Revamping Upload Rules: Seeking Your Input on Updated Guidelines

I'm in the process of revising the upload rules, and I'm currently focusing on refining the following guidelines. What are your thoughts on these and did I forget anything I should focus on?

× Only women centric content
× No Watermarked content.
× No Fake / AI / Altered content
× No Copyrighted / Celebs / Revenge
× Must be 18 / No Underage
× No transgender
× Gross / Gore / Joke
× Bad quality

These are basic categories, and I will be writing beter explainations for it. For example:
Altered content, bluring face is allowed.

Did the facials and cumshots category disappear? Or was it always video only?

Quote:

Originally posted by monstercock4u

Did the facials and cumshots category disappear? Or was it always video only?

Always has been in video category only.

You could also add a couple more common rejection reasons on the mod page that usually fall under the "other" reason, so people have a better understanding of why a pic was rejected.
I'm thinking about :
- kid in background / questionable age (it can fall under "underage" but it's often harsh to punish a user with the bigger penalty when it's something less obvious, so maybe it could be a separate reason)
- sideway / upside down pic
- non erotic / non porn content (for when people upload pics of women in plain clothes that don't belong on a porn website at all)
I think with those reasons added + AI picture + all the existing reasons, it would cover the vast majority of reason to reject a picture with the proper feedback appearing in the logs for everyone to see.

[u][/u]Let's open up the can of worms associated with the models all being 18 or older: If the girl's face isn't shown, how do you know who she is? And if you don't know who she is, you can't possibly know what her age is. My point is there is a degree of hypocrisy here among certain individuals that somehow underage girls are being protected.

Quote:

Originally posted by Knobstock

[u][/u]Let's open up the can of worms associated with the models all being 18 or older: If the girl's face isn't shown, how do you know who she is? And if you don't know who she is, you can't possibly know what her age is. My point is there is a degree of hypocrisy here among certain individuals that somehow underage girls are being protected.

Are you suggesting that we should only accept images with faces so that we can be fairly sure (or at least make a better judgement call) that someone is at least 18?
Or that we shouldnt reject an image for being underage if we can't see the face? (honest questions, I can't tell which side of the fence you sit)

Im sorry but uploading pictures is a gamble you cant know if they will be approved or rejected. Too many times you can see the same girls who were rejected appear on the home page. Better chance to not be punished is to upload videos or if you want to be certain then cars.

Quote:

Originally posted by omuh

You could also add a couple more common rejection reasons on the mod page that usually fall under the "other" reason, so people have a better understanding of why a pic was rejected.
I'm thinking about :
- kid in background / questionable age (it can fall under "underage" but it's often harsh to punish a user with the bigger penalty when it's something less obvious, so maybe it could be a separate reason)

You should also clear out if a picture of a child on the chimney , the wall or the nightstand is accepted or not and if it falls under underage or other...
reading the message of omuh it should be other but some mods use underage.....

[/i][i]

Quote:

Originally posted by The_Sentinel

Are you suggesting that we should only accept images with faces so that we can be fairly sure (or at least make a better judgement call) that someone is at least 18? Or that we shouldn't reject an image for being underage if we can't see the face? (honest questions, I can't tell which side of the fence you sit)

I'm torn on this. But several years back there was a nearly militant woman here who attacked nearly everyone who commented on possible underage subjects. I'm just pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. Our society if bloated with women who are going to great lengths to appear younger, and then we attack men who are attracted to perky breasts and narrow waists.

If it were up to me, the policy would be "Any image that depicts a person who might be underage or suggests sex with someone underage will be deleted." For me, rather than actual years, the cutoff line should be full adulthood, that point in life when a woman develops full breasts and wider hips. Better to be safe than sorry.

Quote:

Originally posted by omuh

- non erotic / non porn content (for when people upload pics of women in plain clothes that don't belong on a porn website at all)

Count me on board with this. If it's something someone could use as a Facebook profile pic without a second thought, I dont think it's really contributing here.

Quote:

Originally posted by boobiemonster

You should also clear out if a picture of a child on the chimney , the wall or the nightstand is accepted or not and if it falls under underage or other...
reading the message of omuh it should be other but some mods use underage.....

