GiantSluttyCock
New member
Hi folks,
Discussion on chat at the moment about accounts called stuff like “ExposeUrSlut” (example not actual account) posting pictures of girls in main.
The combination of name + content (& usually profile content) would usually suggest that the user is sharing revenge porn, or intends to. For me the onus of proof would be on the exposer to demonstrate that they are sharing with consent (I’m aware some users have a kink for having their stuff shared online, but also revenge porn is illegal in the UK so personally I’d incline to ban first and let them appeal).
What I’m seeing, though, and what other posters are also reporting is that the rule is inconsistently applied or the mods are insisting on more proof, and users remain unbanned.
This isn’t an attack on the mods, more of a question for the admins and Chatmaster around what the policy is on accounts like this.
Discussion on chat at the moment about accounts called stuff like “ExposeUrSlut” (example not actual account) posting pictures of girls in main.
The combination of name + content (& usually profile content) would usually suggest that the user is sharing revenge porn, or intends to. For me the onus of proof would be on the exposer to demonstrate that they are sharing with consent (I’m aware some users have a kink for having their stuff shared online, but also revenge porn is illegal in the UK so personally I’d incline to ban first and let them appeal).
What I’m seeing, though, and what other posters are also reporting is that the rule is inconsistently applied or the mods are insisting on more proof, and users remain unbanned.
This isn’t an attack on the mods, more of a question for the admins and Chatmaster around what the policy is on accounts like this.
Last edited:
