I cant log into MFC I am a cam model its been a week !

[ComicOzzie]

Does stardust think we have the ability to lift her ban?

 

[LilyMarie]

I just chat about beast and insest with some people

I didn't do nothing wrong people just talked about it and I was not interested why should I get in trouble. I didn't chat about it others did.

 

[spankamber]

I somehow misread the rules three years ago and was under the impression until this thread that incest roleplay was ok as long as you were not depicting actual incest. Because you're pretending and not actually related at all. I get lots of guys who like the "mommy" roleplay. I'm scared to continue anything remotely incest related,

 

[MemberEd]

As a member I would be interested to know if this was the practice at MFC. That is to ban a model, deactivate her account without an explanation other than she has been banned. Even if the reason was she was really a man who talked about children doing animals she should at least be told this and have a opportunity to dispute it, if not true. It seems that MFC could easily take advantage of models it feels are vunerable by making them work a pay period, claiming they violated some rule, banning her without elplanation and keeping all the money she earned.

 

[zippypinhead]

I somehow misread the rules three years ago and was under the impression until this thread that incest roleplay was ok as long as you were not depicting actual incest. Because you're pretending and not actually related at all. I get lots of guys who like the "mommy" roleplay. I'm scared to continue anything remotely incest related,

You didn't misread the rules. There's absolutely nothing in the wording that would suggest that talking about it is bannable. The only factor that the rules specifically line out is the performance of the act on cam. It all goes into a whole ball of vague and shitty rulemaking and enforcement that my fevered brain tried to unravel last night in the other thread. Bottom line is that bannings seem to be almost totally up to the whims of the person who is doing the banning, and it could happen to anyone.

As a member I would be interested to know if this was the practice at MFC. That is to ban a model, deactivate her account without an explanation other than she has been banned. Even if the reason was she was really a man who talked about children doing animals she should at least be told this and have a opportunity to dispute it, if not true. It seems that MFC could easily take advantage of models it feels are vunerable by making them work a pay period, claiming they violated some rule, banning her without elplanation and keeping all the money she earned.

That's the biggest problem, here, and why models probably shouldn't be treating this so lightly. A lack of consistency in how the rules are stated and enforced means that there is no telling what might slide and what might get you banned and your paycheck withheld. And if you're terminated for something that was not illegal, is it even within MFC's rights to withhold payment? That smacks of labor law violation to me.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

I somehow misread the rules three years ago and was under the impression until this thread that incest roleplay was ok as long as you were not depicting actual incest. Because you're pretending and not actually related at all. I get lots of guys who like the "mommy" roleplay. I'm scared to continue anything remotely incest related,

You didn't misread the rules. There's absolutely nothing in the wording that would suggest that talking about it is bannable. The only factor that the rules specifically line out is the performance of the act on cam. It all goes into a whole ball of vague and shitty rulemaking and enforcement that my fevered brain tried to unravel last night in the other thread. Bottom line is that bannings seem to be almost totally up to the whims of the person who is doing the banning, and it could happen to anyone.

As a member I would be interested to know if this was the practice at MFC. That is to ban a model, deactivate her account without an explanation other than she has been banned. Even if the reason was she was really a man who talked about children doing animals she should at least be told this and have a opportunity to dispute it, if not true. It seems that MFC could easily take advantage of models it feels are vunerable by making them work a pay period, claiming they violated some rule, banning her without elplanation and keeping all the money she earned.

That's the biggest problem, here, and why models probably shouldn't be treating this so lightly. A lack of consistency in how the rules are stated and enforced means that there is no telling what might slide and what might get you banned and your paycheck withheld. And if you're terminated for something that was not illegal, is it even within MFC's rights to withhold payment? That smacks of labor law violation to me.

Keep in mind this person has been changing the story several times. We don't know what she was 'actually' banned for. Something tells me it wasn't just for discussing this matter. In fact I highly doubt it had anything to do with the banning at all, when it gets right down to it, judging by the way her posts have gone.

 

[spankamber]

But 3 other models have recently been warned for saying daddy, a joke about parents and a joke about fisting. Technically the rules say implied which is a broad term that could mean discussing at all? It also says no pain so spankings hot wax clover clamps clothes pins and anything else mentioned could be a violation? I usually have pain and pleasure in my topic too, so I'm very concerned.

 

[zippypinhead]

Keep in mind this person has been changing the story several times. We don't know what she was 'actually' banned for. Something tells me it wasn't just for discussing this matter. In fact I highly doubt it had anything to do with the banning at all, when it gets right down to it, judging by the way her posts have gone.

