MFC Agent ??banned?

[Charlotte_UK]

I have to admit, (don't shoot me lol) I enjoy watching Agent99's cam, there is never a dull moment, BUT it's not fair for any girl to get away with having men on cam. I don't see why admin don't set up a standard (yet increasing) fine for girls who blatantly do so. For example, the first time a girl has a guy on cam she gets fined 1000 toks, the second time it's 2500 toks, the third time 5000 toks etc, etc. Surely that would be enough to discourage any girl from doing it??

I didn't see her cam when there was a child on it, but in the screenshot it looks like it was accidental as she isn't even at her comp (by the looks of it)... It still really shouldn't have happened though.

I know people are angry with double standards MFC have but there is no need for people to make negative comments about her age...we are all going to get older & we can't all keep the body of a 21 year old forever lol.

To be honest, if I could get away with things on cam that got me more viewers, tokens & raised my camscore I probably would do it too as I'm sure other girls would! I don't know why she keeps getting away with it though, I suspect the theory of her knowing the owners/admin of MFC is a rather plausible one.

As they say though, any publicity is good publicity, so even this thread which is entirely dedicated to her is actually doing her a favour!

 

[Mikeythegeek]

I have to admit, (don't shoot me lol) I enjoy watching Agent99's cam, there is never a dull moment, BUT it's not fair for any girl to get away with having men on cam. I don't see why admin don't set up a standard (yet increasing) fine for girls who blatantly do so. For example, the first time a girl has a guy on cam she gets fined 1000 toks, the second time it's 2500 toks, the third time 5000 toks etc, etc. Surely that would be enough to discourage any girl from doing it??

I didn't see her cam when there was a child on it, but in the screenshot it looks like it was accidental as she isn't even at her comp (by the looks of it)... It still really shouldn't have happened though.

I know people are angry with double standards MFC have but there is no need for people to make negative comments about her age...we are all going to get older & we can't all keep the body of a 21 year old forever lol.

To be honest, if I could get away with things on cam that got me more viewers, tokens & raised my camscore I probably would do it too as I'm sure other girls would! I don't know why she keeps getting away with it though, I suspect the theory of her knowing the owners/admin of MFC is a rather plausible one.

As they say though, any publicity is good publicity, so even this thread which is entirely dedicated to her is actually doing her a favour!

You're entitled to your opinion, even if the majority disagrees with you.

The only thing I must argue is that cap you saw is NOT the only time a child as been seen on her cam. There were other occasions of it. Some were posted here, but Amber removed them at the request of 99.

Which of course goes back to the whole point about her being a hypocrite for invading other people's privacy but yet asking for her caps to be pulled from here. Frankly, I would've told her to pound sand if she asked me to do that. But obviously, I'm not as nice as Amber is.

 

[Charlotte_UK]

You're entitled to your opinion, even if the majority disagrees with you.

The only thing I must argue is that cap you saw is NOT the only time a child as been seen on her cam. There were other occasions of it. Some were posted here, but Amber removed them at the request of 99.

Which of course goes back to the whole point about her being a hypocrite for invading other people's privacy but yet asking for her caps to be pulled from here. Frankly, I would've told her to pound sand if she asked me to do that. But obviously, I'm not as nice as Amber is.

Ok, well I didn't know that lol.

Edited to say, the majority of people replying to this thread may disagree with me, but if people agree, saying so is not going to make them popular lol...I nearly didn't reply to this thread cos no one wants to be the odd one out especially when people have such strong feelings on it.

The kid on cam thing is totally out of order though especially if it isn't corrected.

 

[Anna_Swallows]

*shrugs* apparently everyone on here watches her shows.

I have to admit, I am a model first and foremost and looking out for myself and making myself money. It will be me and me alone that supports my kids, so my first concern isn't going to be looking out for all the other models on MFC or any site that I work on. I will be more busy in my own room trying to get my own tips. Isn't that why we became models in the first place? to make that $$$???? I am reading in some of these posts that talk about all us being a team, working together in harmony......wth???? I am sorry, but other models are not paying me or my bills. While I am not going to talk bad about other models, or cause problems, I am here for me.

Apparently, Agent found something that works for her. alot of other models have done their shows in public, with men in the background. I don't agree with breaking the rules like that and especially with having kids on the cam, but damn!!!! Chill out people. Spend this energy in your own room and make some money!!! IF you REALLY, REALLY don't like her, why are you watching her room so much?? I don't get it.

 

[Bocefish]

Crap like this is why camwhores should have a union. Other than quitting, or a possible lawsuit there ain't much you can do about it. Maybe y'all can get together and have a MOC day and freak Leo the fuck out, lol.

 

[Teagz]

Because we enjoy mfc, we use it for entertainment. We watch it when we're not camming. If you're here for YOU then maybe you don't need the forums. This forum is about models for models, members for models, and models for members. If you're doing you, and you don't need anything else - then I really don't see a reason for you being here. Do you look away when you see a car accident on the side of the highway and you're in dead stopped traffic? Hell no. Why? Because you're curious. It's human nature to be curious. But - the bitch has CHILDREN on cam. Men on cam. And breaks a number of laws AND rules. There's many models that have been fined for a lesser offense and she doesn't even get banned for having children on cam. Do you not see an issue with that? Maybe you would if it were your own children. Some of us don't need to spend more energy in our room - and some of us wind down after a shift by watching other models. K, that is all!

 

[Rose]

i think all the other posters said it well, especially teagz. something needs to be done, at the very least, about the kids on cam. imo, she should be arrested for it. but i don't rule the world so i'll just try to snap as many screen caps as i can and everytime i catch wind of something wrong i'll just send a personal email to support. leo was sick of messaging me about exxxotica so i'm sure i'll annoy the fuck out of him with this. i can be very noisy about issues i have strong feelings on. let's all get really noisy.

 

[Jupiter551]

*shrugs* apparently everyone on here watches her shows.

I have to admit, I am a model first and foremost and looking out for myself and making myself money. It will be me and me alone that supports my kids, so my first concern isn't going to be looking out for all the other models on MFC or any site that I work on. I will be more busy in my own room trying to get my own tips. Isn't that why we became models in the first place? to make that $$$???? I am reading in some of these posts that talk about all us being a team, working together in harmony......wth???? I am sorry, but other models are not paying me or my bills. While I am not going to talk bad about other models, or cause problems, I am here for me.

Apparently, Agent found something that works for her. alot of other models have done their shows in public, with men in the background. I don't agree with breaking the rules like that and especially with having kids on the cam, but damn!!!! Chill out people. Spend this energy in your own room and make some money!!! IF you REALLY, REALLY don't like her, why are you watching her room so much?? I don't get it.

Heh, the point is you don't NEED to watch her cam all the time to see this shit happen because it happens on a daily basis.

Other models have men in the background accidentally, very occasionally, usually try to avoid showing the guy, and frequently they get fined for it. Agent does it almost every day, doesn't give a fuck, she makes money by showing men on cam, and the only one time she got suspended for like half an hour for it she bitched and whined for days about how unfair it was...please...

So apparently if someone is doing something illegal, and you think it's also immoral, you don't expect them to change their behaviour you just expect everyone to ignore it. Glad I don't live in THAT society.

Define "watch her shows"? I might go in for 5 minutes as a guest every few days if I hear something interesting is going on, but 5 minutes of her bitchiness, greed, and sycophantic fans are about all I can stomach.

Still, it's not exactly a big time investment. Probably less than you spent reading this thread.

 

[AngelAndrea]

Crap like this is why camwhores should have a union. Other than quitting, or a possible lawsuit there ain't much you can do about it. Maybe y'all can get together and have a MOC day and freak Leo the fuck out, lol.

omg!!!!! yes!!!

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Looking around, ya know.... she does break the rules, but I see pleanty of these ladies breaking them daily, in more.... graphic ways than having a few willing men on the cam goofing off or catching some kids in the background.
I see fisting, squirting, fucking machines, sloppy holes gaped open, foreign object insertion..... I mean for public chat.... some pretty graphic shit.
From the top 20 on the list. So as much as I think some parts of 99's shows are "too much" involving kids and whatnot (to be fair to 99, these kids are fuzzy ghosts in the background, or you hear them... they are not actually "part of the show") I find what she does more acceptable than some of the in public stuff that goes on, and the daily rule shattering that the top 20's do... daily.

