CREATE YOUR AI CUM SLUT ON CANDY.AI TRY FOR FREE
x

Dragon59

Conversation Conqueror
Apr 24, 2020
6,706
10,973
It was forced by their banking partners, and OF only got the leverage to renegotiate their terms with their banking partners after their existence was threatened by the exodus.

Banks put these platform in no-win situations on purpose.
VERY short-sighted, Onlyfans is practically nothing compared to what it once was even with the resolution that ultimately came out of the situation. People just won't trust them anymore to not pull that again. It's the same reason I'm actually NOT considering Patreon for some future projects of my own. They may be the big boys in town, but they aren't worth the trouble even if I don't do anything they might get rid of.
So a very similar situation to Patreon. I wonder if the banks are worried about being involved if some conservative jurisdiction (adult industries are still very much illegal in some countries) decides to try and shut down the online adult industry and considers the financial institutions of aiding and abetting. It's much like how the federally insured banks will not allow their credit cards to be used at marijuana dispensaries. It is legal in my state, but the Feds could still make trouble because it could be considered interstate commerce and under federal jurisdiction.
Frankly I figured it was more the case that it was a rooster in relationship to Peter denying Jesus 3 times before the rooster crowed.
So many potential connections!
 

JMccovery

Active Member
Mar 7, 2018
675
974
So a very similar situation to Patreon. I wonder if the banks are worried about being involved if some conservative jurisdiction (adult industries are still very much illegal in some countries) decides to try and shut down the online adult industry and considers the financial institutions of aiding and abetting. It's much like how the federally insured banks will not allow their credit cards to be used at marijuana dispensaries. It is legal in my state, but the Feds could still make trouble because it could be considered interstate commerce and under federal jurisdiction.
That's exactly what major financial institutions are worried about. Some busybody finds out that their bank is directly (or indirectly through a partner/subsidiary) profiting off of pornographic material, and all hell breaks loose. The federal government gets involved, and eventually something gets uncovered that is (however loosely) tied to things like child pornography, sex trafficking and whatnot.
 

SaddamHussein

Member
Aug 4, 2018
110
168
Guys i can't get event "rewrite" i'm boutta lose my mind. I looked at wiki and i did everything still i can't get it. Help.
 

barglenarglezous

Engaged Member
Sep 5, 2020
2,754
5,736
So a very similar situation to Patreon. I wonder if the banks are worried about being involved if some conservative jurisdiction (adult industries are still very much illegal in some countries) decides to try and shut down the online adult industry and considers the financial institutions of aiding and abetting. It's much like how the federally insured banks will not allow their credit cards to be used at marijuana dispensaries. It is legal in my state, but the Feds could still make trouble because it could be considered interstate commerce and under federal jurisdiction.

So many potential connections!
There's a provision in the Patriot Act that requires US banks to report any suspicious activity. Because the adult film industry was a common haven for money laundering during the days where porn was primarily distributed through physical media, ALL adult content gets flagged by banks as suspicious.

It got worse after Trump signed FOSTA-SESTA, where now everyone is wary of being wrapped up in a trafficking case.

I'm not sure which laws impacted Onlyfans, which is impacted more by laws governing UK banks, but those two laws make it very difficult for any US-based platform to function.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dragon59

KnowNoHope

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2020
1,104
1,429
Uta: brother is in jail
Sana: brother is dead after getting murdered
Uta: still loves him and is in contact with her brother
theory: uta's brother took the fall for Uta having a mental breakdown and stabbing sana's brother.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Antosha

alex2011

Conversation Conqueror
Feb 28, 2017
7,718
4,462
So a very similar situation to Patreon. I wonder if the banks are worried about being involved if some conservative jurisdiction (adult industries are still very much illegal in some countries) decides to try and shut down the online adult industry and considers the financial institutions of aiding and abetting. It's much like how the federally insured banks will not allow their credit cards to be used at marijuana dispensaries. It is legal in my state, but the Feds could still make trouble because it could be considered interstate commerce and under federal jurisdiction.

So many potential connections!
Very similar indeed.

Uta: brother is in jail
Sana: brother is dead after getting murdered
Uta: still loves him and is in contact with her brother
theory: uta's brother took the fall for Uta having a mental breakdown and stabbing sana's brother.
Or maybe he actually did do it and she suffers the effects of losing him to a jail sentence, possibly life or death considering the severity of the crime.
 

