Brand names

[Pseudonym]

I've just removed a topic about a particular underground steroid brand.

We had recently been discussing the merits of changing our no-brands policy, so I totally understand if there was some confusion as to what was allowed, and what wasn't. So just to be clear... there has been no policy change - we still do not allow non-pharmaceutical brand names. If you need to, please reread the specific rules for the Steroids forum.

I know this is a controversial issue, and there are very strong arguments both ways. Neither side has the perfect answer, but we have to make a call that is simple for everyone to understand and can be enforced fairly.

I hope members from both sides of the argument will help me and the mods by respecting this decision. As you know, it's not been made lightly.

[Dontrunwithknives]

Including if there is a health issue? I thought the reason the thread started was due to that. But then it was found through the thread it was likely just old stuff.

[atrollappears]

I've just removed a topic about a particular underground steroid brand.

We had recently been discussing the merits of changing our no-brands policy, so I totally understand if there was some confusion as to what was allowed, and what wasn't. So just to be clear... there has been no policy change - we still do not allow non-pharmaceutical brand names. If you need to, please reread the specific rules for the Steroids forum.

I know this is a controversial issue, and there are very strong arguments both ways. Neither side has the perfect answer, but we have to make a call that is simple for everyone to understand and can be enforced fairly.

I hope members from both sides of the argument will help me and the mods by respecting this decision. As you know, it's not been made lightly.

No doubt you read my points which I believed were valid, you are aware I have nothing to sell on here. My only concern was the health issue I raised, which I can state to you was genuine..

Unfortunately the irresponsible children on here (whom have no right even taking AAS) behaved as they always behaved ruining a perfectly informative thread.. 

I am dissappointed my very genuine health concerns cannot be mentioned, to the detriment of members. I have always tried to advise on the side of caution, attempting to explain the science behind my views, hoping that with a better understanding members would be more able to make wiser choices... This advice was always impartial, based on 33 years experience with AAS, I have nothing to promote only what I believed at the time was correct.. I would have thought this kind of advice was invaluable...

Clearly not... 

Goodbye....  

[Ben0]

I am dissappointed my very genuine health concerns cannot be mentioned, to the detriment of members. I have always tried to advise on the side of caution, attempting to explain the science behind my views, hoping that with a better understanding members would be more able to make wiser choices... This advice was always impartial, based on 33 years experience with AAS, I have nothing to promote only what I believed at the time was correct.. I would have thought this kind of advice was invaluable...

Clearly not... 

Goodbye....  

[Pseudonym]

 

I have always tried to advise on the side of caution, attempting to explain the science behind my views, hoping that with a better understanding members would be more able to make wiser choices... This advice was always impartial, based on 33 years experience with AAS, I have nothing to promote only what I believed at the time was correct.. I would have thought this kind of advice was invaluable...

And it is, Daz. You know we appreciate your expertise. Your knowledge has helped lots of members here. And in all of those posts, you've been able to help people without mentioning any specific brand.

I get that you disagree with this rule. As I say, there are people who feel strongly about this on both sides. But to say you'll only stick around if you can name brands... it seems to discount every other useful post you've made - and could still make.

The thing is, we've been down the brand-naming road, and we know where it leads - it's the same place every time. In nearly 10 years, I can't think of a single topic where a negative review of an AAS brand (even when reporting a legitimate health issue) hasn't turned to shit. It's not like we haven't tried to make this work.

[kiwicannon]

Jesus this is some Nazi PC shit going on here!

Its clear that the MAJORITY of AAS users here feel that discussing health issues or concerns with Brands of AAS out there is a vaild and important topic, not just for AAS users but in general, trying to sweep this under the carpet hoping it will go away is plain retarded, after all this is a STEROIDS forum...no wonder half the guys with lots of knowledge and input on AAS have abandoned this site.

Come on Mods is there any other way we as in GYMNATION can openly discuss these issues?

Oh keep it up gents top work!! 

[AZIDE]

i think the forum will be more popular with brand name discussion allowed. totally agree that it will cause arguments etc in topics like the recent one but IMO that type of thing is what made the forum so popular and the banning of brand name discussion is one of the main things which contriuted to the forum becomming less popular.

there is no in between solution/ 'perfect answer'. either you ban brand name discussion or you allow it totally or allow it but moderate it by deleting posts like before. 

reality is all UG gear is overpriced and in every way questionable. so easy for people to sell legit stuff to some people e.g. exerienced users who will swear by that brand and underdosed/fake stuff to people they dont know or to people on first cycle who dont know what to expect.

unless you yourself or the site are in some way legally liable (which i doubt) pseudonym if I was you i would allow the brand name discussion to increase popularity of the forum. leave policing work to police and medsafe.

