Azteca Test E 750mg/2248ng

[CaptainAmerica]

@freetopin Again, you’re highly confused.
You’re free to make whatever post you want. I’m not in the business of censorship.
However, in order to you to make your claim you need to understand a few things and make them clear in your post:
Source credit for bloodwork is not board policy. You keep saying this no matter how many ways I refute. Board policy is the way I review the bloodwork. Credits are a separate matter entirely. Leading to the next point…
Sources DO NOT need my approval to give a credit.
“Approval” of bloodwork means it counts; that would be a positive affirmation of bloodwork for the source.
Not approved means the bloodwork was bad in some way. Draw time, bad multiplier implying possibly underdosed gear, wrong formatting, account too new, not enough activity, bad title, etc. Not approved is negative/needs scrutiny.
If the bloodwork is not approved, there’s an issue or error to be corrected somewhere, whether that be the user’s side or the source’s.

 

[freetopin]

@freetopin I understand completely. Thank you. I work hard now and in the past to make sure everyone that deals with me and even when it does not have anything to do with my business is treated properly. I have given store credit to a member that was owed credit for blood work. That was left ghosted by another source that disappeared to make sure people in the community are taken care of properly and that everyone here is treated with respect and get what they deserve. I do those things so that when people come to the forum know that no matter what they are taken care of and can purchase here on SST comfortably with out the risk of getting burned. At the end of the day we are a community here and we stick together like a community should in my eyes. I have always reached out to help and will continue to do so even if it is not my problem I will try to help as I always have. In the end your word and the way carry yourself and treat others as you would want to be treated is all you have when it comes to showing who you really are. Thanks AG

 

[effswithtren]

I should update here: just for the sake of anyone watching
I’ve been in contact with the source. He’s been super cool. He honored the credit and wants to set up another blood draw in a few weeks. Even wanted to send new test from the most current batch and pay for a subsequent draw.
He’s right. Homebrewing test is dirt cheap. I have 0 reason to think it’s been skimped on. That would be horrible business sense. Then again, you don’t have to be smart to be a source and I’ve seen them do worse business decisions. I do not think that’s true here though.
Personally I’m inclined to think it was a fluke. I’m not a super responder but I usually get a 4-5ish multiplier. I’ll update and post when I get said draw done, but I have full faith in the source. I’ve used him since they stood up and they’ve always been solid.

 

[effswithtren]

@captainamerica I’m still trying to wrap my head around this, and can only assume others are too. And don’t take this as confrontational, because while I initially took you to mean what I think others currently think and was definitely pretty triggered, I don’t think that now.
When you’re saying ‘approved for source credit’, you’re not meaning I (in this case) get, or don’t get, $200. You don’t have a say in that unless you’ve ‘approved it’ in which case they’re obligated to stay in good standing with the board.
You’re saying you have some tally or something that puts a +1 on the source’s “reputation tab”. Hence why you said the old system allowed for a negative score to be entered.
Is that more or less correct?

 

[freetopin]

@effswithtren “You’re saying you have some tally or something that puts a +1 on the source’s “reputation tab”.”
Thats where I have a problem. Only posts that are approved are ones that benefit the reputation of a source. Also, the people that come here for information want transparency with regards to the quality of the source. This hidden rating system that no one can see doesnt help customers. We dont really know what “approved post” now even means or implies.

 

[Bearslovecheese]

The biggest thing SST has always had going for it dating back to Reddit was accountability through verification and bloodwork. I don’t see Cap doing anything wrong here. He couldn’t “count” the testing because he can only count testing as being positive. But it still should be posted here because it came up with a negative questionable value. We here at SST have a series of data sets for Azteca. Now we happen to have an outlier. This source has been great here on SST. One negative test doesn’t give us pause. But a second will. A third test comes back questionable and now we have a pattern to look into. It’s not on Cap that we can’t actively count a negative. He’s not dissuading us from posting negatives. It’s here for all to see. And if you’re ordering from a source why WOULDN’T you be looking in the blood test forum to see what results people are getting from the source you’re considering.
I will counter that even though we got a bad result the customer could certainly still want their credit and want more gear. This is an opportunity for the source to take care of the customer and earn his business back later. It’s an opportunity for the source to get their gear retested by that user to show that the issue was just an anomaly.
Thank you for posting your bloodwork. And thank you @azteca for taking care of him for his time and hopefully this is the last anybody hears of any issues.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@effswithtren @freetopin
I think I can offer a more simple explanation if we subtract the word “credit.”
My approval or non approval means something wasn’t correct. So at the the simplest level say user X wants to buy from Azteca. They should look up his reviews, TAs, and Bloods. They’ll come across 5 bloods 3/5 were good and approved. 1 was a bad draw time. Not approved. 1 was a poor result but Azteca did what he did here and addresses, pays for a new test and we are waiting for that new result. That should play into the decision to choose Azteca to buy from. End. Nothing more.
The user is not looking at my job in this and scrutinizing if Azteca did or did not give those 5 people credit.
In the old times, the improper draw time would be a net 0 for Azteca. However, the negative would also be applied until the new result was posted.
New scenario, Azteca said Fuck you to the 1 guy. How does that now look? Guy never gets a retest believes he has bad gear, tosses it all gets new source. Azteca gets enough negatives and bad PR he does get booted by us. 1 time? Not necessarily. Luckily this doesn’t happen often and our sources do the right thing.
Does that help? Taking out the credit piece because that is not mine or part of my duty here I think relieves some confusion. Credit from sources happens AFTER all of the above and I have nothing to do with it. It’s source by source.

