How is this NOT a violation?

[NotYou]

This is one of those Grey guys trying to scam/exploit/scare a NEW model, pretending to be Stripchat Staff, yet you find it not to be a violation? How? Please explain?
To anyone else this is obvious and stupid because he is grey, but to new models it isn't at all.

After careful investigation of your report, we haven’t found Acc_Team_TA7's violations of our Terms of Use and/or illegal content or actions. This is why we decided not to take any further action regarding your report.

 

[Vixxen81]

@Stella_SC

 

[AmberCutie]

Yeah that's messed up. Stripchat needs to better train their AI review system to catch this stuff and not just write it off.

 

[Vixxen81]

Yeah that's messed up. Stripchat needs to better train their AI review system to catch this stuff and not just write it off.

One of the things I love about Chaturbate is that on just about every official page there's some variant of "We will never contact you in chat or ask for passwords from you."

 

[Maxi]

Yeah that's messed up. Stripchat needs to better train their AI review system to catch this stuff and not just write it off.

Does SC even have an AI system to automatically pick up wrongdoings?

Every ban I’ve seen has been picked up by members reporting them.

 

[Vixxen81]

Does SC even have an AI system to automatically pick up wrongdoings?

Every ban I’ve seen has been picked up by members reporting them.

To comply with US law, they probably have to have some system in place.

 

[Maxi]

To comply with US law, they probably have to have some system in place.

Well, it obviously doesn’t work because I’m spending my time successfully getting asshole members banned when SC’s AI should be doing it instead.

 

[Vixxen81]

Well, it obviously doesn’t work because I’m spending my time successfully getting asshole members banned when SC’s AI should be doing it instead.

Two things can be true at the same time. But yeah, I'm in total agreement that this is really, really bad for the model and a really bad look for SC.

 

[Maxi]

Two things can be true at the same time. But yeah, I'm in total agreement that this is really, really bad for the model and a really bad look for SC.

100%

I’m currently just thinking about one member - there’s only so many times you can report someone, they get banned, and next week they’re back flouting the same rules.

If only SC had some sort of automation on abuse/doxxing/etc

 

[AmberCutie]

Does SC even have an AI system to automatically pick up wrongdoings?

I was assuming it was an automated review process that f'd this one up, not the reporting part.

and it would have to be AI, because no human would review that and let it go without a ban or punitive action of some sort. right?

 

[Natural9]

I was assuming it was an automated review process that f'd this one up, not the reporting part.

and it would have to be AI, because no human would review that and let it go without a ban or punitive action of some sort. right?

Nah, it was probably one of the wonderful "team" of support. Too many users get reported for clear violations and nothing happens.

 

[Maxi]

I was assuming it was an automated review process that f'd this one up, not the reporting part.

and it would have to be AI, because no human would review that and let it go without a ban or punitive action of some sort. right?

Sure, you’d certainly hope so…

 

[Vixxen81]

Nah, it was probably one of the wonderful "team" of support. Too many users get reported for clear violations and nothing happens.

You know what that tells me? They don't have that large of a spending clientele base and want to keep every dime they can.

 

[Natural9]

You know what that tells me? They don't have that large of a spending clientele base and want to keep every dime they can.

Quite possibly so. It's like apartheid...one set of rules for models that are strictly enforced and the rules for users not so much

 

[AmberCutie]

You know what that tells me? They don't have that large of a spending clientele base and want to keep every dime they can.

I had a very similar thought.

 

[Vixxen81]

If anyone wants to take a peak at metrics, CB/StripChat explorer show the differences between number of models/viewers online on each site and the gaps are wide.

 

[MarieElise]

They've always been the type of site to suck up to bad members. Remember how they never let models ban members for years? So they keep the worst type of guys around. Of course, there are probably a lot of cool guys too, but imo, when you cater to the bad guys, the good guys slowly stop showing up, because it becomes too upsetting and toxic an experience for them. Which in turn brings in more bad guys, until you have a nasty ass site, that no one decent wants to spend time on. I saw that happen with one of the smaller clip sites, which is no longer around (Thank God, it was such a cesspool of cheap, abusive twats, that never survived). I think it's a bad idea to bring "the customer is always right" attitude to the adult industry. I really do.

A good-paying, normal, decent customer shouldn't have to be spending his personal time policing the site; that's fucked up and unfair.
Like Amber, I really hope this was an AI mistake.

ETA; I really want to reiterate that keeping people like this around, taking up time, putting everyone in a bad mood, is not a self-serving business move, in this context. Even if you think "the customer is always right" is a good business motto.

 

[NotYou]

Not sure if its AI that reviews or not but I feel like maybe not because the duration between the 2 emails (report + decision) is 2 or 3 minutes. Surely AI would be faster? Although, maybe not? I'm honestly not so sure. There could be a slight delay between the review and decision email.

 

[Maxi]

Not sure if its AI that reviews or not but I feel like maybe not because the duration between the 2 emails (report + decision) is 2 or 3 minutes. Surely AI would be faster? Although, maybe not? I'm honestly not so sure. There could be a slight delay between the review and decision email.