In the end... Leo is out to make money. The girls are out to make money. Once you start making MFC decent coin, all the crying in the world wont make the ones making the money obey their own rules.

The reality of it is, ya'll know how Leo operates. Ya'll know when you get to the top 20 and start making good money, the rules take a back seat. If you have a problem with that, You and your morals probably need to find a new site to work on.

Don;t get me wrong, I think she needs a good slap and a fine for openly defying the rules as she did in the last 2 days. BUT on the other hand..... it is business. And a business where he is slightly out of reach of much authority.

or, Athoritay.... (for miss Jicky... lol)

I'm not outraged enough to write letters.... I don't really care that much. Compared to a lot of the interwebz crap, 99 is harmless.

There are a few models I really did like on MFC that got bitchslapped HARD by leo for STUPID shit that didnt come close to 99's rule breaking. One poor kid he took 500 bucks in tips off her and suspended her plus confiscated her nights take (if she was tellin the truth) for just having a guy in the room for a few minutes. She was really crushed her rent money was gone.

Now that pisses me off. If he's gonna slap one, slap em all. Dont pick on the one that on a rare night makes a few 100 bucks and not the ones who do that every day.

But, who ever said life was fair..
She really could afford nice fine, she made a kings ransom last night.

 

[Ample_Vannah]

Hello, I left the first comment on admin leos profile about agent_99 and her constant rule breaking, if something is not done soon, all the models on mfc will be at risk of no longer having a job there . I don't know what else to do, several of the people I have grown to like, as well as members I do not know have blown up admin leos profile w/ pictures and heartfelt words expressing genuine concern , I do not know what else to do, except to annoy leo on his personal email account until something is done , if this goes any further..and the authorities find out..mfc will be shut down, & I don not want that . :geek:

 

[Zoomer]

why will mfc be shut down? I keep reading it, but unless there are top lawyers and some judges here, it seems to be an unfounded assumption? or are there legal precedents from which the assumptions have their basis? genuine question...

 

[AngelAndrea]

why will mfc be shut down? I keep reading it, but unless there are top lawyers and some judges here, it seems to be an unfounded assumption? or are there legal precedents from which the assumptions have their basis? genuine question...

It's an assumption on top of another. Assuming someone sues, and assuming they have high powered lawyers involved, we might could assume MFC would have some issues. It's another thing to assume they'd shut down but I can't even put that many in a row.

 

[Zoomer]

why will mfc be shut down? I keep reading it, but unless there are top lawyers and some judges here, it seems to be an unfounded assumption? or are there legal precedents from which the assumptions have their basis? genuine question...

It's an assumption on top of another. Assuming someone sues, and assuming they have high powered lawyers involved, we might could assume MFC would have some issues. It's another thing to assume they'd shut down but I can't even put that many in a row.

Fair enough. I assumed it'd be a criminal case that would potentially get the site shut down, not a civil case (which is what you describe). However, I know very little about the law, nor what the charges for a criminal case would be or who'd be responsible (given MFC's T&C etc). I always assumed civil cases were just for money - so it'd get settled out of court.
Maybe, as Paulie said, they're making enough money from her and are legally covered on their side, so that it doesn't matter to them? I do wish the rules were more fairly enforced, although whenever I say "rules" now, I start to hear Barbarossa from POTC saying "more like guidelines..." Given the discrepancy between what the rules say and what is enforced, it certainly feels like it should be "guidelines"

 

[AngelAndrea]

why will mfc be shut down? I keep reading it, but unless there are top lawyers and some judges here, it seems to be an unfounded assumption? or are there legal precedents from which the assumptions have their basis? genuine question...

It's an assumption on top of another. Assuming someone sues, and assuming they have high powered lawyers involved, we might could assume MFC would have some issues. It's another thing to assume they'd shut down but I can't even put that many in a row.

