I would be interested to hear from Jessie what she knows about Jezzapeepshow.

Jessie what do you know about him please?
This is your chance to explain your side of this as you have mentioned you wish to.

Thanks.

Dammit, did you REALLY have to take away my fantasy that Jeremy Corbyn was One of Us?

This thread, and apparently many private messages, is a master class in gaslighting. Thank you to everyone involved in exposing this to the public eye, and while I know it's painful to read, I hope this will help others spot what emotionally abusive and controlling people look like

This is the official WAM/UMD translation of "So are we doing 'Stonehenge' tomorrow?"

No we're not doing fucking Stonehenge tomorrow!!

This is the most stunning and saddening thing I've ever seen on here. This isn't some troll who only signed up last week, but one of this community's A-list stars. Say it ain't so, Jessie! Sadly, it seems to be. Like Mulder, I want to believe, but I don't see how.

Messmaster wouldn't take a step like this lightly, while the implication that some of the most respected producers around are all in on some sort of bullying conspiracy is ludicrous. I'd expect the Jessie whose posts I've been following on here since the mid-2000s to be distressed at the prospect of being banned from UMD, and especially if this really is all some terrible misunderstanding, but the belligerent and defensive tone of her posts on this thread doesn't fit that at all. And, as others have said, I can think of some anomalies from posts/PMs over the past year or so that now make sense, too. I also have to seriously doubt some things she (if it was her) told me about producers and former models in PMs, although at the same time I can't believe I'm writing this about Jessie, for goodness sake! If you can't trust her, then who can you trust?

Jelly was right about Jessie's reputation. In the future, she's going to be one of the first names mentioned in "producers we have lost" threads, and for totally the wrong reasons. That's awful. It's sad but telling that there's not a single "like" for any of her posts on this thread. Losing Jessie, and in this way, is a bitter blow for UMD. When I saw the thread title I held my breath, thinking "Oh no, is it to do with her health...?" I didn't expect to see this.

About the only positive thing I can say is to wish her well if, as others have suggested, she is indeed some sort of innocent party in all this.

Thanks for brining this to everyone's attention, MM. This is a very sad betrayal of the community here, especially for those who have reached out to Jessie personally over the last few years (others, not me).

First and foremost, I'd like to echo what "moreslime" said. I've been on the UMD a long, long time (too long, quite frankly) and I've seen my fair share but this is just so shocking and so sad.

I twigged a few months ago. I doubt I'm the only one.

MJD had a very distinctive way of formatting his posts so that they
looked like this with lots of words
and little punctuation and once
you noticed it you couldn't really
unsee it.

I began to notice posts from Jessie's account constructed in the same way. This isn't a crime however, nor is it really any of my business. I'm not UMD royalty so all the stuff about puppet accounts/arguments with producers I was blissfully unaware of - which is why this is all so horrible to read.

A message to Jessie:

Over the past decade or so you've proved yourself to be both beautiful inside and out. You've contributed a hell of a lot to the WAM community, and the HotWamHD video where you're in the bath with Sophia is still my favourite clip and the one I go back to time and time again.

You say that you're in a good place right now, both with your health and your finances. I REALLY hope that that's true and it continues to be the case because you deserve great things

I hope all of this unpleasantness doesn't make people forget all the amazing work you've put in over the years. Thank you.

Just to echo whats already been said I wish Jessie all the best in the future with whatever she decides to do.

However that said I'm glad I wasn't alone in noticing the change in tone of Jessica25's posts. to the point where I didn't want to purchase any of the clips I liked due to a very closed of and defensive character being projected outwards into the community.

