Hold up. He wanted to pay you 150 dollars for a shoot and you provide all the supplies or am I reading this wrong?

Hi everyone. Kelsey Rose has deleted their account today. But I need to clarify again to everyone to always please be careful with anyone you deal with. I do everything I reasonably can to verify store owners, including requiring a government ID, a W9, and some other info, but I do not run actual background checks on any of you. I will do research on any user here upon request, but no site owner can be privy to or responsible for what everyone is doing off-site! Please do your own vetting of the people you deal with.

Also note that some accounts are run by business entities that may carry the title of a person's name. As long as they are not being actively deceptive it's acceptable, and that's standard practice on a lot of accounts. If we find they are deceiving people of UMD, we will remove them.

Thanks

Wow. Incredible commitment to the con

I think anyone verified can just start a store.

To me there are two issues. 'Verification' on UMD is filing that the legal entity (i.e. person) is a person with a real name and real address. You upload your ID and address and it goes on file. I don't think that there is any actual real verification beyond that (I'm happy to be corrected) - I suspect it's just to meet minimum standards to be legally compliant.

The other is that uploading an ID and having an online persona are two different things. I can start a store and call it, say, "SloppySally", and have my model as the face of it, and people will just assume my name is Sally and I'm a dedicated wammer doing it out of love, because it fits with their fantasy of amateurs doing it out of love. I think we need some sort of disclaimer on profiles with stores, essentially warning people that the person in the picture isn't necessarily the person they are messaging.

What Todd (if that is his real name) did with Kelsey Rose goes beyond all this, obviously...

With all due respect, this offense took place on this site (unless we are saying that falsifying records/submitting a fake Id to the site admins has nothing to do with this site now) so this does not remove the burden of responsibility that leadership has on this forum to present a safe atmosphere when it involves the safety of the models who frequent this site.

I gotta lot of love for you, dude, and I know you do a lot but no. That doesn't work

Correct. $150 for the shoot, including supplies, labor, filming, etc. I do my videos all by myself without any assistance -- aka it's A LOT of work for one girl.

Wow just wow I really want to know who this profile got through the net.

If I'm not happy with the explanation my site on this site WILL be closed, I will spend the next 48-72hrs making a decision.

To clarify, I wasn't only offended by Richie's lowball price. But that you basically prey off of the lack of self-respect/insecurity that women have, and use that to your advantage to lowball them.

From what I understand, this "offense" took place with other people and wherever "she" did business. UMD is not the sole arbiter of a person's authenticity and we have no proof that any records were falsified. I require the documents that I legally require, and I will research every single flag, but I don't go any further than that for privacy reasons.

Admin note: I deleted the photo of the deceased party's memorial. Out of respect for the privacy of the individual who has nothing to do with these circumstances I have removed the image.

Kudos for that catch as this thread morphs into... whatever it's going to morph into.

Usually how UMD threads go

If anyone has questions or comments you can pass them along to me or any other admin.

Well this was a rabbit hole I wasn't expecting to fall down when I logged on...

Slop Slut, you are a champion here.

This is a horrible and disgusting thing that is leaving a lot of us feeling bad and abused and likely worse, but your actions have made this a safer space for everyone, and I think that's really important to recognize. As such a niche / boutique community, it's important that we're able to vet each other, trust each other, and take care of each other.

Super stoked to have you as a friend, and even more excited / motivated to be an active community member and make sure this shit doesn't happen in the future.

More UMD drama?

It's not the money that's the main issue it was the back handed compliment saying hey you have more self respect than most women I deal with.

I do have to say it's a bit of a red flag.

I am getting more and more concerned about this community and how we say bad people in every group. This is true but we seem to have way more than our fair share and some are going to extremes.

Dude. 100's of thousands of happy users, and if somebody acts up like once a year, and even does it off-site, it's UMD's fault!

Appreciate all you do MM, and take your point about things happening off site.

However, would you be able to clarify please - was Kelsey's UMD profile verified using identity documents belonging to a man or a woman?

Their business documents were submitted to me in confidence, and as far as I can tell they were legit. Now, the business they were running out there? I have no clue. But on the backend I had no red flags at all. Beyond that I'm not at liberty to discuss any producer's docs, and gender isn't a consideration there anyway.

Verification of age needs to be done for all models appearing in scenes. In this case, the aforementioned party never appeared in any content as they did not exist, therefore validation of a specific model was not needed.

