Update on CFPORN

Boogie · 2005-05-28, 09:23 PM

Hi folks.

First off let me say that I'm getting caught up rather rapidly. If you have sites in the que (there are currently around 900) they should be taken care of very soon. Once that happens the site will be updated daily once again. Sorry for those of you who have been caught up by this.

For those of you who have been getting approved a lot lately I'm sorry for the spam.

Secondly there are new rules in place as of may 30th, if you are submitting to the link list you'll want to keep these in mind.

You can find those new rules here:
http://www.cfporn.com/webmasters.html

Specifically they read as such:

Quote:

Added May 30, 2005 - No sites implying underage status of models will be listed. This includes but is not limited to sites that target the 'borderline underage' target audience. If the models look too young or are marketed to be too young for porn then there is a chance it will not get listed. This is entirely up to the reviewers discression. If you are trying to make money from ambigious advertising of teen content, rather than assuring your models are above legal age, your sites are not welcome here.
added May 30, 2005 - No 'legal photos of underage models' sites. If the model is in fact under age but the photos are 'legal' they will not be listed. We do not give a SHIT of the legal ramifactions. We here at cfporn do not wish to look at underage models and do not wish to help other people find underage models. Do not submit these types of sites.

I have been recieving quite a few submissions that are selling ambiguity and some that are selling underage models in legal content.

These have never been listed at cfporn to my knowledge but I wanted to make sure those rules were up there.

I figure in this day and age its important to stress this kind of thing.

I would also like to encourage all link lists and TGP owners to add these rules and make this distinction. It is a proactive decision that can help make or break your case if you're ever in court over a 2257 error. Use your webmaster rules as a chance to flat out say "we do not abide by the kind of shit 2257 rules are there to remove."

I look forward to hearing your feedback on this decision.