Comment · Wed, November 17, 2021 · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Moderators please clarify the rules on nootropic vendor recommendations
Original post in this thread
labratdream · 64 points
It has come to my attention that recently user posts are deleted for nootropic vendor recommendation. It is a reasonable policy when vendors are using astroturfing or spamming however I've been asked dozens of times in comments and in private about the vendor or brand of the product I reviewed. It is unacceptable and very damaging to this community that it is allowed to mention nootropicsdepot, newmind and science.bio as well as big brands like now, swanson and jarrows while it is prohibited to recommend pglchem. And while I neither can assure the quality of his products nor I recommend the use of his shop, he is synthesizing some interesting compounds . One such compound is of particular importance to me, given my personal experience with certain nootropic derivatives of it like ones sold by newmind. I've been posting for years what I hope is valuable content including some rare scientific sources like this one stating that pemoline is more anti amnesic than stimulants in the screenshot, or even prl-8-53 which is touted by this sub as the ultimate memory enhancer. Also moderators should state sort of conflict of interests in…
What they were answering
The_ideal_human · -9 points
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. /s
Look Mister, I think you are a great human being and I am very thankful for your multiple positive contributions to this subreddit.
I'm sure we can do a bit better than basic authoritarianism / mod overriding AND that we can do better than inaction.
It's simple:
Allow a (banned or not) user to open a trial at r/NootropicsJusticeTrials
A place dedicated to guard the guardians
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)
The author explain in a post his injustice, brings evidence (screenshots) and a council will be made to judge whether the original decision was valid (ban, other..) and to make a new decision.
I propose that half of the judgment power is given to participating moderators (excluding the moderator the most responsible for the original incriminated decision in the first place) and the other half is given democratically through a survey (strawpall, anything else).
I'm pretty sure u/sirsadalot should open a trial there.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
I am just sick of being pulled into situations I have literally no involvement in. People said they didn't want me to be involved in biased decisions when I started Ceretropic back in 2013, so I agreed to remove myself from decisions that I couldn't be impartial on. That's what I have done every since. The other mods make all the decisions for situations I am even tangentially linked to. I don't remove people's posts or comments. I don't edit the automod or make changed to the filters. I chime in with opinions on topics when I have them, or I provide information that I have regarding situations that pop up. I certainly don't unilaterally take action on things, nor do I override the other mods. That's what everyone expected of me when I started Ceretropic... what feels like a lifetime ago. For me to exclude myself from situations I am not impartial on, I have to keep that a hard rule. I can voice my opinion, but I won't go past that. That's what makes all these accusations so frustrating! I try so hard to stay out of anything that could even be remotely construed as improper.