I wasn't going to say anything publicly because to be honest, I didn't want to take this subject off the rails and I feel that this is a good teaching moment instead of shaming another producer. I won't add insult to injury here but I am just gonna say that if you are a producer and don't have a good idea what a "fetish rate" is, please stop and research it first before attempting to shoot. Also make sure you are factoring in nudity or topless (implied or otherwise) into your rates. Also if you are selling on your store and it isn't for trade, the producer is responsible for attire and materials. If the model is providing anything like mess or clothes to be trashed (including travel and accommodations) they should be compensated.

This is not the end all/be all list but an short list of typical etiquette for shoots, both in and out of the fetish world that will help make your life 1000x easier by fairly compensating your models for their time and efforts. Happy models = better product/performance.

Not without uploading info to a 3rd party service. The checkmarks are primarily there to satisfy the requirements of the billers, not to otherwise guarantee anything about the user's account. Our community had big discussion about this at the time and we were all on the same page about what the checkmarks are there for.


The ID and other business documents all lined up, and payments and tax correspondence were successfully made using that info. There is way more to this than just the ID. I'm trying not to give TMI, but I had no reason to suspect this account of doing fraudulent business outside of this site.


If your argument is still that I should upload user information anywhere to check it, then that's where we'll have to disagree. I don't define that as part of my due diligence and I hope I've been clear about that. Maybe at some point in the future I can offer an enhanced checkmark that means I've done some sort of background check on the individual, but for now that's not a line I want to cross with user information. For now, the green check means what it's always meant: That we are compliant with the regulations of the billers and their banks in that we collect ID's of individuals uploading explicit stuff.

I really meant it's against my morals. I built that TOS myself, and it... is me



I do love that everybody wants to know what can be done to make things better. But much of the discussion was based on the false premise that the verification system was supposed to guarantee anything about the user other than the fact that we have their ID and custodian info on file. I and UMD cannot guarantee anything about any user beyond that, and for me to promise that would be a lie. The least common denominator for every demand to "do more" is that I would have to interface or upload user information somewhere. I'm not being dismissive; I have considered the option and won't do it on principle. If I decide to offer a more-involved verification check for people in the future, it could become an option.

Please define uploading user information into a 3rd party website. Searching a name and then verifying approximate geo location and age is not uploading information to a 3rd party. I am not suggesting that you do reverse image lookup, I am not suggesting you look for all social media accounts. I am not even positive that you do anything to verify that you are not giving a green check to a rapist or pedophile.

At the very minimum I think two separate forms of ID would be awesome. I know it was suggested a photo with a newspaper or something showing the date. That would be great so you can at least try to verify the legitimacy of the ID.

I think the thing you are fighting is that people assumed that there was a different level of due diligence done before declaring someone approved. Because of the use of the word verified. You can't even rightly claim an account is verified as you do nothing to see if the person that submitted the ID to you is of age. That is your statement as far as what the green check and verified means. That you have checked to make sure the person submitting the ID is of age.

There are always new ways of being scammed that come out daily. There are a lot of fake IDs being created. Honestly I could create my own that would pass the smell check here. All we are asking is that the policies are updated as technology updates. Not to operate under 1998 verification practices. It seems odd that this is not a bigger deal to the person with the skin in the game if they get scammed.

"I understand the community's concerns, but I asked myself if this was OK - and I said it was fine! "

Your principles - inflexible and self-perpetuating - are the problem here, MM. As owner of a community hub, you have a duty of care. But if you won't take that seriously, people will continue to abandon UMD - I'm certainly considering deleting my account.

It is exactly that. Searching your name enters your information into countless logs and who knows what else, and I simply do not process anyone's information in that way. I wouldn't want it done to me. I take privacy absolutely seriously.


I thought about that suggestion, but I decided to stick to only collecting the bare minimum required by our billers and no more. Anyway it would be more requirements on our users, yet it would have done nothing to prevent this situation with Kelsey Rose.


Again, the entire community was involved with the introduction of the check marks and we all debated over the new requirement to collect ID's. At no point did it seem that anyone was confused enough to think it was anything like a background check or a guarantee of the person's account. It was always a requirement that we begrudgingly added after the Mastercard / Pornhub fiasco, not a guarantee of anything about the account. I do process other documents from store owners and also have payment info, which allows me to do a bit of cross-referencing. But again, all of this already lined up in the case of Kelsey Rose. Everybody just has to be careful.

