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.

I really don't see the point of the verified green check. It leads to a false sense of trust. Calling it verified is also extremely misleading based on statements made surrounding the process. Get rid of the false sense of security and let people try to navigate using their gut. I think there could be something like a blue bold title store owner for those accounts. Much like the orange offers customs.

I feel you but no one said it was. If a good and genuine effort was made to safeguard from this happening again, I don't think anyone would say a peep (and if they did, they would look foolish pretty quick). It is the fact that we are under a 6 month span from the last incident, where we discussed the EXACT SAME THING and nothing has been done and the same "Ho hum" attitude is present towards it. If the effort was there, I would be the first person to tell people that and tell everyone to chill the ef out.


Pretty sure I covered this when I said that the resources required surpass a single man crew that MM operates (maybe you missed it). I also said in another thread that models who work UNDER a production is the producers responsibility. I am suggesting anyone who operates a store and sells content on here (Studio or individual) should require it.

As for data protection laws, many sites require the same prerequisites, not just C4S. Obviously for adult restricted content, if the site operates in your country, then yes, I am sure there is an exemption so you can safely upload that information.

As for the abhorrent idea of uploading model's release paperwork and ID's, you know what is more abhorrent? Having to jump through hoops trying to find a venue or CC processor to sell your videos because some stupid site didn't have the common sense to see someone trying to coerce underage women into doing content because they had no measures in place, so we are ALL paying for it (Yeah we are looking at you PH)

We are all gonna have to accept some hard truths and one of those truths is in this day and age where sex for commerce takes place, you just can't go by the honor system. You just can't and if you try, this same issue is just going to continue popping up but with potentially worse outcomes.


Again, we are not asking for a miracle pill. We are asking for an effort.


THIS is what I am talking about! THAT is effort. THAT is viable. I think that is out of the box and with some adjustments and discussion has the potential to be effective. Thank you! Genuinely!

Big oof, dude.

I'm not going to stand here and declare what should be done by you or if blame should be attributed your way - I don't know the full story.

But it's obvious people are hurt and upset by this and are turning to you with questions, so to respond and essentially go "not my problem" and then sign off with a laughing emoji seems incredibly tactless.

I'm not going to dredge up the past here, but historically this site has been terrible at handling issues like this, and this isn't helping the perception.

If I had a nickel for every time it was revealed either a prominent account wasnt actually the presented 'person' or the account was run by multiple people and serious problems happened because of one of them, I'd have a couple of nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened a couple of times.

i think MM does the best he can and meets all the legal requirements he has to, to operate this delightful community. anything further than that would likely be stepping into a privacy minefield with nothing but a spoon to keep safe. remember, even govts have flirted with stricter access controls to adult material and it's always exploded in their collective faces.

on the actual topic of the non-person, i wondered "who?" at first then the ol' neurons sparked up and i realized that i recognized the name from the old wam library (the one that was on tapatalk) as 'they' were fairly prominent there and had even done sanctioned rewrites and edits for at least one author.

seems like almost every time i peer into off-topic, there's a thread exposing a well known account for serious issues.

I didn't mean to sound flippant, and I did address your other concerns in other replies. My point is that these people exist out there, and when they do us dirty it seems to be framed as UMD's oversight. As I spend all day and night running this site and protecting its people, having one bad apple appear about once a year and getting the entire site or community blamed for them is frustrating and hurtful. It's horrible when we discover those people, but not affective to misdiagnose the problem. That's all I meant.

Listen, I've always been clear on what the verification system entails. You submit your license and 2257 records to us but they never leave my possession, are not stored online, and I don't run any background checks or anything like that. This is the limit of what I can do before linking UMD to 3rd party services to upload your information, which I am extremely hesitant to do. Everyone still has to be careful with who they deal with and do their own due diligence. If anyone has suspicions about another user, you can always flag them or message me directly, or we can come together on the forums to discussion.

Not sure what statements you're referring to? I believe I've been consistent in explaining it for years. The full explanation is on the verification form that you fill out. Also if you click any of the green checks, it takes you to an FAQ of what verification entails. If one assumes that it does more than it does, I'm not sure how to fix that.