Fair enough. I assumed it'd be a criminal case that would potentially get the site shut down, not a civil case (which is what you describe). However, I know very little about the law, nor what the charges for a criminal case would be or who'd be responsible (given MFC's T&C etc). I always assumed civil cases were just for money - so it'd get settled out of court.
Maybe, as Paulie said, they're making enough money from her and are legally covered on their side, so that it doesn't matter to them? I do wish the rules were more fairly enforced, although whenever I say "rules" now, I start to hear Barbarossa from POTC saying "more like guidelines..." Given the discrepancy between what the rules say and what is enforced, it certainly feels like it should be "guidelines"

I don't know who could press charges or file any sort of criminal order against a site, I don't really understand the criminal aspects of law at all like I should, so I took it the only plausible way I could see, but even that's a little strange to consider. Essentially ANYONE who has seen the antics can sue, and ESPECIALLY a model who has been fined and has documentation of her fines and 99's rule breaking and also the complaints sent to admin. I know of someone who is trying to press criminal charges against a model, and let's just say it's NOT easy, even a little and he may have to attempt to go after MFC in order to even GET to the model because of (well I GUESS I have to respect it) privacy issues and such. I wish it were as easy as "one day... summits gon happen, im tellin yer" but unless it's me doing it I would never make that statement because it's a big one and if someone TRULY thinks that is the case then they should go ahead and press charges themselves in order to get this going. I don't see it happening though. This is both good, and a tiny bit disappointing.

 

[DivSavel]

Don't trust any warning of MFC being "shut down" until you hear it from admins. x_x Jussayin'

Also, I actually have enjoyed chilling in Agent's room. Yes, she sometimes rages, and yes she breaks the rules, but she's exactly what MFC (the community, not the rules page) wants. Personality and confidence. She's made me laugh, and even if she insults other models, fuck it. It's not my cup of tea (I tend to like models unless they prove to be cunts), but hell, I'm not the 'bad girl' that a lot of models want. I'm too nice for many, and MFC has a variation of both bad and nice girls. Someone for everyone, right gaiz? And as you can see, many of her members like reading the forums and throwing drama her way whenever they see a snide comment against the lady. So clearly, they want something moar rage/drama-filled than the majority of us. Different strokes (lolstroke), even if the strokes are actually an e-slap from a member screaming "OMFG he said this & she said this OMG OMG BAN HEEEEM".

And I gotta agree with Paulie here. Yeah, she breaks the rules, but let's face it. Would you rather lol at the Raging Camgirl that trolls the public, or cringe at the Fisting "Sisters" that defecate and throw it at one another while squirting cucumbers out their vag?

Anyway, we all rage and hate MFC in one way or another. Truefax. It's either because of their:
1. Nonchalant treatment of harassed models
2. Ridiculous constraints and rules that models find suffocating
3. Frequent MFCfails
4. Support of studio models (often Romanian) that exploit the camscore system and rarely seem to do anything other than: "Teeps bb? You leik my titties? TEEP THEEEMMMM- wai you leaving? you don't likemy titties? Camgirl sad nao- camgirl cry nao and beg for TEEEEEPS"
5. Whatever else you can find.

And if something did happen, I know for a fact that plenty of models (particularly tech savvy ones) would try to make or find a better site. One of my friends already tried to talk about that, but, for now it's moot the traffic of MFC is hard to find elsewhere.

WTB camgirl union

 

[NickT]

I don't know who could press charges or file any sort of criminal order against a site, I don't really understand the criminal aspects of law at all like I should, so I took it the only plausible way I could see, but even that's a little strange to consider. Essentially ANYONE who has seen the antics can sue, and ESPECIALLY a model who has been fined and has documentation of her fines and 99's rule breaking and also the complaints sent to admin. I know of someone who is trying to press criminal charges against a model, and let's just say it's NOT easy, even a little and he may have to attempt to go after MFC in order to even GET to the model because of (well I GUESS I have to respect it) privacy issues and such.

There is a serious risk to MFC with 99 because of the continued behavior of breaking the law. Breaking MFC's rules don't matter. It's the illegal behavior that matters.

