Continuation of: https://www.ambercutie.com/forums/t...ent-support-request.67801/page-2#post-1303607
Hello everyone,
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who has taken the time to read this thread, ask questions, challenge my arguments, or simply share their perspective. Even when people disagreed with me, those discussions helped me look at the situation from different angles, and I genuinely appreciate that.
I have carefully read Stella's response several times. While I appreciate the fact that my case was reviewed again, I still believe the central issue remains unanswered.
My disagreement has never been about Stripchat having anti-spam policies.
I fully understand why anti-spam systems exist. I also understand why sending hundreds of similar messages within a short period of time could be interpreted by an automated system as spam.
In fact, I was the person who warned Support about that risk before I did anything.
That point is important because it completely changes the context.
Months before my permanent suspension, my viewer account had already been mistakenly suspended for spam. After weeks of communication and hundreds of emails, Support acknowledged that the suspension had been caused by the automated spam detection system, restored my account, and apologized.
Because of that experience, I became extremely cautious.
When I later decided to become a model, I contacted Support before taking any action because I was afraid the same thing might happen again.
I explained that I had approximately 2,600 existing contacts built over many months and asked how I should inform them about my new model account.
The response I received from multiple Support agents was always the same:
Create a new model account and inform your existing contacts individually through your viewer account.
It was repeatedly described as the only available solution.
At that point, I raised the same concern over and over again.
I asked whether this could trigger spam detection.
I asked whether there was a safer alternative.
I asked whether I should use different messages.
I even shared several message drafts and specifically asked which version would be appropriate.
Every time, I was reassured that there was no issue and that this was the correct way to proceed.
Not once was I told:
every message had to be different,
I should limit myself to a certain number of messages per day,
similar wording could be considered spam,
or that following Support's own recommendation carried any significant risk.
Those conditions only appeared months later, after my account had already been permanently suspended.
That is why I struggle to accept the explanation I recently received.
The interpretation of the original instruction has fundamentally changed.
Support now explains that "contact your friends individually" actually meant engaging in natural one-on-one conversations rather than sending similar messages.
My question is very simple:
Where was that explanation before I acted?
Because if that had been explained from the beginning, I would simply have followed those instructions as well.
This is why I believe the real issue isn't spam itself.
The issue is inconsistent guidance.
One of the most fundamental principles of fairness—whether in legal systems, disciplinary procedures, or even everyday decision-making—is that people are evaluated according to the rules and instructions that existed when they acted.
New interpretations cannot reasonably be introduced months later and then applied retroactively to justify a punishment.
To give a simple example:
Stripchat's age policy is perfectly clear.
Some countries legally recognize adulthood before the age of 18.
Despite that, Stripchat explicitly requires every model to be at least 18 years old.
That rule leaves no room for interpretation.
Nobody can later say, "What we actually meant was something different."
Everyone understands the requirement before acting.
I believe Support instructions should follow the same principle.
If "contact your friends individually" actually meant:
write 2,600 completely unique messages,
spread them over several weeks,
avoid similar wording,
stay below an unpublished messaging threshold,
then those requirements should have been communicated before I acted—not introduced nine months later.
Otherwise, the instruction changes from being objective to subjective.
There is another question that I still cannot answer.
If my actions truly violated Stripchat's rules...
Why did multiple Support agents repeatedly approve the message templates I showed them?
Why did they repeatedly assure me that informing my contacts individually was the only solution?
Why was I repeatedly told not to worry after warning them that the exact same behavior might trigger spam detection?
If Support's advice was incorrect, is it really fair that I alone bear the consequences of following official guidance?
I fully accept responsibility for my own actions.
However, I cannot accept responsibility for faithfully following instructions given to me by Support after I repeatedly warned them about the exact outcome that eventually happened.
If there was a mistake, then I respectfully believe that mistake occurred in the guidance I received—not in the fact that I followed it.
I've also seen several comments mentioning the thousands of emails I sent.
I understand why that number seems excessive.
But I honestly don't believe those emails are the actual problem.
Those emails are the consequence of the problem—not the cause.
Had this contradiction been addressed when it first appeared, the entire situation could realistically have been resolved in just a handful of messages.
Something as simple as:
Me: "My account was suspended after following the instructions your Support team gave me."
Support: "We've reviewed the conversation history. You're right. We made a mistake. We apologize. Your account has been restored."
Instead, this process has now lasted approximately nine months.
It has involved thousands of emails, multiple support tickets, repeated identity verifications, forum discussions, and countless hours trying to explain the same contradiction over and over again.
I am not asking for special treatment.
I am not asking for an exception.
I am simply asking for consistency.
Either:
show objective evidence demonstrating that I knowingly violated a clearly communicated rule,
or
acknowledge that the guidance provided by Support directly contributed to this outcome and resolve the situation accordingly.
Finally, I want to make one thing absolutely clear.
I'm not trying to prove that spam rules shouldn't exist.
I'm trying to understand why following the official guidance I was given resulted in a permanent ban, while months later the explanation changed into something that had never been communicated beforehand.
Until that contradiction is objectively addressed, I personally don't believe this matter can honestly be considered resolved.
Thank you again to everyone who has participated in this discussion. Regardless of the final outcome, I genuinely appreciate everyone who has taken the time to read the evidence, ask questions, and contribute respectfully. I sincerely
hope the final decision will be based on the complete history of the case rather than on explanations that only appeared after the events had already taken place.