And it'll probably happen again in another 6 months to a year! We are doing all we can NOW to prevent it, but there is no 100% foolproof system against an entire world of shady people. This is why we have the forums, and I allow everybody to speak their minds when something like this happens, so they can share the information to be able to protect themselves. There was no "ho hum" attitude. I have dedicated my LIFE to this site and the people on it, and I'm on here every day working behind the scenes as best I can. Do you know how much work is actually being done, and how much fraud actually does get prevented? UMD's community does more to stop fraud and piracy, I bet, than all other forums out there combined.

Unless I'm misreading things, it sounds like there are a few related themes that are coming up.

First and most obvious is the fact that a lot of people are hurt and upset. I'm not one of those people myself (even though I interacted with "Kelsey" here and elsewhere), but I understand where they're coming from. And, like, even if we accomplish nothing else, I think we should at least let those people know that we hear them and that their reaction is valid and makes sense. (...instead of, say, trying to laugh it off or downplay it.)

A related point is the ambiguity around the word "verified." To me (and apparently several others), asking for government ID and then using the word "verified" suggests that there is some actual verification process occurring. Evidently that's not the case. I'm not gonna say that there should be such a process, necessarily; I haven't thought it through yet and in any case I don't believe that I personally should dictate logistical policy to the UMD. That being said, it sure feels like it might at least be a good idea to update the little verification FAQ for us peons so that we have a clear, unambiguous idea of what it means to interact with "verified" people. (To wit: you're just interacting with someone who uploaded an ID, regardless of whether that ID was ever theirs or whether the same person is still running that account.) If the admins think it's reasonable to go one step further, they might even consider renaming "verified" to something that's less liable to cause confusion.

And then, like... at some point it might be really important for a lot of people here to have an honest conversation about why so many of us are drawn to fakes in the first place. What I mean is, people feel betrayed over this stuff because they put their trust specifically into people like "Kelsey," which means there's something about people like "Kelsey" (i.e., fakes) that seems appealing or trustworthy to a lot of us. You can blame this on naivete or stupidity if you want, but my feeling is that insulting people doesn't get us any closer to supporting one another as individuals or the community as a whole.

Just speaking personally, my experience with the UMD has been that there are a lot of people here who are mature and honest members of the community, a lot of people who are excited about the fetish, a lot of people who are scared or ashamed of the fetish, a lot of people who are hurting because of general life stuff, and a handful of very prominent fakes. (These are not mutually exclusive categories.) I don't know what it is that keeps the fakes in business, so to speak, but I'm guessing it has something to do with the painful stuff, and if that's true then I know for sure that people are missing out on the opportunity to connect with the members of the community who can actually give them something good and real instead of fucking them around behind a false face.

So those are my thoughts. I don't want to pretend that I have genius solutions, I just feel like every time this happens it shows us that we can be a better community for one another, and I'm hoping that together we can figure out how to get there

I didn't say it wasn't my or our problem. It is our problem to deal with, but we are not the source nor catalyst for what these people do, and that's the stance I want you to understand. I research and handle many cases like this a year, and I do a lot of research based on the flags and information that the community hands to me. Every day I deal with and research all kinds of piracy tips, mediate controversies between producers, kick off unsavory people, and on and on. It's a constant and intense job. But I do not come on the forums and tout all the work that's being done, because you're here to see wam! So when one person does occasionally defraud us, and I or the community gets blamed for allowing it to have happened, that hurts. I'm in it with you... I was attacked too, and I wish for a way to prevent it, but I'm stuck between a rock an a hard place when considering privacy.

As far as what we can further do, we're doing it! I consider it a feature of this forum to discuss these issues when they do happen. I think a lot of people read it as "another UMD controversy" when it's really "UMD community coming together to protect itself!"

Might I suggest that the root of the problem is the LITERAL word choices here: "verification" and "verified?"

Verified is defined as "make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified." Clearly this is not an accurate description of the ID upload process.

So here is a simple solution. Change the words "verification" or "verified" to something else.

I'm dead serious. Can't Messmaster simply change the terms of service and documentation so that the words "verified", and "verification" are replaced with something else so that people aren't thinking that the ID uploaded is guaranteed to actually be the person holding the account?

