Questions suitable for Sources

[propionate]

@“CaptainAmerica” is it against the rules to ask sources for their sterilization methods? I read your most recent post and it seems you don’t want members inquiring about “production methods” which I believe sterilization practiced would certainly fall under.

Is there a reason you don’t want these lines of questioning? Assuming they’re kept civil and professional. There has been a recent influx of fly-by-night operations making it on this board, a Chinese holiday delaying raws and influx of traffic backing up many known sources, so in these more stressful times I would say it’s as important as ever for labs to discuss their practices to ensure customer confidence.

Furthermore there are only— I believe, 2-3 moderators — so it’s very bold to assume that y’alls combined might is greater than the combined of the members of this board. Many of us work in environments where sterilization is paramount, making us experts when it comes to interpreting the responses sources give.

I understand the reasoning behind much of your separate post (which is closed thus rendering my reply
To be put here instead of in a more proper place). Lab pictures are quite a task and I do believe the mod team would be able to interpret the pictures for a conclusion on sourcing ability, and the militant aspects of the way some ask questions is also not in taste with this board. Although most of the vitriol comes from very new accounts defending sources with up to 50% of their post count. But the sterilization proscribed I believe fall in a different category as explain above

I would send this to mod mail but I would just end up posting the imgur link of the response anyway so cataloging it here for everyone to see and interpret is valuable. I hope other members who read this explain their beliefs as well in a civil way in regards to this matter

So go at it folks, what do y’all think

 

[demondark]

I think sources should have an “about us” section listing stuff like this. People don’t have time to answer a ton of questions, perhaps even a faq. On the flip side, they could also give you a process way above industry standard and in reality be doing nothing of the sort.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@“propionate” It seems you have misinterpreted my post. It very clearly states that asking the questions in an appropriate and civil manner is, in fact, encouraged. However, what came to pass in our newest source’s thread was not an appropriate or civil approach.

Sources are free to deny such requests for information and I would expect our user base to respond accordingly to their answer, by providing or not providing business, rather than degradation and mud slinging.

I’d like to go deeper into your claim, however, of an “influx of fly-by-night operations on this board.” The two most recent removals I recall are J&H, who I would not consider fly-by-night, and Olympia labs, who was banned very quickly, not for the quality of his lab, but for falsifying compound analysis results. Could you elaborate on that point and which sources you’re referring to?

 

[propionate]

I could, but I would like this thread to stay on the topic it was intended for: the community’s opinion on what questions we believe sources should be able to answer.

I can however, gather that information and format it through the proper channels for you. And I might when I have the time to properly root those out.

So now, back to the topic of the thread. Thanks to @“SouthernCompounding” for the response and I hope more labs and members can chime in

---

demondark" pid='70870' dateline='1570484762:

I think sources should have an “about us” section listing stuff like this. People don’t have time to answer a ton of questions, perhaps even a faq. On the flip side, they could also give you a process way above industry standard and in reality be doing nothing of the sort.

The mods reading the threads would be able to know if a source that claims
To have 30 autoclaves is lying b/c they have access to the photos and source applications so I’m not too worried about them lying

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@“propionate” so you would refrain from responding to any of my points above?

 

[propionate]

No, @“CaptainAmerica”, I actually addressed them in my most recent post. You’re inability to read or attempt to discredit what I’m saying through this red herring is childish and reminiscent of another mod thread created here not too long ago. I have no intention of my thread being derailed by you and this is the second time I’ve asked you to stop and allow the thread to continue on with it’s intended subject.

You say sources are not required to answer questions, included those related to sterility practices, here:

however we ask that members yield to the discretion of sources as to how much information they wish to share about their operation. Should sources wish to disclose certain information, or submit proof of equipment and stock to their prospective customer base, they may always do so.

I’ll be exercising that same privilege to not answer your question beyond what I’ve already addressed here:

I could, but I would like this thread to stay on the topic is was intended for: the community’s opinion on what questions we believe sources should be able to answer

I can however, gather that information and format it through the proper channels for you. And I might when I have the time to properly root those out

If this is a problem for you, use your modly powers to contact me through other means that aren’t derailing a thread repeatedly. I would hate to see history repeat itself

 

[CaptainAmerica]

propionate" pid='70891' dateline='1570491780:

No, @“CaptainAmerica”, I actually addressed them in my most recent post. You’re inability to read or attempt to discredit what I’m saying through this red herring is childish and reminiscent of another mod thread created here not too long ago. I have no intention of my thread being derailed by you and this is the second time I’ve asked you to stop and allow the thread to continue on with it’s intended subject.

You say sources are not required to answer questions, included those related to sterility practices, here:

however we ask that members yield to the discretion of sources as to how much information they wish to share about their operation. Should sources wish to disclose certain information, or submit proof of equipment and stock to their prospective customer base, they may always do so.