As was mentioned before, some of these accounts are businesses and thus operators are not necessarily the advertised parties shown in content. Therefore it could be assumed that names on official records may not reflect the name of the user. As well, many of us don't use our real names here and some of us don't use profile pictures of ourselves.

Finally, the former user stated in a post they may have used a fake ID. With this it's extremely difficult to verify the validity of identification from a photo. The verification system as is exists for compliance and record keeping purposes, not as an identity verification system, which would most certainly be a grotesque invasion of privacy for individual users.

When the problem is repetitive (I would only wish it was once a year, Chantelle was just a few months ago), don't get mad when users bring up legitimate concerns. Forgive me if I don't wanna wait until a model's face is in the news with this forums name attached to it before we decide to actually be proactive about it.

Not once anyone said it's anyones fault. We asked for an explanation and then when you chimed in, I then asked for something more to be done about it. I really don't see how that is unreasonable considering it's the models who assume majority of the risks creating this content.

This is a person who put themselves in positions of power over women in vulnerable situations under false pretenses. At least acknowledge the inherent problem with that and then we can have a discussion.

As stated, C4S does this for studio owners. Is it a pain? Yes. Does it prevent any sort of abuse? Absolutely but their compliance dept is literally dedicated to simply that. Compliance paperwork and studio admissions. Something MM doesn't have access to.

As I said in the other thread, I think all users being verified in this manner is overkill but studios, producers, models who sells content on this site? Absolutely. I have no idea how such a verification could be accomplished but I guess I could ask Liz River and see if she knows.

Maybe the real Kelsey Rose was the mess made along the way..

I wonder if CHH ever got the retro-themed custom he wanted.

I think everyone needs to know that as far as "Kelsey" needing to submit an ID to be verified, that can be easy to manipulate. If this person was actually hiring models and filming them, then he was able to get their ID to keep on file. I have to give copies of my ID and other docs to other producers every time I film. Every performer does, I think it's a federal law to do so. So he could have easily gotten a number of legit IDs to use for this kind of thing. I don't have to do more than that for every website I earn money on. Just submit an ID and bank info and the 2 don't have to match now with electronic transfers, some business account can be where payments go to. So I understand that you're all upset about this, but every other site uses the same verification process. This isn't a background check or an extensive application process. I mean, no one in the adult industry is going to try and make it harder to sell porn. It's not a perfect system, but that's what it is.

So model releases are a standard in the industry although C4S is really starting to clamp down on what is considered an acceptable release doc. Apparently they are demanding new criteria for all model release paperwork as well as creating a full model profile before you can submit a clip for approval (and they do worm through each clip for violations, ask me how I know).

And technically, you are correct. A producer has that ability which is why C4S makes studios submit THIER IDs in addition to 2 photos of themselves and run a soft check to confirm their identity. IF a producer decides to act unprofessionally and sell content they are not supposed to, you can be sure it won't be C4S who gets hit with the lawsuit.

As for the "harder to sell porn" bit, you would be surprised. C4S is getting there. Onlyfans isn't far behind. Do a simple search about their compliance rules and it will tell you where this is all heading because people can't be good humans and act right. While yeah, they want to make selling smut as easy as they can, no one wants to risk their foothold in the industry over one sale that could potentially sink their entire site.

I also find this response from MM inappropriately flippant given the seriousness of what's happened here. Not saying any of this is his fault, of course, but he could certainly show a lot more consideration for the many people who fell prey to Kelsey's machinations than he does with remarks like this.

MM: "If somebody acts up like once a year, and even does it off-site, it's UMD's fault! "

Kelsey Rose and the guy behind "wamchantelle" weren't just two people "who acted up once this year." Kelsey was a very active and influential member of the Messy Forum for three years running. And wamchantelle -- or at least the guy running the account with her name and image on it -- has been around for, what, something close to two decades? These deceptive practices have clearly been ONGOING situations, and they've been going on for literally years, possibly decades in the case of wamchantelle.

Just because Kelsey was only "found out" yesterday doesn't mean "she" can be dismissed as a tiny little flare-up that happened briefly in late April 2024. A lot of people who have exposed private information to "her" over the course of the last three or more years are now left feeling vulnerable and violated. I believe there are many others who felt the same way in their dealings with the dude behind wamchantelle.