If you refer to someone's status officially as "ID uploaded" rather than "verified" in the documentation, there's no mystery there, right? This would do several things:

- provide a literal explanation of what is happening
- make it clear that AN ID is uploaded, not necessarily guaranteeing it is THAT person's ID
- people would not be fooled by the word verified.

Summary: Do not use the words "verified" and "verification" in the Terms of Service and documentation and replace the name of the process with something that is more accurate so that fewer people are confused.

I'm using "verified" because that what was the standard term used around the time that these rules came into place, and it's terminology that the billers recognize. But trust me, the problem is not that people are perusing our Terms of Service and then getting the wrong idea from it, or misinterpreting our verbiage. The issue is that people are just seeing the green checks and making assumptions. We added the checks to mark accounts that have submitted ID's as required by the billers, and that's all they have ever meant. At no time could I ever guarantee that a person behind the keyboard is the person who submitted the ID.

I understand why you are using the word verified and I'm not suggesting that you were guaranteeing that the person behind the keyboard is the person who submitted the ID. But the reality is the word verified does give that connotation, even if the terms of service clearly explain what is happening, and rightly or not, people were interpreting the word "verified" in that way given the comments in this thread.

While it is people's responsibility to read TOS, might I suggest making a pinned announcement, say in Non-WAM, Store-Owners Group and/or UMD Dev emphasizing this point about the IDs? I'm not try to create additional work for you, but given how many people don't seem to understand this point, it might be helpful to have this blared as an announcement too

Yeah, no, it seems unlikely that people are doing a lot of homework. I think that just underscores the need to give people something they can understand intuitively, i.e., without doing work.

So like, yeah, the word "verified" is what other institutions use, either because they're overly optimistic about what it means to submit a jpg of an ID or because they don't care what words mean. (Given that these are corporations, I suspect they just don't care what words mean.) When we chose to import that word into this forum (which we have done; it's not just the checkmarks, we do use the word "verified"), it seems like we maybe didn't understand how people would respond to it. But now we're seeing how people are responding to it, so it seems like maybe a different word is called for. And if people really are thrown off by the checkmark as well, then maybe another visual indicator is called for as well.

Like, if this just means "allowed to post explicit content according to rules established by billing corporations," neither the word "verified" nor the image of a checkmark seem like obvious fits, at least to me. To me, both of those feel like they're connected to ideas of trustworthiness or approval, and it sounds like a lot of other people feel the same way. Like, for me personally I'd rather we steal the explicit "E" thing that music services use or do a little XXX thing or do something else that's more directly related to the rules we're actually establishing and enforcing.

But that's just my perspective. I'd be curious if other people had other suggestions about how to adjust this one part of the forum experience.

I don't really do pinned announcements because they're actually quite ineffective. They are only temporary, the people who need to see them don't, and they just annoy everybody else. Not the vibe. And I would argue that it's not a ton of people who don't understand what verification is; these discussion are usually led by the most vocal of people who don't quite grasp how effective the system otherwise is. That's because we don't tout the successes or all the times we've weeded out fraudulent people all year long, so whenever somebody does turn out to be fraudulent, it reads like a failure of the system.

No matter what verbiage we use instead of "verified," that will not stop people from seeing the green check and reading whatever they want into it. I have already updated the TOS a little bit, but again, referring to that is just not how people work.

Edit: Took me awhile to write a post, by the time I did the conversation had moved on, so I don't want my contribution to move us backwards.

As a customer of yours, something always held me back from purchasing her shoots. And we've followed each other and conversed via Instagram since 2019. The Instagram page posts always seemed disconnected from one another, like some of the bot accounts, unlike, say, Vivi, who was a Facebook friend going back to 2013 when I posted her more tame images. Thanks for the mea culpa, we're all capable of being had and scammed. Live and learn.

Yeah, I was thinking along similar lines. E.g. I met you at one of the London Splunches. Similarly, I met JellynCustard and Penny Banks at the "Pies and Pints" meetups in London, so I know that they really were the people behind their accounts (while they were here).

That's probably not so much help for people in the US, although there might be a transitive element. E.g. if you say that you met producer X in Las Vegas, I'd take your word for it that they're on the level.

