It wouldn't let me reply to the other thread but I need to address some things.

First and foremost, Rich once again that picture you posted is not me, it's also not Todd (or Richie from Slimed Models). It's @Magicboy and I don't think he wants his face on her so please blur unless he says otherwise. I sent him thepost so he can chime in or mssg you if he wants that photo taken down or left up.

Secondly, you found a fake digital memorial that was made to deal with a stalker Ihad throughout the pandemic (and who is currently in jail for murdering someone else thathe was stalking; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amie-harwick-killer-hollywood-therapist-gareth-pursehouse-evidence-48-hours/). A 4Square, Twitter, and LinkedIn were also made and I'm kind of surprised you didn't find those as well but whatever. There are some friends on here who were aware of this, and they can chime in if they'd like, but I also respect not wanting to dive into this mess.

Third, the verification process on here was after all of that went down, so if you wanna follow the narrative that I'm not me, then I easily could have gotten "fake"me to assist with that anyways. So no need to start big brain conspiring that MM and the mods were in cahoots with fake me. Also 90% sure I did use a fake ID so it doesn't matter anyways.

Fourth, yeah I've teasedppl with slime photos, and not just on here. Not going to deny that.Yeah it's immature and embarrassing, but is what it is. I liked the attention w/o having to (literally) do the dirty work. I'll take the shame I deserve on that.

Speaking of dirty work, I'll take the shame also in admitting I like the glory and the credit from my videos, but in reality, I've had several ppl help make my content for, and with, me.

Last but not least, it was really REALLY tempting to not comment here and just use this post as a nice clean break away from this place, but there's enough of my ACTUAL personal information involved in some of the photos that I can't do that. @SlopSlvt, I'llmessageyou what details need to be blurred out, but other than that, feel free to leave the post up.

I'm not gonna reply one by one to everything else because honestly, I'm tired boss. And also I honestly don't care whether ppl think I'm me or not. Those that I care about know, and those that don't, no offense but idgaf.

Edit: Ok now someone found my real info so I'm taking a break. Anyone that I owe videos to, I'll follow-up privately with them.

Ok, guys. I got questions, too but can we NOT be dicks and dox or compromise someone else because we feel entitled to do so? There is a thread up. Messmaster will look into it. We don't need a freaking forum of mob justice weirdos making this worse than it needs to be

I don't think anyone is crying conspiracy between the mods and you, sure as hell ain't me but I definitely have doubts on the accuracy and dependability of this "verification system" when you literally just suggested that you defeated it with a fake ID.

I don't feel as "betrayed" as some of the users here but I do have concerns about a model's safety when the verification that is supposed to protect the forum and its users fails so incredibly.

My heart wants to believe "she" is real, but this is exactly 100% what a catfish who's desperate for an offramp would do in this scenario.

Okay I'm a catfish and I'm leaving. I'm fake and I'm out. End of story.

Wow. Just like that they have come clean and are already leaving. After creating this "Kelsey" persona for almost 10 years or so.

So, now that that played out the way it did. I want to address the issue that I have been hearing concerns about. I know multiple female producers and other people shared very sensitive and private information and materials with Kelsey. Some are sick to their stomach and worried their private content will be leaked. Before leaving, and I am guessing she can still see this message, you should atleast assure those individuals there sensitive material is safe. To clarify, I am not one of them. I don't believe they want to make their inquiry public. Please, do this before you go away for good.

Yikes

I'm sure MM will have more info on this issue in due course (I've flagged the original thread to him), but just wanted to address the line above:

That's not what the verification system is about.

There are effectively two aspects to verification:

1. If you want to run a store then MM need to know who you are, with a real world ID. This is standard across most businesses these days, when I signed up to CCBill way back in the 00s they needed a copy of my passport before I could fully sign up. I don't think they'd any way to check it, the UK Passport office is not in the habbit of handing over people's information to anyone who asks, but having to do that in the first place puts a bar in front of out-and-out scammers who don't want to reveal their real ID. This has applied on UMD since the stores were first set up, it's standard "Know Your Customer" (aka KYC) stuff. Big, heavily regulated, billion dollar businesses like banks can probably actually check the data, but anyone else will just be a case of "collect and store" so that if things do go down the tubes the company affected can prove who they thought they were doing business with.

2. Much more recently, as a result of MasterCard bringing the hammer down on the rampant abuses that a certain large adult tube site was allowing, a second use of verification has come in for all legitimate adult sites that allow user-uploaed content, that no-one can upload explicit (or obviously taken while model naked, even if we can't see the details) photos, unless they first verify their account by uploading ID. This is mainly to prevent revenge porn or uploads of non-consensual filming.

I do remember, long ago, Leila suggesting we should have "female verification" were no-one would be allowed to set up a female account unless they'd gone through an actual verification process (possibly including an on-line video call?), and/or posing for a photo with a copy of the front page ofa major newspaper like The New York Times or The Telegraph, to prove photo was current and not a "nicked off the net" random one. But that was years back, poss arround the Jessie incident?

But I've never assumed verification does anything other than making it harder for anonymous users to post stuff they have no rights to.

And yeah, I was taken in by the Kesley account too, though ony insomuch as I thought she was a woman and so backed her campaign to differentiate slime (chunky) from gunge (smooth), which I might have been less likely to do had I known she wasnt real.

Which clearly would have never been prevented in this instance. Let's not get into the safety concerns of going to a shoot not fully aware of who you will be working with or if they are safe. I am saying, (and have been saying) that this is a bit of a problem. Let's not pretend that it isn't.

Agree completely, hence all the advice that's been around forever about always meet in a public place befoe committing, etc. Back in 2022 when Violet Vixen came to shoot with us, I initially met her at Carlisle railway station and we'd a drink in a pub then took the three hour train-ride to Leeds together so she could properly scope me out, and if not happy just jump on the next train south when we got to the city. In that case of course she was happy I was genuine and we did some amazing shoots together. But I'd quite delibarately set things up so she had an easy and fuss-free safe exit if she didn't feel comfortable.

But if people are expecting the UMD verification system to protect from more than it actually does, that's also an issue that needs clarifying. Being verified here just proves you uploaded ID documents, and nothing beyond that. If people are reading more into it than that - and having seen the various posts I can see how that may have been happening - that's also an issue that needs addressing.

Goodbye Kelsey Rose, thought it feels like I never knew you at all....turns out you were never there, when the slime began to fall...

You're telling me that something as simple as one of those look people up sites aren't checked for ID verification? It takes 10 minutes to do that check. In my mind that is the bare minimum that should be done. Taking your logic what's to stop a bunch of people from using fake ID's the way Kelsey said and do this all over again? It is very clear that we have been manipulated into thinking the verification system or the store ownership verification is not what it seems. It says in 2257 about record keeping that the person collecting the ID is required to verify the person is over the age of 18. How does MM verify that the ID of the person is over the age of 18?

Or, MM does all this checking and knew who was running the Kelsey Rose account the whole time. Because there is nothing that says the account has to have a username or picture that matches the person that sent their ID. I think we would rather assume that the verification process needed some updating than that MM knew the truth the whole time and just let things play out.

I think that's the core issue here. Thinking about Twitter (before Elon Musk took over), the whole point of the blue tick was to verify that the name on the account matched the real person/company who was using it. E.g. does that tweet from Bill Gates or the Wall Street Journal actually come from them, or is it someone impersonating them?

Thinking about the situation with Daz and Chantelle, I stand by what I said there:
https://umd.net/forums/chantelle-profile-update?start=60#postid_981204
I.e. people assumed that when the name said "Chantelle", and there was a photo of Chantelle, they were actually swapping messages with Chantelle.

It's common for people (including producers) to use photos of other people in their profile. In most cases, there's no intent to deceive. E.g. if you've watched a few SlapstickStuff videos then you'll know the producer's face and voice, and if you've been here for a while then you probably know his first name too. So, I don't think he's claiming to be his most recent model. However, that's different to the situation with "Kelsey".

I'm also thinking about the situation with "Sinnamon", who claimed to be a real person but then posted photos of a sex doll. It took several people flagging this before MessMaster intervened. Meanwhile, "she" was affronted, saying how insulted she was that people would claim she looked like a plastic doll.

The problem comes when someone with a verified account says "This is my photo, this is who I really am" and meanwhile their photo ID for is a completely different person.

Going back to the Chantelle issue, I believe the plan was to have "Business" as another gender option. Did that ever happen? (I don't see it as an option in my profile, but I'm not a producer.)

Obviously there's no obligation for people to use their real name/face here, but it's a problem when they can be confused for someone else. I suggest a simple rule change: if you have a verified account, your profile picture either has to match the photo ID that you submitted, or it has to be something that's obviously not a real person (e.g. a cartoon character or a photo of a bucket).

Our verification system is just submitting your ID and Custodian of Records info (and tax info for store owners). It's not a thorough background check because I don't actually run ID's. I have to collect them but I consider it a betrayal of privacy to upload them to any government agency or to any service really. You really have to do your own due diligence and research when doing your business, and I hope these forums aid the community to do exactly that.


I will never upload your information to some shitty age-check site.


Nobody at Twitter is researching whether the person behind the keyboard is the person who is actually verified on the blue tick.

I only really have a thought on this point, but as UMD goes it is an internationally available site. I am a Japanese citizen and I joined and got my ID verified, of course with a description of how to read a Japanese ID card.

The trouble with running a background check on all users who sends in for identification is many people, myself included, are foreigners to USA. From my name, no information could easily be found without a knowledge of how to use Japanese public records, then probably not.

I don't think for all users is necessary and definitely overkill. The resources to do that for all users is astronomical and unrealistic.

If you sell content or make a profit, (ie a producer or model), yes, a more thorough check is required. Right now if I am reading the writing on the wall correctly, someone can just take his grandmothers ID, upload it here along with her information, commit a criminal offense under the auspices of being a "producer" and this site just "will deny responsibility" while at the most, they lose a store here.

I know I say a lot of negative things about Clips4sale but as crazy their compliance team may come off as, they at least have a thorough way of trying to mitigate any possibility of someone abusing their platform in that manner.

I'm curious what policy of theirs you'd like to see adopted here?

I would have to copy paste it when I am done with my day and will send it via PM but if you are the sole operator, it's gonna be a tall ask. They have an entire department dedicated for compliance and available support 24 hours a day. I don't know what the turn around is for producers on here and how often you would need to implement a new sign up. You would have a better idea on those metrics than I would.

I know for starters when I signed up, at least two photos uploaded of yourself including your valid ID, w9 etc along with a basic soft check to verify your identity

As I understand things, an ID is scanned and submitted for verification. No due diligence is done to confirm the validity of the document and verified is received.

When I talk about verifying the ID I am thinking at a bare minimum doing a people search on the name to confirm the age and location matches the ID or general area. In section 2257 it says you have to verify age. As Kelsey eluded to using a fake ID for here, I am wondering if that 2257 only applies to stores, or if it applies to verified accounts. Also, how do you verify the person submitting the document is over the age of 18 and that it is a legitimate document?

So accountability for model compliance is on the studio/producer. If I submit the appropriate paperwork here and upload a clip, I am defacto saying that I examined the ID as true and all responsibility falls on me. Studio owner verification is a different animal

Does 2257 apply to store owners selling a product. Or just to producers hiring a model? If that just applies to producers that hire models, what are the laws governing identification around a seller of content?

Well in the small time world of fetish production, unless you actually have the bankroll to hire a separate producer, chances are high that the studio owner is the producer. That said, if someone hires me to edit a full feature length adult film they shot, I am not the record holder, the owner is. If I am hired to shoot the content, I am not the record holder, the owner is. The rights holder (the one who can decide how and when the material is distributed, is responsible.

Also it is important to know when 2257 applies. Sexually explicit content? Yes. Full frontal nudity? Depends. Fully clothed, non sexual scenarios? No. Jurisdictions plays a small role as well so I will always suggest someone consult with their attorney before proceeding.