Eventually a kid is going to walk in on her as she's masturbating in a hallway or store. If that parent finds out their kid was broadcast on MFC, they may sue. Actually, they wouldn't even have to sue. It's a criminal matter and the police would pursue it. If it was a one-time thing then MFC could successfully say 99 was an independent contractor and they are not responsible. But there has been repeated incidents of this behavior. MFC cannot say they didn't know she was doing this. MFC will be found guilty of child porn or something and be shut down and hit with a big fine.

 

[AngelAndrea]

I don't know who could press charges or file any sort of criminal order against a site, I don't really understand the criminal aspects of law at all like I should, so I took it the only plausible way I could see, but even that's a little strange to consider. Essentially ANYONE who has seen the antics can sue, and ESPECIALLY a model who has been fined and has documentation of her fines and 99's rule breaking and also the complaints sent to admin. I know of someone who is trying to press criminal charges against a model, and let's just say it's NOT easy, even a little and he may have to attempt to go after MFC in order to even GET to the model because of (well I GUESS I have to respect it) privacy issues and such.

There is a serious risk to MFC with 99 because of the continued behavior of breaking the law. Breaking MFC's rules don't matter. It's the illegal behavior that matters.

Eventually a kid is going to walk in on her as she's masturbating in a hallway or store. If that parent finds out their kid was broadcast on MFC, they may sue. Actually, they wouldn't even have to sue. It's a criminal matter and the police would pursue it. If it was a one-time thing then MFC could successfully say 99 was an independent contractor and they are not responsible. But there has been repeated incidents of this behavior. MFC cannot say they didn't know she was doing this. MFC will be found guilty of child porn or something and be shut down and hit with a big fine.

Please don't pretend I don't understand this. Also don't pretend I'm not the biggest advocate for banning on 2nd kid on cam (if accidental). The issue with your ''scene'' is that it requires a person not only KNOWING that their child was on cam, but then finding out why and where would be impossible. I doubt she's handing out business cards to the parents. The best we can hope for is an indecent exposure and endangering a child, and note that MFC wouldn't be a part of it unless the parent KNOWS 99 is on MFC and I highly doubt that the stars will align as you state.

 

[Lydia_Deetz]

I also can't imagine as a parent walking in on my kid exposed to 99's snatch and saying, "pardon me but what website are you broadcasting on?"

For me it would go more like, "Bitch you just got knocked the fuck out!" :lol:

So maybe she will get her ass kicked ( which may cool her jets) or arrested at one of these public shows (which may also cool her jets) and the world will be right again.

:twocents-02cents:

 

[Zoomer]

MFC will be found guilty of child porn or something and be shut down and hit with a big fine.

I don't wish to sound rude, but seriously - based upon what categorisation of child pornography are MFC "guilty or something" - you can take, for example, the image of the lady holding their small child facing the opposite direction to her webcam, where she isn't even on the screen, as a starting point as I dunno about what else has been observed.

For aid and use in clarification, I present the following COPINE scale to identify how that constitutes as child pornography. Scale first, type/classification, break-down.

1. Indicative: Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.
2. Nudist : Pictures of naked or semi-naked children in appropriate nudist settings, and from legitimate sources.
3. Erotica : Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.
4. Posing: Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organization suggests sexual interest).
5. Erotic Posing: Deliberately posed pictures of fully, partially clothed or naked children in sexualised or provocative poses.
6. Explicit Erotic Posing: Pictures emphasising genital areas, where the child is either naked, partially clothed or fully clothed.
7. Explicit Sexual Activity: Pictures that depict touching, mutual and self-masturbation, oral sex and intercourse by a child, not involving an adult.
8. Assault : Pictures of children being subject to a sexual assault, involving digital touching, involving an adult.
9. Gross Assault : Grossly obscene pictures of sexual assault, involving penetrative sex, masturbation or oral sex, involving an adult.
10. Sadistic/Bestiality: a. Pictures showing a child being tied, bound, beaten, whipped or otherwise subject to something that implies pain.

b. Pictures where an animal is involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child.

