This has all been said already. This is why I said "reduce". I have already said in a number of posts that there is no "miracle pill". I have already stated that there is a fail rate to any solution. No one is saying "find us a magic bullet". We are trying to find something that can reduce the likelihood of someone abusing the system and getting viable ideas that Messmaster can actually implement that is a healthy balance between his desire to respect the privacy of the users and the needs of everyone else.

It needs to be stated that there is still a prerequisite that people do their due diligence with anyone here. We are not trying to replace that. We are trying to make it easier to filter out the trash before they get to the gate. Kelsey literally walked through the door and became WOTD and worked along side with models and studios alike and it probably would have never happened if "her" id was photo verified. Filthy Girl is onto something.

Yes, someone with enough ingenuity can defeat any system. That doesn't mean we don't make the effort to try and find a solution. I think we can all agree that the community deserves that much here.

No system is foolproof nor will it be. There are always situations that can happen based on control of an account. To use all these situations as an example, most of the people that have ripped off users in some fashion have been verified accounts. Would users have been as trusting if the accounts weren't verified?

I like the ideas around a 3rd party system. Some of the ones I have read about, each user pays for their own verification. Then on some sites you send a link to a person. That link only includes verifying information that the user chose to share. That would make a lot of things easier. I am not sure if that type of verification is acceptable for store owners. I have read where these types of verification methods have been used at the DMV to renew a drivers license.

With the identity theft. The most recent time my ID was stolen was from a hospital. I explicitly told then not to share my information in their stupid ass portal that was ran by some Facebook API. Guess who ignored me and how my ID was stolen and medical info leaked to Facebook. If you have applied for a utility bill, drivers license, credit card, rewards program etc your information is already out there ripe for the plucking in the hands of entities you cannot control and rarely face any meaningful consequences. They also do not compensate you for this or the numerous bot calls you will now get because of their lax security.

TBH I agree that Filthy Girl's idea would be a definite improvement and should be a requirement, as that is the standard most places for ID images now.

BUT - I honestly don't think that would have stopped Kelsey, or any of the ChrisBot models, or anyone else - they'll just persuade someone of the appropriate gender to pose with the fake ID they've made - there are lots of places someone could get that done for the price of a couple of drinks. Or even not use a fake ID at all, just borrow one from a friend, or pay someone unscruplous to use theirs. If someone gets off on doing something, they will put very serious amounts of effort and/or money into making it happen.

The problem is if we have systems that at first glance look hard to beat - effectively security theatre - it actually makes the risk worse, not better. Even more people will think "well you have to make a serious effort to get verified, so I can assume this person really is who they say they are" - when in fact there is no guarentee, nor any way to make a guarentee, that the person who went through the verification process is the one at the other end of the chat.

The green ticks have already made people trust more than they should. Any beefing up of the system will likely result in more people falling into the same trap, not fewer.

I suspect the best answer is probably that whatever welcome email people get when they join should include a prominent warning that not everyone is who they seem to be and that users are responsible for checking and verifying anyone they interact with, and that profiles can and are operated by more than one person.

I feel deeply for those who were taken in by Kelsey and shared personal info, that is a truly horrible position to be put in. But I don't think any of the things being proposed will actually stop it happening again, and I don't think there's anything UMD can do to stop it happening again, because the problem is people, not technology. And if we (the community) make it look like it's more secure than it is, we're actually making the problem worse, not better.

It seems like it would help with a few cases where a person could:

* Use the ID of a deceased person
* Use the ID of a sibling or friend
* Use a stolen ID, or any case where their photo ID will not match their face

It does not help where a person could:

* Use a forged ID.
* Use the ID and photo of a significant other for a shared account where the male user runs the female account and chat.

To be honest, if this was implemented, it would make no difference to me. No 3rd party background checks would either. I do not trust the people that I talk with anyways, but it does not matter because I do not let the gender of the person that I am talking to manipulate me into sending them cash or personal info (aka catphishing). None of the producers that I talk with use their gender or language to manipulate me.

This idea does nothing to protect the community from unverified users that are catphishes. I have seen this before on this forum. I forgot the exact details, but it was a post about person needing cash or gift cards to travel home to see her children in a different state. I reported the post as "Illegal - scam" and it was deleted. I see a lot of unverified people who concern me, and they may decide to verify in the future and keep their fake identity, profile images, and photo albums.

What I would like is a report option for catphish (or false identities). Or should I just use "needs attention"? For example - this user https://umd.net/saraxy . Not necessarily a catfish, but a fake account. I reverse searched this user's image and found it belonged to a defunct onlyfans creator. The bottom onlyfans link is cut off in the image they uploaded to this forum. This profile just has a link to some website. Let us report users that we think are not legitimate, and that might help on a review case like this in the future where the user is caught extorting or being manipulative. It could be used as evidence for when a decision is made to ban a user. People should not be banned from a few reports, but the information could be useful in a case like this.