Right. Clearly there's something going on here, and we're not getting the full story.

But 3 other models have recently been warned for saying daddy, a joke about parents and a joke about fisting. Technically the rules say implied which is a broad term that could mean discussing at all? It also says no pain so spankings hot wax clover clamps clothes pins and anything else mentioned could be a violation? I usually have pain and pleasure in my topic too, so I'm very concerned.

That's the thing. I can only assume that "implied" is being used in an open enough context to wield the ban hammer even when it's only spoken about. However, implied is not the same thing as described, and they don't list spoken fantasy play as a factor for banning. In my mind, "implied", as it's worded means simulations on cam. Moaning "daddy" while doing a show would probably be enough to warrant inclusion into that "implied" category, but telling a story or participating in a conversation? I don't know. It seems pretty tenuous based on how the rules read. Plus, getting back to just how inconsistent this all is, wouldn't doing a plushy show or dressing up in furry cosplay constitute "implied" bestiality? I mean, those are actual on-cam performances involving animal imagery. Why would that get a pass, while talking about it doesn't? It just seems so terribly unclear.

 

[yeawhatever]

Other than just talking about the naughty naughty that is bannable, only other thing I could think of is if this model was from Thailand and got banned along with all thai models. she was banned in same time frame. There were many new thai models right around that time.

 

[AmeliaArcana]

But 3 other models have recently been warned for saying daddy, a joke about parents and a joke about fisting. Technically the rules say implied which is a broad term that could mean discussing at all? It also says no pain so spankings hot wax clover clamps clothes pins and anything else mentioned could be a violation? I usually have pain and pleasure in my topic too, so I'm very concerned.

It is totally disconcerting. Two days ago, I had an offer for an appealing private with someone who likes to be called Daddy (and I like D/g roleplay myself) and I had to tell him that we couldn't talk about it. He told me that was ridiculous, and that was the only reason he uses the site... he does Daddy/girl privates, and he had been a member for years and this was the first he was hearing about it. I tried to figure out a way to still hang out with him, but he didn't want to use Skype so he gave up on me.

Later, I had a similar request and let the person know the same thing. He didn't understand because we had done it before, but still took me private. My roleplay was weak because I was terrified, so we ended the private and I apologized.

I feel like I'm missing something. Like there's a way to do this and not be in violation. I'm afraid to write to MFC and ask because I don't want them to think I'm incesting animals and stuff. heh.

 

[Miss_Lollipop]

But 3 other models have recently been warned for saying daddy, a joke about parents and a joke about fisting. Technically the rules say implied which is a broad term that could mean discussing at all? It also says no pain so spankings hot wax clover clamps clothes pins and anything else mentioned could be a violation? I usually have pain and pleasure in my topic too, so I'm very concerned.

It is totally disconcerting. Two days ago, I had an offer for an appealing private with someone who likes to be called Daddy (and I like D/g roleplay myself) and I had to tell him that we couldn't talk about it. He told me that was ridiculous, and that was the only reason he uses the site... he does Daddy/girl privates, and he had been a member for years and this was the first he was hearing about it. I tried to figure out a way to still hang out with him, but he didn't want to use Skype so he gave up on me.

Later, I had a similar request and let the person know the same thing. He didn't understand because we had done it before, but still took me private. My roleplay was weak because I was terrified, so we ended the private and I apologized.

I feel like I'm missing something. Like there's a way to do this and not be in violation. I'm afraid to write to MFC and ask because I don't want them to think I'm incesting animals and stuff. heh.

I take a bit of a risk here- i will do D/g roleplay in true pvt, as long as its ALL verbal. Meaning that unless someone is sitting there WATCHING the vid, they wont catch it. They don't see anything in the text or we use codewords.

 

[JickyJuly]

Since she did 2 things that are against the rules, it's kind of hard to say how much weight the incest part had in her being banned. From working in a porn store for a few years, I know that anything bestiality related is a HUGE no at least in Tennessee and Georgia. (Thankfully, imo.) We had to take a classic porn film out of the store because the cover included a real snake. On the other hand, we did have some "family" movie sets from the 70s. They stated very clearly on the packaging that the actors were not actually related.

I'm personally glad that MFC would ban the bestiality chatter without warning. There's no reason to allow that door to crack open. I don't think the rules are hard to read. They're pretty clear as far as no sexy animal anything goes.

 

[AmberCutie]

Considering the OP hasn't been back in quite a while, I'm going to go ahead and guess she finally got a clue that she broke a rule and is permanently banned. Let's lock this since the subject is already sorta "iffy" and all learn from it and move along.