PrimeGuy

Active Member
Dec 16, 2019
584
1,132
Uta: brother is in jail
Sana: brother is dead after getting murdered
Uta: still loves him and is in contact with her brother
theory: uta's brother took the fall for Uta having a mental breakdown and stabbing sana's brother.
You're forgetting Uta is a "country girl" and hasn't been in Kumon-mi long. It is likely her brother also lived outside Kumon-mi.
 

pawel101

New Member
Nov 16, 2018
13
17
Uta: brother is in jail
Sana: brother is dead after getting murdered
Uta: still loves him and is in contact with her brother
theory: uta's brother took the fall for Uta having a mental breakdown and stabbing sana's brother.
Uta specifically says he's in jail for attempted murder not murder. He tried to kill someone but didn't succeed. Also it likely happened out in the country and Sana's brother was killed in the city.
 

alex2011

Conversation Conqueror
Feb 28, 2017
7,718
4,462
Uta specifically says he's in jail for attempted murder not murder. He tried to kill someone but didn't succeed. Also it likely happened out in the country and Sana's brother was killed in the city.
You're forgetting Uta is a "country girl" and hasn't been in Kumon-mi long. It is likely her brother also lived outside Kumon-mi.
Both good points, but what about the following? Sana's brother is actually dead, but attempted in legal terms means Uta's brother didn't succeed and Sana's brother would still be alive if he was the victim of that attempt. Unless, maybe he was the victim of multiple attempts, one of which was by Uta's brother that failed to kill him, the other by an unknown assailant that succeeded. He also could have been in Kumon-mi for some reason without residing there.
 

pawel101

New Member
Nov 16, 2018
13
17
Both good points, but what about the following? Sana's brother is actually dead, but attempted in legal terms means Uta's brother didn't succeed and Sana's brother would still be alive if he was the victim of that attempt. Unless, maybe he was the victim of multiple attempts, one of which was by Uta's brother that failed to kill him, the other by an unknown assailant that succeeded. He also could have been in Kumon-mi for some reason without residing there.
From a story perspective it would render the attempted murder kinda pointless to include. I'm sure though that some other character was likely involved but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Uta's brother. I'd more likely believe it was someone like Noriko or Yumi. Maybe even Maya if the part in baby finches where she starts talking like a serial killer can be taken at face value but that was a messed up scene. Also if the newest happy scene is talking about Maya being the homeless girl then it could add up. So far not enough info though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antosha

KnowNoHope

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2020
1,104
1,429
Uta specifically says he's in jail for attempted murder not murder. He tried to kill someone but didn't succeed. Also it likely happened out in the country and Sana's brother was killed in the city.
except! uta mentions always coming to the city as a kid to visit her... grandpa? w/e
if you have a GOOD lawyer, like scum of the earth lawyer, get him off on it under very specific situations... that or I watch waaaaaay to many crime drama's that don't reflect reality. selebus has mentioned he was trying to get a law degree at some point, would be crazy if he started phoenix wright'ing part of the story.
 

Cerpin

Member
Jun 22, 2020
157
294
You watch too many crime dramas.


Edit:

To expand, you cannot really plead down or mitigate to attempted murder.


This is because attempted murder in most (all?) common law jurisdictions is treated with the same severity as murder.

Very basic criminal law lesson incoming:

A crime (usually) requires an actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) to be a crime.

In the case of murder this would be the act of killing someone (guilty act) and the intent to do so (guilty mind).

If the intent does not exist you end up with manslaughter (or negligent homicide or whatever Americans call it). And we tend to treat that more leniently - you didn't mean to kill someone so you should not be punished the same as if you did.

The interesting question comes up where someone intends to kill but fails in the commission. Here someone has the guilty mind, they set about attempting to commit the worst crime a human can commit. However, through incompetence or the luck of their victim they failed.

The classic law school example (which also encompasses causation) is where someone in the desert replaces their victim's water canteen with poison but before the victim can drink it another murderer pours the poison away (thinking they were pouring away their victim's precious life giving water) leading to the victim dying of thirst. They're both murderers.

The first one just failed by chance and cannot argue "well I didn't ACTUALLY kill him so I'm cool" and the second cannot argue they saved the victim from death by poison (by killing the victim another way).

We treat this the same as if they were successful. It is no mitigation to say "I meant to kill the bastard your honour, but I let go of his throat too early and he survived. But you know, he's not dead so no harm no foul?"


The "scumbag lawyer" trope would have Uta's brother in for manslaughter.

I'm not going to get into how harmful it is to associate us with our clients. Please just don't.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Antosha

KnowNoHope

Well-Known Member
Apr 16, 2020
1,104
1,429
You watch too many crime dramas.


Edit:

To expand, you cannot really plead down or mitigate to attempted murder.


This is because attempted murder in most (all?) common law jurisdictions is treated with the same severity as murder.

Very basic criminal law lesson incoming:

A crime (usually) requires an actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) to be a crime.

In the case of murder this would be the act of killing someone (guilty act) and the intent to do so (guilty mind).

If the intent does not exist you end up with manslaughter (or negligent homicide or whatever Americans call it). And we tend to treat that more leniently - you didn't mean to kill someone so you should not be punished the same as if you did.

The interesting question comes up where someone intends to kill but fails in the commission. Here someone has the guilty mind, they set about attempting to commit the worst crime a human can commit. However, through incompetence or the luck of their victim they failed.

The classic law school example (which also encompasses causation) is where someone in the desert replaces their victim's water canteen with poison but before the victim can drink it another murderer pours the poison away (thinking they were pouring away their victim's precious life giving water) leading to the victim dying of thirst. They're both murderers.