I appreciate your passion, but for me as a site owner, that passion has to be converted into an actionable plan. So far, the only suggestions I'm hearing are to submit user info somewhere for additional verification beyond what's already required of our billers. I am not prepared to do that at this time. I hope my principles about not sharing user information aren't read as me not caring, as it's the exact opposite.

Just going to spitball here:

I truly appreciate not supplying my info to a third party, and requiring that to be a producer & or member of this community. However, now that I've started producing content, I would happily go an extra step to "verify myself" if it would make others here more comfortable.

Which brings me to...

Would you ever consider integrating a third party KYC, perhaps something in the realm of WEB 3.0, that users could opt into by their own choice?

My line of thought here being: offering producers &/or other members of the community, the ability to opt into a separate verification process, (something hyper secure) that would grant them an additional badge or check mark. (KYC badge)

In this scenario, producers &/or community members would have the OPTION to opt in or not, yet you (MM) would be removed from managing and supplying data.

The third party would be an entity that specializes in verifying data, and storing it rather than selling or manipulating.




In this scenario, we, as a community, would be able to identify accounts and individuals that have been willing to go the extra step with their personal data/identity, and verify themselves. It would be a badge of trust...

However, we as a community, need to expect that there will always bee exploits and creeps, and it can come down to something as simple as stealing account credentials. It is the internet, and it is adult content. It'll still require us as a community to deal with each other respectfully and compassionately, yet vigilantly, and skeptically. (Fundamentally this is an internet community issue, not necessarily a top down UMD issue only. Hell, like creamy said, it's an industry issue.)

Just a thought, not a demand. I completely understand the difficulty of the situation and appreciate the amount of work you've put into UMD for years. And we know these things happen.

I could go on about how encounter similar dilemmas in my line of work, but this isn't the space for it. Feel free to dm if you want to chat more about any KYC solutions. While it wouldn't. 100% solve the problem, it could be a nice and reassuring tool in the belt for us to have.

This actually sounds like a perfect and happy medium to start. It's reasonable. It's practical and would solve a lot of management issues on the back end. All MM would have to worry about is getting our results and adding the appropriate tag to our profile and because it is completely voluntary and by our own volition, his conscience can be completely clear that we are electing ourselves into it vs sending this information off himself

Well, here's an actionable suggestion: why not gather a small working group of trusted site creators - including those who would like UMD to do more, perhaps some of the voices in this thread - and have an actual meeting (not a thread), with the aim of reaching some kind of compromise and some further action points?

That and Psychic_Mess just pointed out a very viable solution as well that would work out nicely. I am totally down for either

I don't think there is anything wrong with updating policies as people advance and technology advances. The Kelsey Rose situation did not start this conversation it has been brought up before. Claiming that because the community didn't have the foresight to know verified and a check would lead to a sense of trust as an excuse not to change things is weak at best. I think the main thing people want is for things to be better. To do whatever we can to help protect users. Not stick our heads in the sand and think that's how it was 5 or 10 years ago and things cannot change.

This place stands no chance against the coming tsunami of deepfake/generative ai scam potential if we're still just kicking this primitive old can down the road.

Your avatar is still a frame from one of the scenes directed by the person who duped you, right?

Gotcha, i asked earlier and never saw that information so if you replied and I missed it, I apologize as it was a bit cramped in this whole thread with all the replies and hard to keep up.

Also, don't let my post dismay ya dude. It was never intended to shame you or anyone else. Like I said, it came as a coaching moment for not just you but anyone else who might be watching on who is interested into shooting. I figured you had a rough enough 24 hours. I ain't interested in making your day worse.

Of course we constantly adjust our policies as laws and times change, as we learn more etc. But short of uploading people's info somewhere, I haven't heard any ideas. If you disagree with my principle on absolutely not sharing user info then that's what we should discuss.


These conversations normally end with me reminding everyone to be careful of who you deal with. We have to assume there are bad business people and jerks lurking anywhere, and sometimes accounts that used to be legit change underneath our nose. I do my best on the backend to keep bad people off this site while still respecting privacy, but forum and the community did exactly what it was supposed to: You discovered them and ran them off! This Kelsey Rose incident would not have been any different if I had required more ID's or done a background check on them. It's guaranteed that there will be another incident with another member at some point. Somebody will make a post exposing them and the community will discuss it and figure out what they feel about that person.


Things can and do change, but the change you seem to want is one that I'm not comfortable doing right now. If one day I am forced to do background checks or require extra ID's or to guarantee the identity of users, then that will be a major change and announcement.

We could make a group for it But let's be clear that "do more" does mean researching user info online in some fashion.


I really appreciate the idea. Maybe at some point down the line I'll end up interfacing UMD with some 3rd party system for optional additional verification. If it's optional for the user, plus I'm not increasing user data that I have to store on my servers, then I could see the value. A big fear is that people will read too much into such an approval symbol, just like they read into the current checkmark. Kelsey Rose would have passed that ID test and gotten both approval symbols. I hate to think that people would have trusted it and been even more let down by the system when this happened. And if I don't require it of every member, shady people wouldn't opt to get the extra check anyway. Only the legit people would. It would almost have to be a site-wide requirement I think. I appreciate your idea, and if I decide to go "3rd party," as I call it, any type of option like that would be on the table.

Enter Filthy Girls thread starter in the non wam forum. She wouldn't have passed that which is why that system and other variants are being used across multiple major sites, including Onlyfans, C4S, Manyvids, Etc. It's worth considering

I do disagree with the policy as you have presented it. I am curious what checks you do to confirm that the ID submitted is over the age of 18. How do you protect a community who are in some cases vulnerable from sexual predators. Do you have to verify and open a store for a predator that is caught by the community to take measures against something like that? I think that proactive is more beneficial in this area than reactive. What are your plans once people start using AI to generate ID's?

Kelsey passed your ID check, even if we consider that Kelsey was lying about providing you with a fake ID. Does that mean that we should not be trying to make this place a better place or a safer place? Let's face it, most people who are active on the forums were not here when the discussion about the check happened. I would imagine that only 1% of the people have read through the TOS. The problem you are going to keep running into is that as long as there is something showing verified or green associated with an account, there is that assumption that there is a level of trust at play. These markings are common with other social media sites that use a verification process.

There have been other ideas presented short of you uploading people's information somewhere. There has been a suggestion of a two factor verification of sorts where other identification is presented. Hell there are companies out there that specialize in this kind of thing. Where the users upload the data to the verification people. They verify things and then as a user you choose what to share with whom. So then you would make the request and it would tell you if a person is verified. You no longer have to store ID's in some external drive that never touches the internet. These companies take care of all of that. Verify someone is of legal age, that company would let you know. This takes ell the heavy lifting out of your hands and you are no longer responsible for maintaining this information. Any fees for this would be in the hands of the users themselves. I would feel much better as a user if I was using a system like that to be verified rather than trust that your offline device is completely 100% secure and that my information would never get out.

We only collect the bare minimum of information as required of us, so that's why I only require the ID and not a picture of the person holding the ID. That's something I can consider at some point in the future.

I'm appalled the webmaster who makes money off all the sales, is seemingly in damage control because one of the users he was probably making a decent penny on defrauded a whole community. I expect better from a site where people expect a safe space to buy and sell content. The fact that it keeps happening and keeps getting swept under the rug is why you lose content creators on this site. For every bad egg that comes through umd you lose like 5 good creators... It's a shame for what people pay to sell here we all expect safe and secure site where people aren't going to get played like a puppet. This is the community of like minded individuals, but the second this shit happens it just alienates us all. And your response is "it'll happen again in 6 months" instead of assuring the community we won't get scammed again... Awesome job

TBH I'd say that needs to come in immediately if not sooner. Otherwise there's nothihg to stop a ten year old coming along, using one of their parents or older siblings ID, and having a fully verified account.

TBH Filthy Girl's suggestion is similar to the "Female Verification" that Leila proposed way back. It was a good idea then and is an even better one now.

I agree with not uploading any of the verification data to third party sites - that would open the door to potential ID theft on an industrial scale if the thirtd party turns out to not be trustrowthy - but definitely having both the ID and a high res head-and-shoulders shot of the person holding the ID, should be minimum baseline. I do that when I take model ID these days.

It's not damage control to explain how verification works and to remind people to be careful with who they deal with. I said it'll happen again because it's like expecting theft at Walmart: It happens, and for me to pretend like it doesn't would be lie, and I want people to continue to be vigilant regardless of what verification system is in place. We do what we can to prevent bad things from happening, and policies will change over time, but ultimately these people will always exist in the shadows. I want people to keep their shields up when dealing with anyone online.

So, suppose that I take a photo of my driving licence, then tweak it in Photoshop to have a fake name and address. Your due diligence basically says "Do the fonts match?" I'm no expert on credit card companies, but I'm surprised that they're ok with this.

In the UK, the DVLA has a check code system:
https://www.gov.uk/view-driving-licence
This is often used when you hire a car, to prove that you haven't been banned from driving. In this context, I would send you a photo of my driving licence and a one-time check code. You would go to the website above, type in the last 8 characters of the licence number and that same check code, then you'd see a report which includes my name. If that name doesn't match the one in the photo, you'd know that something is wrong.

Also, if I got hold of someone else's old driving licence (after their death), I wouldn't be able to generate a check code, because the databases are cross-referenced. So, that would help to deal with a situation like "Kelsey" (posing as a dead woman).

Would this type of check go against your personal morals? I.e. would you see this as some kind of privacy breach, even though you're searching the same database which already has this information?

(This example is for a UK driving licence, but I'm guessing there are similar options for other forms of ID.)

The 10-year-old example was extreme, but valid I could consider allowing people to upload a picture next to their ID as an option to get an upgraded "verified user" status. I still need to be careful that this doesn't lead to a false sense of security or implied endorsement from the site.

I still think it's so interesting how against the checkmark people were just a couple of years ago when we started requiring it, citing an invasion of privacy. And now people want more data behind it.

They basically told us we had to collect ID's for people uploading explicit content and dropped the discussion. We were given no training or anything like that. I believe the whole thing was really to satisfy the lawyers and the banks, and there was no real intent on helping us be able to really prove identities. So I'm just doing what's required of compliance with our billers and that's all.


I don't want any adult site owner typing my information anywhere. I already promised the people who have submitted their information to me that I wouldn't do that. It's in the Privacy Policy agreement (TOS), so that's why I'm so committed to not sharing their information in any way, shape, or form. If at some point in the future I have to start verifying ID's or other information, that will be a big inflection point for this site and I'll be open to all kinds of 3rd party verification systems and API's. But for now I am one of the last holdouts of absolutely protecting user information, and it's getting harder because it seems like fewer people care about that.

Dude you are like 3 scammers ago late with this worry. Some of the replies indicate that is already assumed by the check.

All you are doing is a basic SQL like query against an existing database. You are not adding anything to the database. At the end of the day it only takes 1 improperly verified ID to shut the stores down. Are the store owners here and content providers comfortable with that kind of risk?

I would be willing to bet that people are already typing your name in searches in all kinds of databases. There are probably even people who lurk this site that have more information about you than what you are comfortable with. As you live in the US your name, address and possible relatives are already in multiple databases. I would say your social media accounts as well, but you don't have any if I remember right. Do a search on yourself.

I'm saddened that some people had that false sense of security, but I don't know why they do! Like I said, we all discussed that for months when the requirement came out, and the system was developed in front of everyone's eyes. You were here. Everybody was clear on the fact that the entire approach was to keep the information safe and in-house, and nothing has changed since then. So now I'm reminding people of what it's NOT for.


The request will likely be logged somewhere on their systems. I don't know their systems and can't guarantee that their personal information won't eventually pop up somewhere else in association with UMD. That's what data miners do.


That's not quite how it works. We stay in compliance and if we were ever defrauded and blamed for it, we can prove that we had already done what was required of us. Not saying that more precautions wouldn't be welcome to be considered, but legal exposure while a concern takes a back seat to getting everybody on the same page with this.


Right, I don't want to lower my standards to that level. I'll continue to respect my users' information even as the rest of the world doesn't.

How many of those hippie calories were in that gummy you ate before typing this? It is a little paranoid to think that a site that has information is going to some how get tied to the UMD. That is like saying that thumbing through the white pages is going to give the phone company the year, make and model of your vehicle.