My question is are you assuming that, based upon your own moral thoughts about it all, that she is creating and broadcasting child pornography? Or are you utilising a recognised categorisation that is used in courts to define the seriousness of it all? One really assumes that you are putting forward a hypothesis that it will occur that a child will be on her webcam at the same time that she is naked. However, afaik that still is not child pornography as recognised by that scale above! Certainly she'd be guilty of various indecent exposure and lewd conduct type charges, and in the UK perhaps she'd even be put on the sex offenders register for a few years too (no idea, actually). But, afaik (in the UK at least) it does not constitute child pornography. However, I stress the "as far as I know". I am neither a lawyer, nor versed in legal jargon/issues. However, saying "guilty of child porn or something..." indicates that you honestly haven't looked to see what constitutes child porn. Is that, at least, true?

In 2002 in the UK, the Sentencing Advisory Panel adapted the COPINE scale to five levels and recommended its adoption for sentencing guidelines, omitting levels 1 to 3 and recommending that levels 4 to 6 combine as sentencing level 1 and that the four levels from 7 to 10 each form an individual severity level, for a total of 5 sentencing stages.

(Wikipedia for the sources!)

 

[LilyVonShtupp]

At the moment I'm just mildly intrigued. If I ever get a fine for anything, however, I may blow up in the biggest rage since King Kong on NYC.

Then again, how do we know she isn't fined all the time and simply doesn't care because she makes so damn much?

 

[AngelAndrea]

3 Erotica Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.
4 Posing Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organization suggests sexual interest).

I don't agree with someone saying it's not "child porn" because when a child ON a PORN site it is, (but maybe MFC doesn't suggest sexual interest, I could be wrong about it all) and these pre-teen girls were in bikinis and I guess 99 knew or assumed they were there and underage and also (duh the only reason this woman exists) knew she'd make money off of them. This wasn't the only case, but from what I hear this was the most deliberate. Also, these people (children) are exposed in safe places, it's just wrong for someone do that to them, it's victimizing in the most rudimentary sense.

And yeah, if if this bitch had my kid on cam I'd fuck her up so bad I'd wonder if I'm a fit parent at all. That's the trufe, trufe.

 

[AngelAndrea]

At the moment I'm just mildly intrigued. If I ever get a fine for anything, however, I may blow up in the biggest rage since King Kong on NYC.

Then again, how do we know she isn't fined all the time and simply doesn't care because she makes so damn much?

I know for danged sure she isn't being fined enough to stop, and if they fined her everytime they're fucking idiots. That's ban status.

 

[NickT]

I'm not a lawyer, but I know it is illegal to masturbate in front of a child. And it's also illegal to broadcast that same thing on a porn site. I don't know if it's worth debating legal theory as to whether it would be considered child porn.

And there are many ways the parents could find out. She has been busted many times in hotels by members recognizing where she is. There's a 1000 people in her room. All it takes is one member emailing the hotel or police in that city. Or perhaps a member could search news stories or police reports to see if anything was filed on that day.

 

[Zoomer]

3 Erotica Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.
4 Posing Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organization suggests sexual interest).

I don't agree with someone saying it's not "child porn" because when a child ON a PORN site it is, (but maybe MFC doesn't suggest sexual interest, I could be wrong about it all) and these pre-teen girls were in bikinis and I guess 99 knew or assumed they were there and underage and also (duh the only reason this woman exists) knew she'd make money off of them. This wasn't the only case, but from what I hear this was the most deliberate. Also, these people (children) are exposed in safe places, it's just wrong for someone do that to them, it's victimizing in the most rudimentary sense.

And yeah, if if this bitch had my kid on cam I'd fuck her up so bad I'd wonder if I'm a fit parent at all. That's the trufe, trufe.

Are you saying that an image on a site which features pornographic imagery gives a pornographic context to the image which doesn't feature porn simply due to it's proximity to images which are of porn?

Are you also really saying that Agent_99 intentionally targeted, and broadcast, children in the interests of her financial gain? That she was honestly broadcasting them for sexual interest of the viewers? Seriously? :shock: :?

p.s. Perhaps you should read the whole of my first post. In UK law, 1-3 do not feature. So you've just got number 4 to go on so far

 

[Jupiter551]

Yeah or if she were arrested they'd be looking through her laptop to find out what she was doing on the laptop, masturbating with kids around.

Maybe things are different in the US? If she got caught masturbating in public with kids around here, and especially if it was subsequently found she was doing this live on the internet for financial gain...she would be nailed to the fucking wall.

 

[AliciaLeigh]

Looking around, ya know.... she does break the rules, but I see pleanty of these ladies breaking them daily, in more.... graphic ways than having a few willing men on the cam goofing off or catching some kids in the background.
I see fisting, squirting, fucking machines, sloppy holes gaped open, foreign object insertion..... I mean for public chat.... some pretty graphic shit.
From the top 20 on the list. So as much as I think some parts of 99's shows are "too much" involving kids and whatnot (to be fair to 99, these kids are fuzzy ghosts in the background, or you hear them... they are not actually "part of the show") I find what she does more acceptable than some of the in public stuff that goes on, and the daily rule shattering that the top 20's do... daily.

In the end... Leo is out to make money. The girls are out to make money. Once you start making MFC decent coin, all the crying in the world wont make the ones making the money obey their own rules.

The reality of it is, ya'll know how Leo operates. Ya'll know when you get to the top 20 and start making good money, the rules take a back seat. If you have a problem with that, You and your morals probably need to find a new site to work on.

Don;t get me wrong, I think she needs a good slap and a fine for openly defying the rules as she did in the last 2 days. BUT on the other hand..... it is business. And a business where he is slightly out of reach of much authority.

or, Athoritay.... (for miss Jicky... lol)

I'm not outraged enough to write letters.... I don't really care that much. Compared to a lot of the interwebz crap, 99 is harmless.

There are a few models I really did like on MFC that got bitchslapped HARD by leo for STUPID shit that didnt come close to 99's rule breaking. One poor kid he took 500 bucks in tips off her and suspended her plus confiscated her nights take (if she was tellin the truth) for just having a guy in the room for a few minutes. She was really crushed her rent money was gone.

Now that pisses me off. If he's gonna slap one, slap em all. Dont pick on the one that on a rare night makes a few 100 bucks and not the ones who do that every day.

But, who ever said life was fair..
She really could afford nice fine, she made a kings ransom last night.

I agree with you 100% which is why I have chosen not to complain. I happened to catch 99 online last night while she had a guy on cam with her. They were just chatting away, she wasn't nude and neither was he. I decided to perv on a few other models who happen to be in the Top 20 this month and what do I see? A girl fucking herself in public chat. Now, having a man on cam and insertion in public chat (hell, masturbation in public chat) is against the stated rules for MFC, but I personally believe that the girl fucking herself in public chat causes more harm to my business (and other models) than 99 having a guy on cam. #jussayin

 

[AngelAndrea]

Yeah or if she were arrested they'd be looking through her laptop to find out what she was doing on the laptop, masturbating with kids around.

Maybe things are different in the US? If she got caught masturbating in public with kids around here, and especially if it was subsequently found she was doing this live on the internet for financial gain...she would be nailed to the fucking wall.

As far as I can gather from my arrests (obviously none endangering children) they can't really do much without evidence substantiating a warrant and/or an investigation. Not to be totally TMI but I got arrested for possession (pot) and it was a large amount to where it qualified for intent to sell. They could NOT get into my phone or my computer that were on me at the time (even though they were confiscated they were returned once I met my bail) and could not make a case for intent to sell and didn't care to. I asked if it was because I was under 18 (I was 15) that they couldn't check out my shit and they said that they need to get a warrant and it's a huge hassle, once they get a charge they nail THAT to the wall and hope they weren't taking the lazy route.


Like I said, I don't know nearly enough about law, but what I do know is that if you think it's gonna be easy I know that isn't the case. I was ON my computer and my phone at the time of my arrest (and that was the reason I was approached by the cops too lol what 15 year old needs both? at the same time?) and they thought that they could obtain evidence from both, but declined further investigation. This honestly happens a lot that I know of which is why I didn't even want to go into the whole
"QUICK GET HER COMPUTER AND SEE WHAT SHE WAS DOING" thing because that's a whole other issue.