As for the green tick, I'll repeat what I said in the other discussion: why do we need it? I.e. why does it need to be visible on the profile picture? If the sole purpose is to say "This person has satisfied the legal requirements imposed by the credit card companies in order to post naked photos", I can infer that by seeing that they've successfully posted naked photos. If someone is verified but never posts naked photos, that status is irrelevant.

It would probably be more meaningful to put a "VIP" badge on the profiles that have paid $10/month. At that point, it's clear what it means, and it might encourage more people to pay for VIP membership (so that they can show off the badge).

Statements that you have made that you do not do any kind of basic verification of anything. ID received, yup. Valid ID, who knows. When you see someone is verified that usually means that it was verified against something to show that there is some legitimacy. I could submit the ID of Charles U Farley with the pentagon as my address and it would be seen as valid and I would be verified.

Maybe I'll just get flamed for this, but I think MM is doing all he can.

"Kelsey" had a convincing fake ID and plenty of other social media presence with many years' worth of matching photos. Do we want MM to run background checks on everyone? Personally I don't want my background searched by some guy who I only know because he happens to share my fetish (and like for the Eagles #GoBirds). If we want him to have video conference calls with every perspective woman or every perspective store owner, that's a major time commitment. Are we all willing to make this a subscription-only forum so he can make managing the UMD his full-time job?

"Kelsey" is a bad person. They abused the system. They orchestrated an impressively in-depth con. While I'm sure new checks will be put into place as a result, I don't see what more could have been done to stop them that wouldn't be an unreasonable level of policing for a free forum. The UMD can be responsible for the content on the board and the videos sold on the forum. And the content WAS real. The videos were real, the girls were real, the slime was real. But I don't see how it's reasonable to expect MM to be responsible for interactions we undertake or personal relationships we form with bad actors off the forum. Just like how the grocery store is responsible for selling me a frozen chicken parm but they're not responsible for assuring me that Mama Lucia is a real person.

We don't know that. In the other thread, "Kelsey" said:

However, that doesn't mean it was convincing; it could have been scrawled in crayon for all we know, and MessMaster hasn't given any details.

More to the point, we don't know whether that ID looked anything like the person in the profile picture. E.g. if "Kelsey" provided ID for a 90 year old man (real or fake), it should be obvious that there's a mismatch with the person they're claiming to be. In that scenario, is it reasonable for MessMaster to flag the account?

If "Kelsey" actually produced fake ID that matched the deceased woman in the profile pictures, that's another matter. But again, we don't know that.

I do all the verification that I'm required to do, and even that was really meant to satisfy the CC companies. Requiring ID will stop a significant amount of fraud, but ultimately it's up to you to verify who you're working with. Verification here was never meant to do more than I said it was. The only way to do more is to submit it to a 3rd party, unless you have other suggestions.

This is why many platforms require two selfies taken of the applicant. Some make you go as far to take selfies holding a piece of paper with your full name and date on it. Others want selfies of you holding your ID so it is clearly visable. It's to help remove all doubt that the ID matches the individual who is trying to open up a studio on their site

I'll only consent if to a background check if MM can beat me in arm wrestling AND if we share the opinion on greatest professional wrestler.


If Mama Lucia isn't real, who have I been spanking it to?

Yeah do a basic check to see if the ID is even valid. I am sure that there are similar systems in other countries like what exists in the states. You do a simple name search and add a city. You get ages and all kinds of information. Is there someone in that city with that name and that age, yes great. No, reject.

I can't upload people's information anywhere because that's against my own TOS for me to do. I'm not sure how else to phrase that.

How do you verify that the ID that was supplied for someone posting nudity is over the age of 18? This comes off like a bartender in court for serving underage people saying "they showed me an ID with the right age".

I am curious why you don't announce the scammers you find. Do a scammers of the month thread. Look back at how many people came forward after the first person with Kaydens. That said I was in that situation too. There is also a chance someone might say hey, that username has other aliases X Y and Z. You might not have known about.

Since the verification ID is only because payment processors require it, why display it for everyone? If they ask, you can say I have ID for user A that you asked about.