emptiedglass said:
I hope they're pretty consistent about the illegal stuff. Not having the proper documentation on file to show that a performer is of age can get a site shut down pretty quickly. It's probably safe to say that extreme violence or rape would bring about the same results.
Miss_Lollipop said:
zippypinhead said:
Granted, I'm no expert, but the only thing I've seen MFC enforce with any consistency is the rule against men appearing on cam.
they enforce the bestiality and underage/incest roleplay. I've had warnings for doing very very little (reading a dirty story about a daddy/little relationship, in which it was stated at teh start all parties were over 18 and not related, and that it was NOT an incest story)
Brad said:
I know from browsing MFC a lot that they do strictly enforce at least certain rules as others have mentioned. Guys on cam and the ones Lolli mentioned are slam dunks from what I have seen. IF you happen to catch one it usually doesn't take long before the feed and profile are gone. The OP admitted to breaking the rules so I figured that was what happened with her and I'm not sure why she doesn't seem to believe it?
As far as I'm concerned (not that my opinion on this matter bears any weight) the inconsistency of enforcement is still inexcusable. There's a list of 20 infractions there, many of which are expanded to include sub-infractions, yet only about half a dozen actually regularly result in disciplinary actions? If you're going to provide rules, and provide consequences when those rules are broken, then see to it that the consequences are carried out. Otherwise, it just sends mixed signals that unfairly impact a model's income. I mean, really, it's alright to smoke pot and take shots while fucking a bedpost as a guest model paddles your ass with a cricket bat until you "squirt" urine, but moaning the word "daddy" or comparing the bedpost to a horse cock will be what gets you banned? Gimme a break.
And since I've taken the trouble to climb up on my soapbox, let me just point out that those rules are also incredibly ambiguous, as is evidenced by this very situation, which is also harmful to models. She didn't admit to committing acts of bestiality or incest. She admitted to
talking about them. Where in the rules does it say just talking about it gets you banned? Oh, right,
it doesn't. What it does say (in sentence fragments, no less) is, "Bestiality, or animals/pets
on camera in a sexual or provocative context," and, "Incest (sexual relations involving family members). Family members should not appear
on camera together." What I take that to mean is don't fuck Fido or sister Mabel on cam. Since, by its literal wording, the subject of spoken fantasy play is completely unmentioned, that is the only way that it could reasonably be interpreted as. So, she didn't break the rules as they are written. But let's take a look at something else, here, which I find interesting:
"Sexual relations with men, even off-camera."
So... what the fuck does that mean? Does it mean that any girl who has a husband or boyfriend can't cam on MFC? I sure hope not, especially since there's a listed marital status on the MFC profile. Does this mean that any model who posts a M/F video for sale is subject to banning? It sure could be interpreted that way.
I understand that it was a bit annoying for this girl to come in here and post the same question in broken English to two separate threads, and I understand that it's also a bit annoying that she doesn't seem to get that she was banned for some sort of unlisted infraction, even though it has been explained to her succinctly several times. However, what I suspect is one of two situations: either we aren't getting the full story, or this girl finds herself in a situation that any one of you could easily find yourself in, because these rules are neither written nor executed with any sort of consistency. Maybe it's the former, and I doubt we'll ever really get to the bottom of the situation. But even so, I see no situation where the latter doesn't play a part. This is concerning to me, and I'm just a member -- I just show up and throw tokens to make naked ladies dance. If I was a model, and I was putting my investment and my livelihood at the mercy of the whims of a company that makes up rules that make no sense and that it has no intentions of following, I'd be incensed.