I tweeted support to Jessie and asked if she would continue to hold sessions. She promptly blocked me. That is very petty but not the first time i have had a bizarre reaction from a so called UMD "star". I enquired with one about going in her gungetank and she replied that i was "banned because of social media comments about single mothers". Yes i'm autistic and a Tory but i genuinely have no idea what planet this person was on. No apology received for this clear case of mistaken identity and they wont be getting any money from me; i'm boycotting them. Went down in my estimation im sorry to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2EMo7TQaNQ

Going forwards from here, maybe people should be discouraged from sharing accounts? I've had a look in the terms of service, but I can't see it mentioned there:
https://umd.net/termsofservice

I've sometimes seen people share Facebook accounts, particularly older people who aren't very computer literate. However, it's still a bit jarring to see a message pop up from Jack's profile that says "[Jill] ..."

In this case, I know that Mike originally started posting from Jessie's account when she was in hospital, which is understandable. However, he's had his own account since March 2012, as seen here:
https://umd.net/forums/video_-_finally_pied_myself_fo
And he still freely admitted to using Jessie's account several times after that, e.g. in April 2017:
https://umd.net/forums/messy-jessie-site-move-to-the
("Hiya all. It's Mike on Jessie's profile.")

In and of itself, that's not deceptive, but it just seems weird.

I was reluctant to mention this before, because I didn't want to hijack/derail a different topic. However, now that other information has now come to light, I don't feel guilty about voicing my concerns.

I was curious about how this was described in the terms of use. Based on my reading of the terms, the issue isn't about the account sharing, but more about:

"Spam: ...But any attempt to overrepresent your product over others will be seen as spam. Please do not create new forum threads for a product you've already plugged before, or strategically bump existing forum threads back to the top with senseless replies."

The fact that Mike was behind this type of behavior, combined with the fact that he has been using Jessie's account, led to her account being deemed complicit in the behavior by association with his activities.

I see some people shocked and saddened by all this, but it's a highly competitive market for producers of this very niche fetish.

I remember talking off-line with MM about this, something he told me kind of opened my eyes to possibilities I had not considered, but in short he relayed to me how this wasn't just a hobby or having fun for some people, it was their livelihood.

That message stuck with me. I hadn't really ever looked at this forum and some of the more commercial producers in that light in the past.

This is how some people are putting food on the table. Not everyone is a part-time producer who can take it or leave it.

Making the sock puppet accounts to promote the videos, to apparently manipulate the voting of the downloads (I don't really even fully grasp that), it's pretty lowdown stuff but now this is basically the end of her WAM career. Without the support or being able to do business here, she's finished - which she clearly seems to have acknowledged with the "blowout" sales.

I'm also somewhat curious whether this vacation she was on was announced before or after she had been exposed behind the scenes. Seems rather convenient, but you never know.

Me, I think the punishment here is very harsh. She's finished. Competition was tough when she was able to actively promote here, even using sock puppet accounts to augment that. Being forced to leave is a death sentence.

Is that fair or appropriate? Not my decision to make. I do think the punishment should fit the crime, but as I realized a few years back -- this is also people's lives and livelihoods here we're talking about.

I'm sure Derek took that into consideration. On his end, he has the integrity of *HIS* hard work and effort, this place here, to also consider. Jessie's actions put that into jeopardy. Derek has invested almost two decades of his life here growing this place, he's got to protect it.

Personally, I wouldn't have banished her, I would have settled at exposing the scams, demanded some real honesty from her in return with her explanation and kept a watchful eye on her from then on, but once again - it is absolutely not my decision to make and I'm not questioning the decision that was made.

Just my 2 cents.

Market Perspective

I would actually agree with this here. Viewing this from a purely utilitarian, market-based perspective, every clip that Jessie sold created value for the community. Whenever someone purchased a clip that Jessie made, they found value in it and were willing to pay money for that value. On the flip-side, Jessie found value in each clip sold through the profits on the clips. The potential loss of this content stream is damaging for the community as a whole as well as for Jessie's livelihood.

The question then becomes: "Is the damage caused by the manipulation of the site's performance measurement systems greater than the value contributed by Jessie's works?" Obviously, I have no way of knowing this, but it should still be considered when making the decision to entirely ban her from the site.

When viewed from this perspective, you can then ask the question: "What would happen if a smaller producer did the same thing?" Would their films provide less content to the community and should they be treated differently? In this situation, the activities here seem to be unprecedented, which leads to a difficult decision of how to handle the situation.

Metrics Perspective

Additionally, it also brings into question the metrics used to measure the top performers on the site. Maybe total sales or downloads isn't a great measurement of performance. Perhaps we should use an estimator which is less sensitive to outliers like:

[Median Sales per Downloader] * [Number of Unique Downloaders]

or

[Median Loves per User] * [Number of Unique Users Who Loved a User's Posts]

These metrics would avoid problems where a single user is dramatically over-inflating a user's statistics, requiring a change almost across the board in order to affect site-wide rankings.

While it wouldn't eliminate the problems, it would make manipulating the system more difficult and time consuming. Monitoring the IP addresses of posters to identify phantom accounts could also be used to help prevent such behavior in the future, though this is complicated by the privacy concerns associated with storing IPs.

Perhaps instead of storing IP addresses directly, only securely hashed versions of them could be stored, preventing IP addresses from being available to a potential hacker, but still allowing for the identification of duplicate accounts.

Enigmahood, please re-read MessMaster's words above. When he gave Jessie a chance to right her course and provide "real honesty," there were two more occasions of blatant dishonesty within a matter of days. (I suppose the first of these might have been out of her control, as Mike may have been acting without her knowledge and/or against her wishes when posting as Jessie the day following her pledge that Mike would never post on the site again. But then Jessie directly lied to MM and said it hadn't been him, before admitting that it was him.) I for one totally get why MM decided "there is no need to waste any more energy on this."

I am going to try my best to remember the positive side of Jessie, the years of great contributions she made to the forum with both her WAM work and her lovely spirit, before the last two years when everything went south for her (at least in terms of "her" behavior in the forums, although much of it was really Mike's behavior). I am NOT assuming that Jessie has turned into a bad person at all, but her life is clearly now wrapped up in the life of someone with very questionable means and motives, and she has chosen to cast her lot with his, come hell or highwater. I hope Jessie finds happiness and of course that she is able to provide her children with a safe, loving home. From what we've seen of Mike, I feel like she'd do well to be rid of him, but of course that is her decision alone to make.

Yeah, I get the sense this has been being addressed in private for some time before it came to this.

I've already been to Stonehenge. It was alright. Can we go to the beach instead?

there was an entire thread posted in the store owners forum before this was made public, and he did not say he was taking jessies store down, he just wanted us producers to know what had gone on and he told us, in detail, the hard evidence that was found. producers were allowed to comment. So was jessie. this forum post was made public after they had done stuff behind the scenes for days and this forum post was put up DAYS before this was made public and he only went public when he decided to shut her store down so this did not just happen. it was deliberated over, it was talked about, it was a big deal and still is. it is sad but this IS SOME PEOPLES LIVELIHOOD. its mine. this is the only job i have. having someone who has emailed me that they are taken care of by their significant other and basically that this is disposable income and then knowing they rigged things as they did is a kick in all of the producers nuts. it sucks. m.m. did not do anything rash though, yall. i just want you ALL TO BE AWARE THAT HE TOOK BABY STEPS and went through SO MUCH to make this decision. he did the hard thing. he wouldnt have done it if there wasnt enough to back up his decision. There was A LOT.

I'm confused:

1) Does Jessie really have health and personal issues?

2) Is Jessie in a consensual relationship with Mike?

3) I guess more importantly, is Jessie able to give consent with respect to Mike?

Abusive ahem... have to censor my words, have no place here, but it's sad that Jessie is part of the collateral damage.

Not true, but it's the only one that pays money. I know for a fact you and others do more than sit around dumping slime on your heads, sitting on cakes, and smashing pies in your faces; A LOT MORE. Just as an aside echoing an old thread that seemed to insinuate otherwise.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but don't want to go down the route of suggesting abusive, that's a huge accusation and not one that should be thrown around lightly. There could well be people on here who really know what that means...

What I do think, however, is that the change in video style (back to clothed, etc.) smacks of someone not wanting their partner sharing her body with others, so domineering is maybe more the case.

I remember way back when Jessie was ill before, she came to do topless work alone and with other producers, and stated how liberating it was and how proud she was of her body. And rightly so. This reversal and the reasons behind it never added up fully for me... but now they do.

She was incredibly hostile all the time, though this only really started after her major health problems a few years ago, so understandable to a degree. That was also when her business model changed to "BUY MY NUDE AND TOPLESS VIDEOS BUT DON'T YOU DARE MENTION THAT I'M NUDE AND TOPLESS IN THEM BECAUSE IT'S VERY OFFENSIVE BUT YOU MUST STILL BUY THEM". Jayce has already mentioned that this was was additional income for Jessie and Mike, so why she didn't just step back from it altogether is a mystery.

"I don't want my kids or their horny friends to see me naked so I'm going to stop selling my topless videos ... in two years" was also, in retrospect, a little fishy.

I doubt we'll ever know the full story behind why all this has happened, but I agree with the last few posts that the nudity/topless thing has probably been a big part of it.

I won't go into details on this point because it's not fair on the person concerned, but suffice it to say I suspect that Jessie/Mike's attacks on a particular producer were really all about Mike's inability to deal with his gf being topless/nude in the presence of another man.

Aside from that, their attitudes towards Jessie's topless films, as others have said, have been really odd and contradictory. For what it's worth - and it's very sad we've reached the point where believing something Jessie's said feels a dangerous game - I think the change in her stance on nudity before and after her illness was genuine, as her explanations about control and self-esteem struck me as having the ring of truth. Okay, fine. But nothing since has made any sense. Brick's right: their attitude has been "don't you dare mention topless but do make sure you buy them". Even Regis (God forbid!) is right, too. If topless was such an issue, then you'd expect the scenes to be pulled straight away, or at least after just a short warning period. But "I hate topless so much I'll wait two years"? What?

But then, even if I can actually think of some explanations for all that, I don't think I care any more. Best to just move on from this whole, sorry mess.

A-HEM

This is all very disturbing and sad. I thought there was something fishy a couple of years ago when she had her "health problems." We will never fully understand the relationship between Jessica and Mike, but even the incomplete picture we do have portrays an unhealthy/controlling/abusive sort of relationship. We can hope for the best for Jessica, but at the end of the day, there's not much we can do because only she can make the determination that she's had enough, unless he's done with her sooner. And that's my fear.

I have a tendency to play things forward and what I see is a controlling relationship in which Mike no longer has a need for Jessica because he'll never be able to come back here with her. He can try to push her stuff on clips4sale, or something like that, but he'll have a hard time driving people there. Within the next year or two, he's going to drop Jessica, manipulate some other attractive woman/model, and come back here under a new name. Bad trolls never die. They just change their names and IP address.

I guess that's what I'm getting at...be on the alert for the same behaviors under the guise of a different name and face. I just don't see someone who appears as controlling as this Mike character just walking away with his tail between his legs. Be alert and keep your head on a swivel because $10 says he's back in the next year or two with a new model.

dont lump us all in that category!!!! im a pretty decent gal and i am not trying to make anyone go broke! a lot of girls on here are very decent women. just letting you know, there are some good ones!
and i agree, i am a single mother and if anyoen thinks their kids wont find this stuff they are being naive. i have to agree with you on that one.

Agreed. There's nothing to stop them setting up a new website to host her films, and perhaps even sell some new ones, but to what purpose? Jessie will be gone in a couple of weeks, so who will ever know the new site's there if they're not being directed to it from UMD? Then there's the moral point about people who have manipulated their accounts on here so as to mislead others, fraudulently rigged their sales, and committed outrageous slander against other producers. Would you want to give money to these people? Sod that. No, Engimahood was right. Jessie's WAM career is over. It ended on Friday evening when MM went public with all this.

Any chance we could keep Mike around just so I'm not the least popular guy on the UMD any more?