In the grand scheme of things, verified people are not under any legal requirement to provide a valid ID. The only thing here is that an ID has been sent.

For a store owner, there is no requirement to verify anything is legitimate of all the paperwork looks good.

Since almost all of the scamming as of late has been by users that were verified, what is the point of the verification?

I may have completely missed a beat here but did people find the real person's info and confirm it's a guy? This looks more like a frustrated rage quit rather than an admission to me BUT I do not have all the context here having only flicked through the pages of the forums

Please don't repost this person's info to answer my question. Regardless of what's happened, doxxing is not appropriate and people should know better if they are doing that.

Not taking a side, just want to ask a question

That's true, but I think there's an important distinction between these 2 scenarios:
* Celebrity X hires an intern/publicist to handle their social media accounts.
* Joe Schmoe sets up a verified account with their own ID and posts as celebrity X.

Bear in mind that the latter situation is pretty much what happened when Elon Musk took over Twitter, and said that anyone could get a blue tick by paying $8/month with a credit card. That had a real world impact, e.g. someone set up a verified account for Eli Lilly and posted to say that insulin would now be free of charge:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/14/twitter-fake-eli-lilly/
That led to their stock price falling, because people saw the tweet from a blue tick account and assumed that it was from (or at least authorised by) the real company.

In the case of Twitter, this did lead to raised awareness that a blue tick no longer meant "this person is who they claim to be". Maybe the same thing can happen here, but I think that's counter-intuitive.

Putting this another way, why show a green tick at all? I.e. I understand why accounts need to be verified before posting naked photos, and there's presumably some website code which will check "Is this account verified?" when someone uploads any photo. However, you don't need a visible tick on the profile picture for that - it could simply be an internal database flag. Presumably the point of the tick is to send information to other people who use the forum, but if it doesn't mean "This person is who they claim to be" then what's the point?

Taking another example, "randm" posted here a couple of years ago:
https://umd.net/forums/why-is-it-misleading-to-post-a-picture-o
I flagged the account because I identified the profile picture as being a real person, and I don't believe that they were actually the person who was posting here. At the time, I said:


As I understand it, MessMaster is now saying that their account could have got verified using completely different photo ID. So, rather than UMD saying "Does this profile look anything like their ID?" it's up to other forum users like Slop Slvt to play detective.

THIS is the part I do not like about this whole situation. I know how very easy it is to find information about people on the internet. There are a plethora of YouTube videos teaching the tools needed to do this. If you don't mind spending the money, you can find all the information you want about someone, in about 12 hours. This is something that would take an obsessed fan to the next level. If we had a verification system that we could trust, I think it would thwart some of that investigative work.

A few of the scamming situations that have been called out here have been found out because people did the detective work. There is a lot of good that can come from that detective work, as long as it stays in the hands of people who are decent individuals.

Name one male producer that shoots content with Female models that is using their picture as their profile picture. Slapstick stuff isn't, slimed models isn't, anglefan isn't, Messygirl isn't, The Man and Wife isn't, and I sure as hell am not. Nobody wants to see my 6'5 350 lb ex lineman ass when they look at my profile or store. You need to differentiate between those not appearing in their profiles and those misleading people into believing they are talking to a female. I can tell you there are a couple of well known male producer on here still that pretend the response is coming from a modeling partner.

For those that do want to see my big ass, here ya go.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone is obliged to post a photo of themselves. However, there are alternatives, e.g. DungeonMasterOne has a picture of a stately home. You could also use your company logo.

I do see your point, and as I mentioned in my previous post I think that there are plenty of producers doing this with no intent to deceive. However, how do you distinguish between the people who are being open and the people who are being deceptive? The current approach says "Anyone can be verified and use a photo of someone else", and recent events show how that goes wrong. Another approach says "Don't use a photo of someone else".

Maybe there's a middle ground, similar to when Twitter said "Parody accounts are allowed but they have to be clearly labelled". E.g. get rid of the green tick but have a new label in the corner of the picture which says "Model", or something along those lines.

Bye, guy.