Yeah mod guidelines could use a clarification on that case, and having a proper reason for that case other than "others" would solve that (and give better feedback to users)

Quote:

Originally posted by Knobstock

[/i][i]
If it were up to me, the policy would be "Any image that depicts a person who might be underage or suggests sex with someone underage will be deleted." For me, rather than actual years, the cutoff line should be full adulthood, that point in life when a woman develops full breasts and wider hips. Better to be safe than sorry.

That's the current rule and has always been like that as far as I know. If the girl might be underaged, then the pic gets rejected, that includes pics with no face even though it's harder to gauge. But I have rejected faceless pics for that reason in the past.
This rule is obviously hard to be 100% correct though as gauging someone's age is pretty subjective and you could ask different person and get different answers. But as you said, better be safe than sorry, so if there's a doubt for me, the pic doesn't pass.

Quote:

Originally posted by cbrrider29572

Count me on board with this. If it's something someone could use as a Facebook profile pic without a second thought, I dont think it's really contributing here.

This isn't entirely clear in the mod guideline, but I do reject, under "other" (again a proper category would help with feedback) pics that don't belong on a porn website. This can also be subjective because someone might find something erotic that someone else doesn't but I try to keep it objective by looking at some points for non-nude pics : if there's no cleavage or full legs or tight clothing showing curves, then it's a no. There could be exception, like a fully clothed girl playing with sex-toys or in an obviously sexual pose, but those are my rough guidelines for this.

Quote:

Originally posted by LunaMoon

Im sorry but uploading pictures is a gamble you cant know if they will be approved or rejected. Too many times you can see the same girls who were rejected appear on the home page. Better chance to not be punished is to upload videos or if you want to be certain then cars.

This has been discussed countless times. And yes, unless you personnaly took the pics you're uploading there's no certain way to know that they will be accepted. In your case, if I'm not mistaken, most rejected pics seem to be pro models (mainly onlyfans). I don't blame you for uploading those as they are hard to distinguish from amateur content and the same difficulty goes for mods. That is why you may find some of those accepted if the mod didn't know the model or didn't find it through reverse search engine (and those aren't perfect either).
You can always report the pics that have been accepted even though they shouldn't have, and they'll be deleted.
As for your own uploads, my only advice would be that if you realise that when taking pics from somewhere and uploading them here, a lot of them gets rejected, reconsider your sources (many websites will claim to have amateur content when half of it is just pro stuff).

No transgender like this one

https://whatboyswant.com/babes/topless-babes/4229624?c=n

Quote:

Originally posted by Dennis2377

No transgender like this

It's gone, it was altered anyway

Working on a first draft. I will publish a the draft soon...

Quote:

Originally posted by Diz-X

I'm in the process of revising the upload rules, and I'm currently focusing on refining the following guidelines. What are your thoughts on these and did I forget anything I should focus on?

× Only women centric content
× No Watermarked content.
× No Fake / AI / Altered content
× No Copyrighted / Celebs / Revenge
× Must be 18 / No Underage
× No transgender
× Gross / Gore / Joke
× Bad quality

These are basic categories, and I will be writing beter explainations for it. For example:
Altered content, bluring face is allowed.

I don't know how hard it would be to enforce, but repetitious pics of the same woman - basically the same picture with minor changes in posture, the same vagina in slightly different views, the same woman/women on the beach in slightly different positions, etc. Sometimes there are a half dozen of these or more. It seems like it is just quantity, not quality. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally posted by bob4funs1234

I don't know how hard it would be to enforce, but repetitious pics of the same woman - basically the same picture with minor changes in posture, the same vagina in slightly different views, the same woman/women on the beach in slightly different positions, etc. Sometimes there are a half dozen of these or more. It seems like it is just quantity, not quality. Thanks.

No rules against it atm, but if there was that would indeed be hard to mod.
It's fine if you're getting the same pics rapidly in a row (or notice them in a user queue and decide to trim them a bit) but if they aren't uploaded at the same time or not moderated by the same mod, it would be hard for mods to notice the "repeats". Although I guess once they are all in a series, one could report the series so a mod can have a look at it and trim it too.

Would AI upscaled/restored videos be considered "altered"? Would be nice to try and revive some older classics.

Underage is simple. If she looks like she might be underage, don't allow it.

There are limitless pictures of women who are unquestionably 18+, so why chance aiding and abetting child porn?

Quote:

Originally posted by dirtybird10009

Would AI upscaled/restored videos be considered "altered"? Would be nice to try and revive some older classics.

Good question, need to look into these upscalers and how it affects an image or video.