It’s probably faster if there are multiple reports for the same thing/person.

 

[rockin_rod]

From this SC link to reporting violations: https://support.stripchat.com/hc/en...port-users-and-models-for-violating-the-rules

Each report is reviewed manually by our team

 

[Ich Bin]

From this SC link to reporting violations: https://support.stripchat.com/hc/en...port-users-and-models-for-violating-the-rules

If that's the case, it appears the SC Team fumbled on this one.

 

[cbhours]

we haven’t found Acc_Team_TA7's violations of our Terms of Use and/or illegal content or actions.

What language was that canned message originally written in....Russian?

 

[Natural9]

What language was that canned message originally written in....Russian?

Probably greek or israeli hebrew

 

[NotYou]

What language was that canned message originally written in....Russian?

It was all in English in the chat. If the guy translated then no clue

 

[Stella_SC]

Hello everyone, I would like to confirm that all reports are looked into by real people. We do not use AI to do our investigations.
I will explain what occured in this specific situation below:

@NotYou Thanks for your report! I followed up on this user and can confirm they've been permanently banned for employee impersonation.

Regarding the email that NotYou received saying no further action was taken: I noticed the response specifically mentions that no "illegal content" was found. I think you may have accidentally selected the Illegal Content report option, which is right below Pretending to Be an Admin/Employee in the report menu. No action was taken on the Illegal Content report because that violation didn't apply. However, the account was actioned and permanently banned for employee impersonation. Hope that helps to clear things up .

 

[Natural9]

Hello everyone, I would like to confirm that all reports are looked into by real people. We do not use AI to do our investigations.
I will explain what occured in this specific situation below:

@NotYou Thanks for your report! I followed up on this user and can confirm they've been permanently banned for employee impersonation.

Regarding the email that NotYou received saying no further action was taken: I noticed the response specifically mentions that no "illegal content" was found. I think you may have accidentally selected the Illegal Content report option, which is right below Pretending to Be an Admin/Employee in the report menu. No action was taken on the Illegal Content report because that violation didn't apply. However, the account was actioned and permanently banned for employee impersonation. Hope that helps to clear things up .

If it is checked by "real" people your people could not tell by reading the comment it was impersonating admin and it shouldn't have mattered if he clicked the wrong reason? Or is arbitrrrary use of their own personal intelligence to read and comprehend not allowed?

God they were eventually banned. One down thousands to go

 

[NotYou]

Hello everyone, I would like to confirm that all reports are looked into by real people. We do not use AI to do our investigations.
I will explain what occured in this specific situation below:

@NotYou Thanks for your report! I followed up on this user and can confirm they've been permanently banned for employee impersonation.

Regarding the email that NotYou received saying no further action was taken: I noticed the response specifically mentions that no "illegal content" was found. I think you may have accidentally selected the Illegal Content report option, which is right below Pretending to Be an Admin/Employee in the report menu. No action was taken on the Illegal Content report because that violation didn't apply. However, the account was actioned and permanently banned for employee impersonation. Hope that helps to clear things up .

Ahh ok yes it seems I did mis-click, so thanks for clearing that up. That is obviously my bad.
But like @Natural9 mentioned above, surely if it's handled by a real person reviewing this they still should have seen it and banned (or referred to the correct person do to so). That part makes no sense. With stuff like this just because it's an accidental mis-click, it shouldn't then immediately be deemed as "oh well he reported wrong, so no ban/issue". The reviewer still needs to see that obviously it is still against the TOS and a problem.

 

[AmberCutie]

If it is checked by "real" people your people could not tell by reading the comment it was impersonating admin and it shouldn't have mattered if he clicked the wrong reason? Or is arbitrrrary use of their own personal intelligence to read and comprehend not allowed?

God they were eventually banned. One down thousands to go

Ahh ok yes it seems I did mis-click, so thanks for clearing that up. That is obviously my bad.
But like @Natural9 mentioned above, surely if it's handled by a real person reviewing this they still should have seen it and banned (or referred to the correct person do to so). That part makes no sense. With stuff like this just because it's an accidental mis-click, it shouldn't then immediately be deemed as "oh well he reported wrong, so no ban/issue". The reviewer still needs to see that obviously it is still against the TOS and a problem.

True, since we know a human is reviewing it, the nuance/context should be considered before an immediate click of the "nope it's all good" button lol

 

[Stella_SC]

The account was banned as a result of NotYou's report. However, the response NotYou received was specific to the violation category that was reported, which had been selected accidentally.

This way of responding is intentional, as we do not disclose additional enforcement actions that are unrelated to the specific report submitted, which is why it is important to be sure to select the correct category when reporting.

In NotYou's case, however, they clarified in their post above that their intent was to report employee impersonation. Since it was clear to me that the "Illegal Content" report was submitted by mistake, I was able to explain that the account had, in fact, been permanently banned for employee impersonation.

Hope that helps clarify.

 

[Vixxen81]

But you just did...

LOL