Before pharmacom or naps donated there was barely 2k with 15 days to go.
I don't see anything wrong with sources donating money. In a perfect world it should be us, the consumers, who fund these things. Since this is not the case yet, I actually do appreciate sources stepping up and helping the cause. It's a win win for everyone IMO.

 

[Wunderpus]

I think I have to agree with @Thenewera
Unfortunately, if those sources didn't donate that good chunk of money AL wouldn't have had enough to fund May's round.
Before pharmacom or naps donated there was barely 2k with 15 days to go.
I don't see anything wrong with sources donating money. In a perfect world it should be us, the consumers, who fund these things. Since this is not the case yet, I actually do appreciate sources stepping up and helping the cause. It's a win win for everyone IMO.

But of course Naps and Pcom will donate! It's sources like 24K, that for lack of a better term, feels inappropriate to ask for donations from. They gain nothing at all from AL, they don't buy these products, nor do they sell them.

AS long of Naps and Pcom's products are tested, I imagine they will donate. Well, or until some terrible result comes up and the source tries to claim some sort of conspiracy against them

 

[showstoppa]

Well quite a few sources from eroids have been tested. iko we shoukd be asking them to donate as for a few of them its been good publicity.

 

[sin]

It does matter. That was a pathetic post.
His donating means more money for more labs to be tested. If we find bad labs from different UGL through his money, and good labs with his UGL.... He just got his money's back. If it makes his product shine, and let's someone else's fail due to a random simec test, he wins. He is also risking his own UGL "IF" he was unsure of his product. So if UGL "A" donates 2 grand and that 2 grand is used for testing of 5 other labs test e that was only 83.9% and his 1 lab was 99.3% - he sacrificed his own money to separate the good from the bad and made his money back due to him having the best labs.

What do you not understand about that?

1. Why try to speak to me as if I'm some fucktard? I was very cordial in my reply and only voiced legitimate concerns. Disagree all you want, but if you are going to interact with me i do ask you do so in a respectable manner or just go on. This was a post made in effort to protect our membership, your attitude towards me because of my words seems misplaced.
I understand the benefits of their donation, my warning was merely to the soliciting of donations and the promotion of a sources donation via members. It is of my opinion that We don't need people posting pics of sources contributions to AL in other sources threads.

I know donations from sources are a large portion of the funding, but if it moves us from the point of the program that being harm reduction then its value is diminished. I haven't said sources shouldn't be able to donate, jist simply that we don't need members hounding them about it and in return giving such explicit endorsement of the person for doing so. Again, this is only my opinion and if the general consensus is otherwise then no big deal but I do believe it warranted discussion.

 

[rpbb]

Another side point is that Millard let's them sell their gear here at no cost due to this being an uncensored forum. I think it's fine to ask them to give something back

 

[Thenewera]

1. Why try to speak to me as if I'm some fucktard? I was very cordial in my reply and only voiced legitimate concerns. Disagree all you want, but if you are going to interact with me i do ask you do so in a respectable manner or just go on. This was a post made in effort to protect our membership, your attitude towards me because of my words seems misplaced.
I understand the benefits of their donation, my warning was merely to the soliciting of donations and the promotion of a sources donation via members. It is of my opinion that We don't need people posting pics of sources contributions to AL in other sources threads.

I know donations from sources are a large portion of the funding, but if it moves us from the point of the program that being harm reduction then its value is diminished. I haven't said sources shouldn't be able to donate, jist simply that we don't need members hounding them about it and in return giving such explicit endorsement of the person for doing so. Again, this is only my opinion and if the general consensus is otherwise then no big deal but I do believe it warranted discussion.

My apologies if it came off wrong. You have your opinion and I have mine.

 

[showstoppa]

Btw guys please ask other spurces to donate that have been tested on AL. i asked my source this morning if he would make a small donation as testing on AL was pretty good to him.