 

[effswithtren]

@captainamerica That makes a lot more sense than how it initially sounded. Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[freetopin]

@CaptainAmerica So what is the point of you giving approval? What does it mean when you approve a persons labs?

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@freetopin It means they’ve met the parameters to be approved. I’m really not sure how better to explain this.
Mom says you get an A on a test I’ll give you $20. (Mom is source)
You take the test. (You is the user)
Give it to teacher (I am teacher). Teacher gives your test a C.
Mom is mad at you and instead of $20, you get grounded.
Or scenario 2, mom says “good try sweetie,” gives you $20 anyway. Or maybe $10.
You blame the teacher for your grade? The teacher has no input in the deal between you and your mom. Just grades the test based on parameters set for the curriculum.
I feel that’s how you’re coming at me right now.

 

[freetopin]

@CaptainAmerica But the customer didnt fail the test. The test for the customer is can you get the labs done, can you time things correctly, have you been on cycle long enough, and can you post in the correct format. If someone does all those things they should get approved. “Failing” someone for having a low lab result would be like failing them because they have a name you dont like. The lab result is not something they can control.
Again, this response from you about failing the test taker shows that the approve/no approve has to do with the customer. Its confusing me even more.
From re-reading all the posts:
Approval means:

1. The labs reflect positively on the source.
2. The labs were done after enough time on cycle and at the right time after last pin
3. The posted format is correct.

You commented that only a 4x Multiplier or higher counts towards a sources reputation. I would argue that. All multipliers count towards reputation. A higher multiplier raises reputation while a lower multiplier lowers reputation, but either way it counts. I think this is my fundamental problem with the approvals.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@freetopin This is going to be my last reply to you to help you understand. After that, make whatever post you like to get other users to help you clarify as @Bearslovecheese did above.
If bloods are not approved, the parameters for approval were not met. The minimum requirements for the post were not met. Whether that’s a gear quality issue, draw time issue, post activity too low, etc. All aspects of the test are the test. I’m not sure where you get this idea that a pretty large piece of the test can just be ignored. I’m not going to approve the post if there’s something wrong just because someone posted. If there is something wrong, sometimes it is the user’s fault sometimes it is the source’s.
It is not up to me/mods to financially compensate ANYONE for taking a blood test nor it that the purpose of the blood tests.
The purpose of the blood tests is so that other users can review as much material on the source they have here across SST. Sources and users care about the multiplier when doing research. They should see that poor multiplier and have questions/concerns until such time those concerns are abated.
You are correct in that all multipliers do count towards the sources reputation. I’m not sure the confusion there. In my above paragraph, when a user is reviewing bloodwork, they need to look at this post and say, “Hmmm why wasn’t this post approved? Oh, that is a low multiplier, what happened? It appears Azteca offered a retest on his dime and the user is currently pending a new test and said they could be a low responder. Sounds pretty stand up from the source. Let’s wait on this to make my decision on who to purchase from.” That is his reputation. What the issue was, how it was addressed, what happened after. If it gets approved, then there was NO issue. This also reflects on the reputation. “Source makes good gear, onto next data point.”
You seem to be reading my approval as “get approved, get paid.” That is not, has not, and will never be the intent of the bloodwork section. Capt controls the reimbursement and sources only reimburse if Capt says. This is NOT the case.
Many times over my years as mod, bloodwork has shown a bad result. Sources still with us today have done complete recalls, refunds, and resends based on a single users negative bloodwork that didn’t ever get approved. All the while, the user didn’t necessarily feel good that their initial gear was bad but helped the community and was handled appropriately by the source. If they weren’t handled appropriately, the source was publicly chastised for it, reviewed by mods, and isn’t probably with us any more.