I’ll be exercising that same privilege to not answer your question beyond what I’ve already addressed here:

I could, but I would like this thread to stay on the topic is was intended for: the community’s opinion on what questions we believe sources should be able to answer

I can however, gather that information and format it through the proper channels for you. And I might when I have the time to properly root those out

If this is a problem for you, use your modly powers to contact me through other means that aren’t derailing a thread repeatedly. I would hate to see history repeat itself

I see you have applied a change to your initial statement which was mods disallowing the line of questioning being asked completely. What you’ve quoted and now are saying in this reply, is true. Questions are permitted but it is not a requirement for sources to respond to them. They may or may not and the may respond in any manner they want to.

I suggest you mind what you type very carefully. For now, I can disregard the outlandish claims you’ve made in your initial post and are now failing to address for fear of “derailment.” Though, it was you who initially brought that up to begin with. I do expect the information when you are able to “root those out”

You have failed to address the incivility of the most recent source’s thread in my reply to you. However, since you’ve corrected your statement regarding the appropriateness of asking questions that point is now moot. The initial conclusion still remains, sources may answer those questions in a way they see fit.

 

[propionate]

I stated what I assumed and you clarified… which is good and accomplished one goal of this thread. I wanted to create a thread to give you an opportunity to clarify on your remarks since I couldn’t not reply
To the original piece. (This I all explained previously but will say again)

I fail to see where I was anything but civil to the source in Valiant’s thread. I thanked him when appropriate and withheld any criticisms beyond asking questions. All of the unruly behavior is from other members attacking the validity of these questions and the subsequent responses. I am not responsible for what other members type

Hence why I created this thread (yes again) to get a concise opinion of the community. If no one cares about the public display of a source understanding sterile practice then I can simply just
Email them for the info. I find value in it being public for other members but given the recent series, I may be misinformed or it could be members just wanting to pander for free gear

All of this was, of course, implicit in all responses and replies but it never hurts to have something concrete to prevent any further “confusion”

I understand the “official” stance of this board, but I don’t care, hence the thread. The information from members here will also help sources who both are currently here and want to start sourcing here. Given this is a source board that should also behoove you

I think we cleared everything up nicely

 

[CaptainAmerica]

propionate" pid='70896' dateline='1570494427:

I stated what I assumed and you clarified… which is good and accomplished one goal of this thread. I wanted to create a thread to give you an opportunity to clarify on your remarks since I couldn’t not reply
To the original piece. (This I all explained previously but will say again)

I fail to see where I was anything but civil to the source in Valiant’s thread. I thanked him when appropriate and withheld any criticisms beyond asking questions. All of the unruly behavior is from other members attacking the validity of these questions and the subsequent responses. I am not responsible for what other members type

Hence why I created this thread (yes again) to get a concise opinion of the community. If no one cares about the public display of a source understanding sterile practice then I can simply just
Email them for the info. I find value in it being public for other members but given the recent series, I may be misinformed or it could be members just wanting to pander for free gear

All of this was, of course, implicit in all responses and replies but it never hurts to have something concrete to prevent any further “confusion”

I understand the “official” stance of this board, but I don’t care, hence the thread. The information from members here will also help sources who both are currently here and want to start sourcing here. Given this is a source board that should also behoove you

I think we cleared everything up nicely

I’m glad I could clear up your confusion.

In regard to the “official” stance of the board, it’s very simple. We don’t participate in baptism by fire. Never will. Civil discourse is encouraged. Anyone may ask whatever questions they like of a source. But at the same time must respect the answer, or nonanswer, they provide.

If they fail to provide a satisfactory answer to an appropriate question, expect the source will be hit in the wallet.

This thread can stay open for input though the above stance will not change. I will say this again, as I’ve mentioned in numerous threads, if you prefer a Meso like board, Meso is open.

I will say I completely agree with @“SouthernCompounding” ‘s response regarding transparency. But that is his comfort level and another source’s may be different.

 

[thallandchill]

SouthernCompounding" pid='70909' dateline='1570496970:

CaptainAmerica" pid='70908' dateline='1570496397:

I’m glad I could clear up your confusion.

In regard to the “official” stance of the board, it’s very simple. We don’t participate in baptism by fire. Never will. Civil discourse is encouraged. Anyone may ask whatever questions they like of a source. But at the same time must respect the answer, or nonanswer, they provide.

If they fail to provide a satisfactory answer to an appropriate question, expect the source will be hit in the wallet.

This thread can stay open for input though the above stance will not change. I will say this again, as I’ve mentioned in numerous threads, if you prefer a Meso like board, Meso is open.

I will say I completely agree with @“SouthernCompounding” ‘s response regarding transparency. But that is his comfort level and another source’s may be different.