The first one just failed by chance and cannot argue "well I didn't ACTUALLY kill him so I'm cool" and the second cannot argue they saved the victim from death by poison (by killing the victim another way).

We treat this the same as if they were successful. It is no mitigation to say "I meant to kill the bastard your honour, but I let go of his throat too early and he survived. But you know, he's not dead so no harm no foul?"


The "scumbag lawyer" trope would have Uta's brother in for manslaughter.

I'm not going to get into how harmful it is to associate us with our clients. Please just don't.
nah, I was thinking in terms of gets attempted murder and the lawyer can tell the kid wont make it so he steam rolls the legal proceedings and pleas out before the kid can die since you can't get charged multiple times over a crime. I am probably wrong as hell about that.
 

alex2011

Conversation Conqueror
Feb 28, 2017
7,718
4,462
From a story perspective it would render the attempted murder kinda pointless to include. I'm sure though that some other character was likely involved but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Uta's brother. I'd more likely believe it was someone like Noriko or Yumi. Maybe even Maya if the part in baby finches where she starts talking like a serial killer can be taken at face value but that was a messed up scene. Also if the newest happy scene is talking about Maya being the homeless girl then it could add up. So far not enough info though.
That's what I'm saying, Sana's brother did die to another person and Uta's brother couldn't have done it given his crime was attempted murder, not murder itself, but that doesn't rule out an attempt by Uta's brother that failed and landed him in jail. It was definitely an unknown person who ultimately succeeded. I could also see Noriko, she's just that kind of crazy. Yumi is possible, but the least likely of the three. She does show a tough side, but has yet to show a willingness to follow through with any violent act unless someone else she cares about is in danger, especially any that would result in death. Sana's brother doesn't sound like the type to endanger someone Yumi cares about, so I couldn't see her doing it for that reason. 'Happy' scenes typically can't be taken at face value, so definitely not Maya based on "Baby Finches," but if something comes up in the reality of the game to throw a similar suspicion on her, she could be considered on that evidence.


You watch too many crime dramas.


Edit:

To expand, you cannot really plead down or mitigate to attempted murder.


This is because attempted murder in most (all?) common law jurisdictions is treated with the same severity as murder.

Very basic criminal law lesson incoming:

A crime (usually) requires an actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) to be a crime.

In the case of murder this would be the act of killing someone (guilty act) and the intent to do so (guilty mind).

If the intent does not exist you end up with manslaughter (or negligent homicide or whatever Americans call it). And we tend to treat that more leniently - you didn't mean to kill someone so you should not be punished the same as if you did.

The interesting question comes up where someone intends to kill but fails in the commission. Here someone has the guilty mind, they set about attempting to commit the worst crime a human can commit. However, through incompetence or the luck of their victim they failed.

The classic law school example (which also encompasses causation) is where someone in the desert replaces their victim's water canteen with poison but before the victim can drink it another murderer pours the poison away (thinking they were pouring away their victim's precious life giving water) leading to the victim dying of thirst. They're both murderers.

The first one just failed by chance and cannot argue "well I didn't ACTUALLY kill him so I'm cool" and the second cannot argue they saved the victim from death by poison (by killing the victim another way).

We treat this the same as if they were successful. It is no mitigation to say "I meant to kill the bastard your honour, but I let go of his throat too early and he survived. But you know, he's not dead so no harm no foul?"


The "scumbag lawyer" trope would have Uta's brother in for manslaughter.

I'm not going to get into how harmful it is to associate us with our clients. Please just don't.
It depends on where you get charged with whether it is called manslaughter or negligent homicide. I swear, sometimes, the states are just trying to make things difficult to understand.

nah, I was thinking in terms of gets attempted murder and the lawyer can tell the kid wont make it so he steam rolls the legal proceedings and pleas out before the kid can die since you can't get charged multiple times over a crime. I am probably wrong as hell about that.
That's not how plea deals work. At best, Uta's brother would get a reduced sentence, not a completely mitigated one. He would serve time in jail for the crime either way. That's just how severe that crime in particular is.
 

Cerpin

Member
Jun 22, 2020
157
294
nah, I was thinking in terms of gets attempted murder and the lawyer can tell the kid wont make it so he steam rolls the legal proceedings and pleas out before the kid can die since you can't get charged multiple times over a crime. I am probably wrong as hell about that.
Causing grievous bodily harm tends to attract the same maximum sentences as murder for this reason.

"Not quite dead" is not getting you much in the way of a reduced sentence.
 

Darkkia

New Member
Jul 15, 2018
8
1
Por favor, necesito ayuda con la "Palabra del día". No hablo inglés y me resulta bastante difícil seguir la historia. He estado atrapado en este evento durante días.
¿Podrías decirme la solución? :llorar:

Please, I need help with 'Word of the day'. I don't speak English and it is making it quite difficult for me to follow the story. I've been stuck in this event for days.
Could you tell me the solution?
 
4.10 star(s) 313 Votes