I find myself agreeing completely with this statement. It feels all to close to the last topic that pulled me into this forum, in that while I haven't seen anything suggesting that the guy behind "Kelsey" took physical advantage of his talent, this kind of bait-and-switch situation is almost the textbook set-up for that particular kind of nightmare. "Kelsey's" lasting presence on this site even highlights the fact that we could go for years supporting that kind of troublesome set-up and might not know it until it's far too late...

...which has happened before. Not THAT long ago. One time is too many.

Talent age verification just isn't going to be enough - without some way of making sure that talent has a way to notify the community of abuse or other suspect circumstances, we can't do our part to protect them AND we can't protect ourselves from unethically-sourced content. That may be a lot of work, but it's simply a necessary part of vetting content producers who want to do business here. As long as UMD is getting anything at all from hosting stores, it has the responsibility to uphold basic ethical standards. That makes things better for producers (who would then be able to head off any attacks on their legitimacy or business practices) and users (who wouldn't be worried about buying from someone whose practices they'd otherwise not support). That makes the site as a whole better.

That needs to be the take-home message - yes, it's hard to keep track of both producers and all of their active talent, and we need to find a way to do it anyway.

As a final note, I do certainly hope that Rich has good luck and any assistance he needs in recovering from any damage done to his reputation and relationships on this site. There's not much worse than getting worked over for being right.

Disappointed but in hindsight not really that surprised.

There was always those 'too good to be true/you are literally a male wammer's dream woman' vibes, but that mostly went away for me when she called out Leon and those who were so fiercely defending him, and was also super supportive of me coming out as a transwoman, and chatted to me regularly when I still identifying and living as a male. Normally when a man does something as depraved and disrespectful as pretend to be a woman to prey on others they're the kind of man to defend a sex offender, not want to be near another man with a barge pole, and insist transwomen aren't 'real' woman. She made her boundaries clear on her profile/on Fet. It was enough, especially when she posted a picture claiming to be her that looked 'close enough' to the person in her profile pic, for me to shrug it off and think 'hey, maybe women can be sexual and deviants , it's outdated and sexist to assume only a man would be this open about their interests.' What bothers me is for how long it went on when it seems a lot of people, myself included, were skeptical but just pushed it aside. Literally the only solace is clearly I wasn't the only one who thought I was having interactions with a supportive, open women

I'm more worried about the behaviour on other places like Fet - writing full on erotica under the name Kelsey, essentially writing self insert fanfic scat and intense mess/sex stuff pretending to be/using the image of a dead woman. That's not just scumbag or predator, that's fucking demented.

Been thinking about all of this overnight.

First off it's clear that "Kelsey" was trusted by multiple actual women here, and that's a major trust breach. It does seem that people were reading far more into UMD verification than is actually the case, and that's clearly an issue that needs to somehow be addressed, and not just by statements in this thread that'll be all-but forgotten in a few months time. I've no idea how that can be done, but it's definitely a thing. My gut instinct is "never believe anyone is really real unless you've met them or at least done a skype/facebook/teams/zoom video call with them." But then do people want to risk their contact details with strangers? But clearly people need to be made aware, on an ongoing basis, that verification is not any kind of gold standard of trustability.

Second, comparing C4S with UMD is like comparing the Death Star (crew, 300,000, doubtless including entire phalanxes of compliance people) with the Millineum Falcon (crew 2, occasional extra passengers). Plus the idea of having to upload model data, as well as producer data, should be utterly abhorrent to anyone who cares about model privacy or identity theft. It's the producers responsibility to ensure they've verified their talent(s) ID, and then the site's responsibility to verify their producers. I don't even know if I legally could upload model ID data to a US site without breaking UK data protection laws.

Third, suggestions to do third party site ID checks - 3.1, would that even work for non-US people? 3.2, identity theft risk again.

Fourth: No matter how strict the checks one someone first signing up or opening a store are, that doesn't offer any protection against things changing down the line. I'm pretty sure when Chantelle's profile was first set up that it really was her, or at least her and her then partner operating it together. But over the years her activity levels varied, and she changed partners at least once. Ditto Jessie - the eventual downfall was caused by things her then b/f did using her account who wasn't even around when she first started. No amount of strict ID checking could have prevented either of those situations. Perhaps MM could do a video call with each new store owner - but even that doesn't protect against one person doing the setup, and then someone else taking over once it's up and running.