 

[Jay]

The forum policy/ testing parameters make sense in the sense if it was all for the sake of credit why would anyone bother posting theyre retests that came back good if they already received credit for the first one.
If the source isn’t willing to reconcile on a bad test by covering expenses for a redraw and or for jano testing SENT IN BY YOU!!! with the product youve been using then thats a pretty clear sign its a source that shouldnt be on this board.
The problem is this board isnt very user friendly in determining a sources reputability because things like these rarely see a follow up it just seems to get buried. If you wanted to work in favour of the source and customer safety posts like these should be moved to an exclusive category for archive so everyone can see said ‘reconciliations’ were made. The source gets their reputability, the customer gets their credit, and the community as a whole benefits.

 

[Jay]

@CaptainAmerica one might argue this is just source complaints, but the point I’m getting across is that if the multiplier standard is moderated for credit eligibility for the safety of the source and customer then the entire reconciliation should be moderated and archived.

 

[azteca]

@jay Thank you for your comment and input. As stated in previous comments I am covering cost for a redraw. As far as store credit goes that is not my main concern but most people in the community appreciate and want the store credit for taking the time to get blood work done. However first and for most my main concern is customer satisfaction. The user has stated he is a poor responder to test in previous post in this thread. I’m pretty sure most the attention on this blood work post is in regards to store credit. I have made sure customer is happy and now doing the proper procedures to see if it is due to lab/ user/ or product. So my duty as a source is being handled in the most efficient way possible. Needless to say all other blood work posted by my customers are on point! If the mods want to archive there blood work as you stated is there decision. I stand by my product and word if there is any complications on my end I have no problem compensating for said batch#. Thanks AG

 

[Jay]

• @azteca its great you’re willing to give immediate credit at the request of the customer and to take steps into resolving the issue. i did read through the whole thread but good on your part for restating everything for anyone who had not.
  I understand your priority is customer satisfaction do what you have to keep doing for that i personally feel you’ve been top notch through my own experience.
  To reclarify the direction of my comment is not toward @azteca but the overall moderation & safety of the board. If there are standards to be upheld then it shouldn’t be left messy. discrepancies should be followed through from start to finish properly and archived separately

 

[freetopin]

@Jay I agree with you that some form of archive could be helpful. At the least some transparency in whatever system is used to give credit for bloodwork.
I also feel the term “approved” is also misleading. It should be clearly stated either Points Awarded to Source or Points Subtracted. Or Reputation Increased or Decreased.

 

[biggiesmalls10]

@CaptainAmerica based on this thread It now appears that it is mandatory to have a 4x multiplier for credit. Much like @freetopin - I did not know this. I received bloodwork from @Colonial-Labs products today and was looking to post it in the bloodwork section tomorrow.
I may or may not have a multiplier under 4x. I posted bloodwork a month ago with a 3.1x multiplier and did not receive credit.
Do I understand correctly that if I post my bloodwork and the multiplier is under 4x that I will not receive credit again? @CaptainAmerica @Colonial-Labs

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@biggiesmalls10 I will say this again. My approval or disproval of bloods is a separate matter from that of a source credit.
Sources can offer credits for whatever they wish, whenever they wish and offer no credit at all. Credits are at sources discretion completely 100%.
I simply approve the bloods if they meet our clear and standard requirements or do not approve them if they don’t.
If your bloods are not 4x multiplier or higher, that indicates a bad response, lab error, bad gear etc and those would not be approved.
https://www.steroidsourcetalk.me/topic/6220/rules-for-posting-bloodwork/40
The link above is the stickied post that everyone should be reading… If you see comment 39 and a couple subsequent comments, it explains regarding source credit from both a source and a user.
All - this policy has not changed. I’ve been a mod here for many years now and have applied the approval consistently and fairly without any complaint on my behalf. That stickied post has an original date of 2019 and it only codified the already existing policy.

 

[freetopin]

@CaptainAmerica Where are the clear and standard requirements? I have yet to find a clear and concise explanation of the requirements.
@biggiesmalls10 The credit depends on the source. Here is what I have been able to figure out from this post. Some sources offer store credit for blood work that is posted here and “approved”. Approved is a misleading term. What they actually mean is if your blood work results in points being awarded to the source here at SST, they will reward you with credit. SST has some type of hidden scoring system that plays a role in a source being verified. So if a source has a bad product, you get blood testing that shows a low Testosterone and your multiplier is <4x, SST will not award that source a point because they have a bad product. So if the source doesnt get awarded a point, they dont reward you with a credit.