 

[AngelAndrea]

Looking around, ya know.... she does break the rules, but I see pleanty of these ladies breaking them daily, in more.... graphic ways than having a few willing men on the cam goofing off or catching some kids in the background.
I see fisting, squirting, fucking machines, sloppy holes gaped open, foreign object insertion..... I mean for public chat.... some pretty graphic shit.
From the top 20 on the list. So as much as I think some parts of 99's shows are "too much" involving kids and whatnot (to be fair to 99, these kids are fuzzy ghosts in the background, or you hear them... they are not actually "part of the show") I find what she does more acceptable than some of the in public stuff that goes on, and the daily rule shattering that the top 20's do... daily.

In the end... Leo is out to make money. The girls are out to make money. Once you start making MFC decent coin, all the crying in the world wont make the ones making the money obey their own rules.

The reality of it is, ya'll know how Leo operates. Ya'll know when you get to the top 20 and start making good money, the rules take a back seat. If you have a problem with that, You and your morals probably need to find a new site to work on.

Don;t get me wrong, I think she needs a good slap and a fine for openly defying the rules as she did in the last 2 days. BUT on the other hand..... it is business. And a business where he is slightly out of reach of much authority.

or, Athoritay.... (for miss Jicky... lol)

I'm not outraged enough to write letters.... I don't really care that much. Compared to a lot of the interwebz crap, 99 is harmless.

There are a few models I really did like on MFC that got bitchslapped HARD by leo for STUPID shit that didnt come close to 99's rule breaking. One poor kid he took 500 bucks in tips off her and suspended her plus confiscated her nights take (if she was tellin the truth) for just having a guy in the room for a few minutes. She was really crushed her rent money was gone.

Now that pisses me off. If he's gonna slap one, slap em all. Dont pick on the one that on a rare night makes a few 100 bucks and not the ones who do that every day.

But, who ever said life was fair..
She really could afford nice fine, she made a kings ransom last night.

I agree with you 100% which is why I have chosen not to complain. I happened to catch 99 online last night while she had a guy on cam with her. They were just chatting away, she wasn't nude and neither was he. I decided to perv on a few other models who happen to be in the Top 20 this month and what do I see? A girl fucking herself in public chat. Now, having a man on cam and insertion in public chat (hell, masturbation in public chat) is against the stated rules for MFC, but I personally believe that the girl fucking herself in public chat causes more harm to my business (and other models) than 99 having a guy on cam. #jussayin

Woah, when did I get a twitter?

 

[AngelAndrea]

3 Erotica Surreptitiously taken photographs of children in play areas or other safe environments showing either underwear or varying degrees of nakedness.
4 Posing Deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organization suggests sexual interest).

I don't agree with someone saying it's not "child porn" because when a child ON a PORN site it is, (but maybe MFC doesn't suggest sexual interest, I could be wrong about it all) and these pre-teen girls were in bikinis and I guess 99 knew or assumed they were there and underage and also (duh the only reason this woman exists) knew she'd make money off of them. This wasn't the only case, but from what I hear this was the most deliberate. Also, these people (children) are exposed in safe places, it's just wrong for someone do that to them, it's victimizing in the most rudimentary sense.

And yeah, if if this bitch had my kid on cam I'd fuck her up so bad I'd wonder if I'm a fit parent at all. That's the trufe, trufe.

Are you saying that an image on a site which features pornographic imagery gives a pornographic context to the image which doesn't feature porn simply due to it's proximity to images which are of porn?

Are you also really saying that Agent_99 intentionally targeted, and broadcast, children in the interests of her financial gain? That she was honestly broadcasting them for sexual interest of the viewers? Seriously? :shock: :?

p.s. Perhaps you should read the whole of my first post. In UK law, 1-3 do not feature. So you've just got number 4 to go on so far

Yes I (don't care to italicize) really think that if she's going to be a god damn cam whore and fuck herself for money then her income should not be increased by children who she objectifies on the same site she fucks herself (HER "FAME" IS BASED ON THESE SHOWS, I MEAN PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT). Also, I'm not a god damned lawyer NOR am I in the UK so I don't give a flying turkey on a hungry thanksgiving what I've "GOT'' because this isn't a fucking game. This is talk about children being objectified, I suggest you find a site to like "illwillpress.com" to play games. "GOT IT?"

She broadcasts children on a site that is 100% sexually oriented, or is this not Earth either?