@“CaptainAmerica” - Have the mods considered providing an initial public equipment verification for new sources? Say JoeBlow Labs claims to have a flow hood, provides ample proof during the moderator vetting process [i.e. pics or video], and in turn, the moderators publicly sign off as the vendor having been verified as in possession of said equipment. It could be as simple as providing a PDF document to new sources that they can include in their initial post that covers the areas and equipment verified by the moderators. No photos would need to be included with it, just a list of what was verified by the mods. This would clear up the need for sources to subsequently provide proof to the community. Think of it as a Report Card of sorts that can be displayed to the community - if the source doesn’t want to share it, then they don’t have to share it. There seems to be a lot of requests from the moderators to trust in the mod team [and I am NOT saying you shouldn’t be trusted - I trust you guys to do the right thing] BUT 90% of the user base here likely has no idea what the vetting process includes, the information we’re required to provide, or the what the moderators look for when choosing sources.

Also, providing proof of equipment should NOT be taken as proof that the source actually uses the equipment but this would at least provide members with a list of verified equipment to with which educate themselves when making a decision on who to conduct business with. There’s nothing worse than a new source claiming to have a flow hood and then repeatedly being bludgeoned with requests to see pictures of it, not wanting to provide pictures for security’s sake, and then the lynch mob showing up with pitchforks and torches.

I don’t see why this wouldn’t be a happy medium between supplying the mods proof of the sources ability to provide product that meets SST’s standards while also satisfying the “vetting process” that the community has with the source as well.

Also tagging @“propionate” @“Masterofron” @“thallandchill” because I’d love to hear their opinions on this since they’re some of the more active and vocal members on the board.

EDIT: for clarification

I think the idea of a “Report Card” or something would be a great idea, personally and I feel like it would be a happy medium as well.

I also feel like you are correct when you say that 90% (probably 99%) of members don’t even know what the mod vetting entails, but in all honesty I’m not 100% certain a lot of members even care which is interesting because people are injecting these substances into their bodies. They don’t know if it’s testosterone, pure carrier oil with no hormone or piss and most don’t even attempt to find out.

Personally, I feel like transparency is fantastic thing for a source and a buyer. Transparency = more customer trust = more customers for the source/repeat and loyal customers to the source = more money for the source.

Do I think that some questions people ask are retarded as fuck and just not feasible to be answered? Of course. Do I think people go about asking questions the wrong way (wrong tone, wrong attitude etc.)? Absolutely, and I can see how as a source, that would get really annoying.

I saw a post on a source thread here not too long ago where a member asked a source about how they test their raws/if they had any testing on their raws and the source got defensive about it and refused to show them. As a source, why wouldn’t you be willing to offer up the raw information if you’ve had them tested unless you had something to hide (you haven’t tested them or you know they’re fucked up)? That’s a shitty business practice to act like that in my opinion. I’ll never buy from that source, and in the grand scheme of things I know it doesn’t matter because other people will, but it’s still the point. Sorry for the rambling there.

I think sources and members both forget that members are sending hundreds and thousands of dollars to people they don’t know over the internet in hopes of getting gear that is dosed properly, and clean. Sources have to deal with LE issues, members trying to scam them, brewing etc. We are all taking chances here (sources and members alike), so any kind of trust and confidence we can build with each other is important.

To sum it all up: Anything that can be done WITHIN REASON to build customer trust/confidence in a source should be done imo. Whether it be producing testing, answering questions about their brewing process (not recipes and shit unless a source willingly discloses that when asked), sterilization practices, showing a “report card” of sorts, etc. All of these things can be done in a CIVILIZED manner which I think is the main thing the mods here are after. Not clogging up threads with “Fuck you for not showing this, not showing that, not answering this, we’re gonna burn this bitch down” etc.

 

[Masterofron]

Whatever can be done to avoid continued skepticism and help put the pitch forks away… @“SouthernCompounding” your idea is great. At the same time, i think that any lab who uses the excuse “we can’t post this or show you this because it compromises opsec” is full of shit.

You could post photos of an entire 3 floor steroid lab and easily censor/remove any and all potentially identifying details. Blacking out equipment manufacturing names, etc, can easily be done and as previously mentioned sources should be more than willing to show these things if members ask. It shouldn’t matter if the mods have seen them, it shows forum members they are willing to to back up their word and are ready to conduct business professionally and safely here.

It sucks for everyone when the pitchforks come out. It’s a headache for the mods who have to monitor the threads, it’s a headache for the members (especially the ones who are being reasonable yet the source isn’t), and it’s a headache for the source (because there either lying or they have to do a bit of extra unplanned work to make members trust them).

We all saw what happened recently when the pitchforks came out… It may have been frustrating and some of it may have been inappropriate, but it proved a point. Soco I believe your solution can prove the same point without all the bullshit.