[kiwicannon]

Here here! 

All those in favour say aye?

[Skeletor]

Im all for it . I think guys coming on here need to be able to freely discuss any problems they may be having ( good and bad ) and name the brands to enable others to make an informed decision on their future cycles. While i dont know whats good and whats bad in New Zealand when i venture down that path id like to have built enough knowledge up from the advice of others and maybee keep clear of the cowboys. Ive learnt a ton in the last month on here but have no idea on what brands to keep away from and what has a good rep. Of course i realise that there are fakes out there to but posting photos could hopefully help with this.

[Pseudonym]

Look, I sit right on the fence on this issue. I have you guys on the one hand arguing for brands, and I have other experienced members arguing the opposite. Right now, I'm just trying to enforce the rules that we currently have in place.

 

Here's a PM someone sent me (I don't have his permission, so I won't say who it is, but it's a very senior member with a lot of experience, and no vested interested that I'm aware of).

As far as the brands discussion goes you are on the right track. There is so much dodgy stuff that goes on behind the scenes and Im not just talking about the gear inside the vial. Im talking about the branding and relabelling, watering down etc. Theres batch A and batch B and they could be completely different doses or even compounds but labelled the same. Discussion adds nothing here and is frought with danger. I think you need to be more active with the current discussions about gear names and stamp it out again.

He's right. If it were as simple as "Brand A is good, brand B is bad" - that would be fantastic. But it's not that clearcut. What you think is brand A may in fact be brand B relabelled.

So while health warnings sound great in principle, they really mean nothing because there's no certainty that the product is question is what you think it is. The best you can do is post a photo of the specific vial, and that's still no guarantee.

 

That said, I'm willing to give brand discussion another chance, if that's what the majority want. (And if it will make this whole damn issue go away!) However, I do have a few conditions...

- I think discussion should be restricted to health warnings only. Saying "I got great results from Brand A" seems to cross the line into a promotional statement. Is that fair?

- As above, this is an individual product problem, not necessarily a brand problem. So every report must include a photo of the specific vial.

- You guys need to create a post that explains all the difficulties in identifying underground AAS product. This should help newbies understand that products (and therefore the reviews) are often not what they seem. We'll add this to the sticky in the Steroids forum.

- This is undoubtedly going to cause shitfights, so you all need to help moderate this section. If it looks like a member is about to derail a topic, you need to bring him back into line. Don't rely on the mods.

- This is going to be a 3-month trial, to be reassessed in June. There is no guarantee it will continue!

 

What do you think?

[rebuff]

Good on you Pseudo. Sounds fair.

 

Only thing that I would query is your point around naming the brands that you got results from. IMO, this is merely the other side of the same health coin. Agree that it is hard to moderate in terms of blantant product promotion... But why can't cycle logs post pictures of gear they are using where it is working, instead of only when its not. This would serve the same purpose in terms of allowing members to make informed choices. If the poster was not an established member with cred, and there is no cycle log to go with it, just a terse promo post, then that is a different story, and I'm sure no one would object to post being closed or removed.

[Pseudonym]

That's the system we used to have, Rebuff.

If the poster was not an established member with cred

The problem we found previously was that quite a few "established members with cred" were actually also reselling AAS on the side - and therefore a lot of their posts were talking up whatever brand they happened to be selling.

So given that you can't trust positive reports even from established members, is it worth having them? I don't know. You tell me.

I feel like I keep shooting down everyone's suggestions... I don't mean to be - it's just not an easy problem to solve!

 

unless you yourself or the site are in some way legally liable (which i doubt)

Well, I'm not sure. This article in the NZ Herald last week has me a wee bit concerned:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11215099

Does that mean that any publication (like this website) which discusses illegal practices is encouraging a crime and would be considered objectionable?

[AZIDE]

that's just a proposed law and i doubt that it would make it into law (hope not) because its stupid. knowing how to do something illegal is not at all the same as actually doing it

[Realtalk]

So what happens when a person starts a thread, then someone agrees and shares their bad experience of that brand with the forum... Ppl assume they are friends behind the scenes and jump to the conclusion it's organised?

