15 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

As most of us our aware by now immst leadership is concerned about the way the discussion has been going in the Nootropics forum. And rightfully so. This does reflect on immst as a whole.

We have been given a chance to self regulate. As most of the problems deal with disagreements about suppliers and we are clearly unable to currently have a civil discussion on the matter should we have a 3 month moratorium on supplier reviews? Meaning; We will not be allowed to even mention a supplier's name, or reffer to a supplier in any way. If you are a supplier I don't want to discourage you from discussion in any way. Just don't advertise yourself. If a member wants to find out more about a supplier they can do this through PMs and previous posts.

AOR would be excluded from this moratorium for obvious reasons.

I would ask the immst leadership that we be allowed some method of enforcing this moratorium if it does get a majority vote (sending any post to the catcher that is in violation for one)

I do not think that this can work without some method of enforcement as there are members that pay absolutely no heed to these concerns.

[eternaltraveler]

i vote yes obviously.

If you vote it would be nice if you could explain the reasoning for your vote as well

[pinballwizard]

Elrond,

I actually thought of this before, but I would have felt out of line to suggest it as a non-member.

To humbly elaborate, there shall be no advertising (with the exception of AOR) for thirty days... No posts to those topics we all know and can't keep our hands off of. In 1 days time, this should also include the "Concerns of the ImmInst membership" post which will generate a lot of typing too. (yes, lets decide already on rules.) If Imminst wants to continue the debate, which I humbly respect and yield, I suggest putting it up above with resources.

To be really respectful
I further suggest, when the moratorium ceases, people can then post sources, however, it all must be above in the sourcing area. Yes, if you want to link, you can. Or, you can place this rule selectively on advertisers.

Lastly, I humbly suggest
We conduct polls to self-regulate, if Immnst refuses to lower themselves to it. I think democracy usually works well so long as the poll-takers have polls over X number.


Thanks, for letting me speak, Immnst and & Elrond.

Pinball

[eternaltraveler]

pinball: Never be afraid to suggest any of your ideas. All ideas are welcome and appreciated

[hyoomen]

I definitely agree with this stance, but the rules should be made clear in a sticky thread. No reviews allowed, but further information about pricing and availability should continue in the Nootropic Sources thread. Any abbrogation of these rules could come with a series of warnings before banning becomes an option, and a polite reminder that non-review information is welcome in the Sources thread seems like a productive response as well. Do we need to make mention that 'reviewing' or badmouthing other posters is probably of a similar concern?

Cheers.

[stellar]

I voted yes.
Call me a pessimist, but I don't think it's possible given the current climate. I would like to see an attempt at it though.....

[eternaltraveler]

it looks as though this measure has passed the readership of the nootropics thread.

[zg00]

But will it be honored?

[stellar]

But will it be honored?

Only a douchebag would believe so.....







(Don't get mad at my language, zq00, I'm kidding.... hence the wink)

[zg00]

Your alright stellar (no matter what they told me).

[jack42]

Elrond, I will admit I do not read every post here, but how did you you find out that the immInist leadership is concerned about the way the discussion has been going in the Nootropics form?

Jack

[zg00]

Here you go Jack: http://www.imminst.o...f=169&t=5014&s=

[jack42]

zqOO thanks for the link.
Jack

[stellar]

Your alright stellar (no matter what they told me).

LOL!!!


[thumb]

[kikai93]

As most of us our aware by now immst leadership is concerned about the way the discussion has been going in the Nootropics forum. And rightfully so. This does reflect on immst as a whole.

We have been given a chance to self regulate. As most of the problems deal with disagreements about suppliers and we are clearly unable to currently have a civil discussion on the matter should we have a 3 month moratorium on supplier reviews? Meaning; We will not be allowed to even mention a supplier's name, or reffer to a supplier in any way. If you are a supplier I don't want to discourage you from discussion in any way. Just don't advertise yourself. If a member wants to find out more about a supplier they can do this through PMs and previous posts.

AOR would be excluded from this moratorium for obvious reasons.

I would ask the immst leadership that we be allowed some method of enforcing this moratorium if it does get a majority vote (sending any post to the catcher that is in violation for one)

I do not think that this can work without some method of enforcement as there are members that pay absolutely no heed to these concerns.

I think we SHOULD have a moratorium on supplier reviews. I don't think I'm the only person who occasionally wonders "is this a person who is legitimately trying to use nootropics, or a supplier sock account pimping what's profitable?". It would be interesting to see where the conversation would go, and who would still be in it.

[Edit : Just realized how old this was (how did it get to the top of my list??) Still, there seems to be a lot of supplier-centric conversation even today]

Edited by kikai93, 29 October 2010 - 07:47 PM.

[chrono]

[Edit : Just realized how old this was (how did it get to the top of my list??) Still, there seems to be a lot of supplier-centric conversation even today]

I assume that someone voted in this five-year-old poll for some bizarre reason, which bumped it to the top of the forum. Just to be clear, the vote is not ongoing

Sometimes there is a genuine need to discuss products. For example, in the Lion's Mane thread I've contributed to, we've found that it's likely a large number of products (some very popular) don't actually contain a lot of the desired ingredients because of the extraction technique. And more generally, these are things that you can't just get at the grocery store, so networking our resources seems pretty valuable to this community.

The moderators here work pretty hard to keep an eye out for viral marketers. But it's probably true that we can't spot them all, or distinguish them from the species of beginning user who can only discuss their reaction to the products they've tried. But really, anecdotal reports should only be a point of reference to begin with. If people are making decisions about what nootropics to take based on reports from viral marketers, likely to have only a few posts, a rigorous self-examination is needed more than a limitation of discussions.

Edited by chrono, 30 October 2010 - 01:33 PM.