Hello everyone,
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone who has taken the time to read this thread, ask questions, challenge my arguments, or simply share their perspective. Even when people disagreed with me, those discussions helped me look at the situation from different angles, and I genuinely appreciate that.
I have carefully read Stella's response several times. While I appreciate the fact that my case was reviewed again, I still believe the central issue remains unanswered.
My disagreement has never been about Stripchat having anti-spam policies.
I fully understand why anti-spam systems exist. I also understand why sending hundreds of similar messages within a short period of time could be interpreted by an automated system as spam.
In fact, I was the person who warned Support about that risk before I did anything.
That point is important because it completely changes the context.
Months before my permanent suspension, my viewer account had already been mistakenly suspended for spam. After weeks of communication and hundreds of emails, Support acknowledged that the suspension had been caused by the automated spam detection system, restored my account, and apologized.
Because of that experience, I became extremely cautious.
When I later decided to become a model, I contacted Support before taking any action because I was afraid the same thing might happen again.
I explained that I had approximately 2,600 existing contacts built over many months and asked how I should inform them about my new model account.
The response I received from multiple Support agents was always the same:
Create a new model account and inform your existing contacts individually through your viewer account.
It was repeatedly described as the only available solution.
At that point, I raised the same concern over and over again.
I asked whether this could trigger spam detection.
I asked whether there was a safer alternative.
I asked whether I should use different messages.
I even shared several message drafts and specifically asked which version would be appropriate.
Every time, I was reassured that there was no issue and that this was the correct way to proceed.
Not once was I told:
every message had to be different,
I should limit myself to a certain number of messages per day,
similar wording could be considered spam,
or that following Support's own recommendation carried any significant risk.
Those conditions only appeared months later, after my account had already been permanently suspended.
That is why I struggle to accept the explanation I recently received.
The interpretation of the original instruction has fundamentally changed.
Support now explains that "contact your friends individually" actually meant engaging in natural one-on-one conversations rather than sending similar messages.
My question is very simple:
Where was that explanation before I acted?
Because if that had been explained from the beginning, I would simply have followed those instructions as well.
This is why I believe the real issue isn't spam itself.
The issue is inconsistent guidance.
One of the most fundamental principles of fairness—whether in legal systems, disciplinary procedures, or even everyday decision-making—is that people are evaluated according to the rules and instructions that existed when they acted.
New interpretations cannot reasonably be introduced months later and then applied retroactively to justify a punishment.
To give a simple example:
Stripchat's age policy is perfectly clear.
Some countries legally recognize adulthood before the age of 18.
Despite that, Stripchat explicitly requires every model to be at least 18 years old.
That rule leaves no room for interpretation.
Nobody can later say, "What we actually meant was something different."
Everyone understands the requirement before acting.
I believe Support instructions should follow the same principle.
If "contact your friends individually" actually meant:
write 2,600 completely unique messages,
spread them over several weeks,
avoid similar wording,
stay below an unpublished messaging threshold,
then those requirements should have been communicated before I acted—not introduced nine months later.
Otherwise, the instruction changes from being objective to subjective.
There is another question that I still cannot answer.
If my actions truly violated Stripchat's rules...
Why did multiple Support agents repeatedly approve the message templates I showed them?
Why did they repeatedly assure me that informing my contacts individually was the only solution?
Why was I repeatedly told not to worry after warning them that the exact same behavior might trigger spam detection?
If Support's advice was incorrect, is it really fair that I alone bear the consequences of following official guidance?
I fully accept responsibility for my own actions.
However, I cannot accept responsibility for faithfully following instructions given to me by Support after I repeatedly warned them about the exact outcome that eventually happened.
If there was a mistake, then I respectfully believe that mistake occurred in the guidance I received—not in the fact that I followed it.
I've also seen several comments mentioning the thousands of emails I sent.
I understand why that number seems excessive.
But I honestly don't believe those emails are the actual problem.
Those emails are the consequence of the problem—not the cause.
Had this contradiction been addressed when it first appeared, the entire situation could realistically have been resolved in just a handful of messages.
Something as simple as:
Me: "My account was suspended after following the instructions your Support team gave me."
Support: "We've reviewed the conversation history. You're right. We made a mistake. We apologize. Your account has been restored."
Instead, this process has now lasted approximately nine months.
It has involved thousands of emails, multiple support tickets, repeated identity verifications, forum discussions, and countless hours trying to explain the same contradiction over and over again.
I am not asking for special treatment.
I am not asking for an exception.
I am simply asking for consistency.
Either:
show objective evidence demonstrating that I knowingly violated a clearly communicated rule,
or
acknowledge that the guidance provided by Support directly contributed to this outcome and resolve the situation accordingly.
Finally, I want to make one thing absolutely clear.
I'm not trying to prove that spam rules shouldn't exist.
I'm trying to understand why following the official guidance I was given resulted in a permanent ban, while months later the explanation changed into something that had never been communicated beforehand.
Until that contradiction is objectively addressed, I personally don't believe this matter can honestly be considered resolved.
Thank you again to everyone who has participated in this discussion. Regardless of the final outcome, I genuinely appreciate everyone who has taken the time to read the evidence, ask questions, and contribute respectfully. I sincerely
hope the final decision will be based on the complete history of the case rather than on explanations that only appeared after the events had already taken place.