 

people who are friends and know each other use the same stuff, that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone... so of course friends will share the same opinion and the same experiences too. Does not mean they are putting on a front and have hidden motives.

 

I think,

 

you need to create a sub forum in the steroid section called ug labs... Have them titled a,b,c etc

 

so for example there is an ultagenix titled thread and in that thread people can talk all they want good and bad about ultagenix (obv no sourcing and no naming names, which go without saying) and it should be constructive. That way they are all kept separate. If someone used ultagenix and liked it they can say so, if they didn't they can say that too. Then you have another titled "whatever the brand is" and same goes for that. I think that could be a good idea and help keep it tidy... What u think? 

[Leeroid]

If we are going to allow brand discussion then Realtalk's idea of having one thread dedicated to each brand sounds good. That'll give the reader a better context of the discussion rather than just a few disjointed posts here and there

[kiwicannon]

NIce one Pseudo! Thanks for listening to us and giving this a chance!

Beauty mate!

[Pseudonym]

that's just a proposed law and i doubt that it would make it into law (hope not) because its stupid. knowing how to do something illegal is not at all the same as actually doing it

Here's how I read the article... There's a law banning the publication of objectionable material which, it seems, may include instructions on how to commit a crime. That law currently exists - the proposal is just to extend the sentences.

http://www.dia.govt.nz/Censorship-Objectionable-and-Restricted-Material

Now, I think there's a reasonable argument to be made for allowing harm-reduction discussions (ie, health warnings). What I'm less certain about is whether positive brand feedback can also be considered harm-reduction.

 

Realtalk, I like that idea - if we allow both positive and negative stories (not much point for just health warnings alone). That would keep things tidy, for sure. I just wonder if one topic per brand means the topics would get too long to be navigated easily?

[AZIDE]

• promotes or encourages criminal acts or acts of terrorism

[Realtalk]

I don't see a problem in having too big a thread to navigate, there no such thing as too much information. Beside we will try to discourage shit talk and joking as that just leads to shit fights with these kinda of topics.

i don't think prices should be allowed to be discussed or mentioned though, that's heading towards the sourcing and promoting side of things and price is irrelevant to quality, sterility and the positive and negatives effects of a particular brand.

just my 2c

[train hard]

Realtalk has some good ideas i think it would also be a good idea to have the "brand" forum only open and available to members who have posted a minimum of say 100 posts so atleast that might help filter out some of the trolls and randoms who just post to cause shit.

[rebuff]

Excellent idea, Realtalk. If we're voting, that's where I'm casting mine.

[Pseudonym]

Realtalk has some good ideas i think it would also be a good idea to have the "brand" forum only open and available to members who have posted a minimum of say 100 posts so atleast that might help filter out some of the trolls and randoms who just post to cause shit.

I like that. I'm not sure that our current software will let us put a minimum post requirement on a particular forum, but I'm looking at changing systems, so hopefully the new one would. Setting the limit at 100 posts would certainly stop the 5 spammy posts we currently get when people want to send PMs, but 100 posts is quite high for a lot of members. Maybe 50 posts would be better? You want it high enough to discourage spamming, but not impossibly high.

[rapz]

maybe limit the posting privileges in regards to products to members with 50-100+ posts but let everyone be able to read it.

that way--

- new people wanting to use can read up

- experienced and contributing members can talk about the good and bad

 

dunno...

[FellowshipOfTheRon]

hmm under your current software do you have the ability to give permissions only to a certain group? you could start a secret section with group policy, similar to something you probably already have for admins/mods to discuss their own secret stuff... people would have to earn their invite into the group which would be controlled ony via admin/mods of that section (?). this greatly reduces the number of people who could just quickly see the info though so health warnings receive less exposure... at the same time it becomes way less worthwhile for people to try push their own brands or put down others so potentially the content you do end up with there is of higher quality

[Ben0]

hmm under your current software do you have the ability to give permissions only to a certain group? you could start a secret section with group policy, similar to something you probably already have for admins/mods to discuss their own secret stuff... people would have to earn their invite into the group which would be controlled ony via admin/mods of that section (?). this greatly reduces the number of people who could just quickly see the info though so health warnings receive less exposure... at the same time it becomes way less worthwhile for people to try push their own brands or put down others so potentially the content you do end up with there is of higher quality

 

This would get my vote..keeps its clean and more likely to have more trustworthy opinions in there and would stop accounts being make just to wade in and promote a certain brand