 

[jbeg1985]

The only time i can see an issue with a source donating is if they are getting ready to close up shop by selling bunk gear and run. But until that moment AL only helps them, so sure it will benifit them because its proof of a quality product. While still helping the consumer make an educated choice in gear. I can still see the conflict in interest, and with the conspiracy theorys of some meso members i can see how outsiders may think AL is rigged for the sources. But until more consumer donations come in the sources have kept the game running.

 

[Bob Dole]

@sin

This is actually a conversation we have already been having. I pretty much have been the one that went on each source thread and requested they donate. The main reason was us the consumers are not donating nearly enough to fund the project as of yet. As I stated in the other thread, I think any UGL's that have stepped up and donated are doing it because they have trust in the products they sell and do not fear potentially being randomly and anonymously selected for testing. As far as donating for kickbacks/brownie points, I have 2000% trust that @Millard Baker is not being swayed due to donations by labs. Could it help him decide to anonymously test those sources products in the future? Maybe, but what is wrong with that? I understand why some of the newer and maybe a few of the long time members may have concern about the true honesty of the testing of labs that donated, but I think if they read enough and see how this forum has been run for many years most of those people will see it shouldn't be a concern.

As far as why some of the sources have graciously donated to AL and if they expect some sort of kickbacks/brownie points, lets just ask them each if that is the case:

@naps | @Darius PharmacomStore | @pharmacist | @Pharmacom Labs

Sources: Do you expect anything in return for the donations you have made?

 

[showstoppa]

Yea i stirre up a lot of shit on eroids by asking nandroxl to donate. kinda got out of hand and i had to apologize. pissed me off though him shitting on meso and AL.

 

[sin]

@sin

This is actually a conversation we have already been having. I pretty much have been the one that went on each source thread and requested they donate. The main reason was us the consumers are not donating nearly enough to fund the project as of yet. As I stated in the other thread, I think any UGL's that have stepped up and donated are doing it because they have trust in the products they sell and do not fear potentially being randomly and anonymously selected for testing. As far as donating for kickbacks/brownie points, I have 2000% trust that @Millard Baker is not being swayed due to donations by labs. Could it help him decide to anonymously test those sources products in the future? Maybe, but what is wrong with that? I understand why some of the newer and maybe a few of the long time members may have concern about the true honesty of the testing of labs that donated, but I think if they read enough and see how this forum has been run for many years most of those people will see it shouldn't be a concern.

As far as why some of the sources have graciously donated to AL and if they expect some sort of kickbacks/brownie points, lets just ask them each if that is the case:

@naps | @Darius PharmacomStore | @pharmacist | @Pharmacom Labs

Sources: Do you expect anything in return for the donations you have made?

I never made any claim to Millard selecting products based on donations or for the sources to receive "kickbacks", there is no bribe or some conspiracy. My point is that the praise and trust given to these sources due to their donation is unwarranted and damaging. Do you really expect a source to come and say " Yes, I donated cause I wanted kickbacks?" They obviously expect something, and the most likely thing is praise. One person saying something good about a lab is enough for many to make an impulse purchase. Saying good things about a lab is fine but if we are looking at harm reduction, praise should be reserved for their product. I don't care how much of a "stand up guy" you think Darius is, the only thing that matters to me is his product and his donation means nothing to his product other than that he believes it to be good. Every source believes their product is the best, or they are like 24k and know their product isn't the best and thus isn't worried about having it tested cause he just sticks with the whole " I'm a small underground lab, you get what you get but I try hard" bit that some how suckers people into thinking " Well, at least he is honest. Let's give him a shot". Naps sends out shit gear all the time, but they made a donation. Even pharmacist has the incentive of appearing to be one of the group, a good guy, in order to garner favor and thus orders. Now, I don't blame these sources for wanting to do so. It makes good business sense. The members however must continue to inspect each source with a certain level of scrutiny in order to keep things favorable to the consumer. Your choice to believe the sources are on our side, I believe, is a foolish one.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if AL is to be about harm reduction then our treatment our sources that donate mustn't appear to others as an explicit endorsement of the source. If AL to you people is only about finding out how much of a compound is in something then I guess getting the money is your main priority but just knowing there is indeed 250 mgs of test per ml in my bottle doesn't make me feel any more safe.