Can't we just close this thread and get back to getting messy?!

I'm currently editing everyones post to include "I love Libby".

 

I love Libby.


DAMN. You're good.
Rich

I love Libby...and when I think about him I touch myself...

Personally, I don't think either wamwarehouse or noise come out of this particularly well. This should have been sorted through PMs and Mods before being made public. If wrongdoing had been proven, then that is when it should have been made public. All that this has resulted in so far is a rather childish slanging match.

Although it was reasonably obvious from various posts on here and twitter that noise is involved with messydreams, I don't believe that users should be allowed multiple accounts. Why can't noise just promote messy dreams through the noise username? That's the way he promotes gungegirls, so why not just do the same for messydreams?

At the same time, if a producer hasn't paid a model then this is a serious allegation and one thats need to be investigated properly through the correct channels, rather than fought out like a cheap soap opera for everyone to see.

 

Neal I respect what you have to say but I think you are dead wrong. If a model hasn't been paid then that information needs to be out here, in the open, so people can find out about it and discuss it and make purchasing decisions based upon what they read. Sweeping it under the carpet, or 'dealing with it through the proper channels' (whatever they are!) is not the answer, in my opinion.

And to those who say 'can't we just get back to wamming', I would say this: read another thread! Although this one doesn't involved girls getting pudding in their panties, and it may seem like a slagging match to some, there is legitimacy to this sort of cut and thrust. I think
Messmaster is dead right keeping it open and applaud his appetite for vigorous debate.

So there!! Now were did I put my turbo-charged vibrator...?

xxx

I for one had no idea. But I'm not exactly a consumer of wam videos.


Agreed. But it's better to make sure it's clear whenever there is a chance of confusion.

Hi Maddy,

What I meant to say was that concerns should have been raised with mods, then the information should have been made public if wrongdoing proved. That way everyone is protected until guilt is proven in any instance. I certainly was not suggesting that if it was proven that a model hadn't been paid that it should be kept secret.

Sorry for any confusion I caused with my original post.

 

The US, yes. Rest of the world, no. And something is considered "published" wherever it is read.

You might want to check your browser settings. From where I'm sitting I can view a bunch of other threads beside this one. Can't you?

Maddy...

less blah blah

more SPLAT SPLAT!

I love Liddy

Mine didn't work


SCGuy

And since the UMD is based in and hosted out of the United States, it's the only thing that matters.

I'm TOTALLY going to start referring to my diesel as "my turbo-charged vibrator" now.

UMD keeps a lot of logs about what happens around the site, including IP addresses on everything. Red flags pop up on some suspicious activity. We have a moderation forum and can comment user accounts. Whenever one of you sends a Report, that helps a ton, too. So yes, to an extent, we can sleuth around and figure things out, and gain a lot of insight on users, especially over time (the mods are way better than I am at this).

As for the post in question, I don't know how many protagonists / antagonists there are, but I'm just interested in making sure the people doing the actual posting are being authentic, and not just trolling.

 

We already have a cohesive mentality about what to do in certain situations. But there will always be new situations to test us. You can never make a rule book that has enough foresight to cover everything a person might do, and even if you did, there will always be situations where the rules obviously should not apply.

For example, there is a "rule" that you cannot have multiple accounts here. This rule could be thrown at you for having the Noise account and also running the messydreams.net account. The only thing keeping us from deleting one of these accounts is another "mentality" that I insist on using: That action should only really be taken if it has been deemed that the person is doing something to mislead the community or to cause trouble (aka trolling). If you were creating backup accounts in case one of them was deleted, or if you were posting under multiple personalities or something, then we'd take action. But you're legitimately running another account for promotional purposes only, and that's okay with me. The "no multiple accounts" rule has been acceptably bent in this case.

I leave a ton of leeway to the moderators, to think on their feet and do the subjective task of determining whether someone is just being disruptive or not. Because of this, it may seem that at times we are being inconsistent (like if someone else is removed for having multiple accounts, but not you--and it seems like we are being biased toward a popular producer). It's compounded by the fact that we are acting on data and history that the general public doesn't know about. It might also be confusing if a moderator takes action based on this mentality, when no specific rule had actually been broken.

I understand that this is a very different way to run a site. But it will remain that the rules themselves are not as important as the overall mentality of just trying to keep trouble to a minimum. And that's all we are trying to do here.

 

Sometimes things get a little more complex than you might think. Sometimes sites are run as partnerships among several people--people who already have UMD accounts. So who gets to run the UMD user account associated with this joint venture? Do they have to choose one person? Or can they share the account login and all manage the site? Should the person who logged in and managed the joint account be banned for using multiple accounts? In this case, they're not intentionally trying to mislead people (or at least that's what I take from it--you might disagree, and we can debate that point). However, if it was clear that they were really trying to get over on us or mislead us somehow with the new account, that's where we would step in.

MM

 

Now THIS is the type of shit that is absolutely NOT allowed. It is a prime example of what can get you banned for using multiple accounts. I can understand them using a single account so they can all manage the legitimate promotion of a site that they all own. But if they are all upvoting each other, bumping threads, or inflating the ratings system, then the accounts need to go. If I didn't catch this happening, and it was allowed to go on, then that's my fault, but it's not something that I allow.

MM

 

This is a valid point. I do not believe Noise posted as two different people in order to stack the cards in his favor. But intentional or not, that seems to be exactly what happened.

Perhaps I should come up with a formal way that people who use more than one account should be publicly identified as such? And they may only create multiple accounts after approval from us? The accounts could be linked in such a way that their other logins are shown every time they post? I'm open to ideas here.

 

- No, it is not okay.

- It's not okay because then the intent would be to use the multiple accounts in order to mislead people or multiply the weight of your own argument.

- It is generally against the rules to have multiple accounts here, but sometimes we let it slide if we feel that the user has legitimate reason to own the multiple accounts.

- A user who gangs up in the same thread under multiple accounts would normally be admonished or one of the accounts removed. We have not done this for Noise, not because we are biased toward a popular producer, but because given the context and history, we know Noise to not have done this before. We know he uses the messydreams account to run that site listing along with his associates, and that it was not meant to be a secret that he was the one operating both accounts. That some (or even many) people weren't actually aware of that, I consider that my fault. But still I don't believe it was in malicious intent that he posted under both accounts in this thread.