I would currently report https://umd.net/saraxy as a catphish due to the defunct onlyfans photo I found. If a "female" user dm me asking for me to buy them a gift card so they will send me nudes, I will report them as a catphish. If a producer sent a message admitting to me that they were actually a male user, I would report them. A set of guidelines could be created for when to report someone, and it should be based on evidence and not suspicion. Evidence could include language in dm. People should not abuse the reporting.

If I have evidence and report someone, it would be nice to receive a message about how many other users reported the user, like "Thanks for your report. It has been documented. 14 other people reported this user for catphish behavior. Be careful.". Perhaps a person should be notified when the receive a certain number of catphish reports against them so that that could make a public forum post to address concerns. Perhaps a person becomes suspended if they reach a higher limit, and are required to photo ID again, or maybe their reports count becomes public.

I don't know "Kelsey Rose". I never messaged this user. I have no idea how this person behaved. Would people on this forum have reported this user for catphishing? Was there more evidence? Or did this person pull off their deception really well and it took some really hard evidence to prove it?

Can a user verify as a male with a male ID and a male selfie, then change the profile gender to female? (I am not talking about more complex trans cases where it is acceptable) I see it is an option in my profile which it looks like I can change, but I will not try.

Yes, I believe so. (MessMaster can give you a definitive answer.)

However, it can also be done more simply: set up a profile as female, then verify with male ID. I.e. the person who supplies ID can be completely separate to the person whose name/photo is on the account. Whether that's good or bad is a matter of opinion...

I am wondering about this rule: https://umd.net/termsofservice/#imposters


What do I do if I think someone is an imposter but I have no evidence? Either verified or unverified.

For example, this user https://umd.net/sammyxx94xx who got images from https://twitter.com/sammyprivxx such as the their profile photo https://twitter.com/sammyprivxx/status/1764676493446099321 . The links of the real sammyrosex can be found here - https://beacons.ai/sammyrosex

Is this the real sammyrosex? If it is real, I am sorry. All of the images came from twitter. I have no evidence, so what do I do?

I could write on this person's profile "If you are the real sammyrosex, please prove it. Followers please report if you have evidence that this is an imposter". Again, if this is the real sammyrosex that has a genuine interest in wam, I am really sorry. I feel like the fact that I have to apologize shows part of the problem that it feels very rude to call out someone for being fake when all I want to do is to prevent people from being manipulated or scammed. Maybe I could phrase it differently like "Hey is this the real sammyrosex from twitter?" on their wall to hint to other users that it might be fake without calling it fake.

Or do I just report it as "Needs attention"?

I realize this is not about verification, but I didn't want to create a separate thread. There is nothing stopping unverified people from being deceptive and using images from random people on the internet or generated synthetic images. The only tool that we have for this is is report. There are some unverified producers that have an external site or store. Nothing is stopping an unverified producer from creating a female account and being a male imposing as a female.

Does anyone miss the days when anyone female was automatically assumed to be a fake?

No, me neither. As a collective, this site has moved on quite a lot in the last 10 or so years. If the occasional elaborate deception is the price we pay for believing women, I think it's maybe a price worth paying.

I also fear being doxxed more than I fear being duped. I would never want my data being passed to a third party and I'm actually hesitant about uploading it at all.

This idea based on a dated ID selfie, and a disclaimer on profiles, is in my view all that's needed.

I am sorry to tell you that your data is already being passed around and bartered on by telemarketers and scammers. Google yourself and pay for one of the reports. See what is out there already about yourself.

But not in relation to the WAM fetish. Everyone knows general data provided to large companies gets shared around. But that's not what this is about. There is a difference between having a Tesco clubcard and having the fact you're a member of a niche fetish website leaked.

Plus, given that it is completely impossible to ensure the person who verified an account is the person operating it day to day, adding a bunch of security theatre makes the problem of people falling for deceptive operators worse, not better.

Sally the WAM Girl signs up an account, and verifies it with fully valid ID and a third party identity check.

Sally the WAM Girl does a video call with MM to prove she is who she says she is and a real woman.

The instant the call is over, Sally the WAM girl hands control of the account to CreepLord McScammy, who then operates it exclusively himself while Sally the WAM girl is in fact just one of his models.

How would **any** verification system prevent that?

You have misunderstood my point. I was talking about the data this site has about me, not data in general.

I am seriously missing something here. Multiple people have associated a verification check with somehow associating with this site. None of the verification checks I have done has asked what the check was in relation to. Hell, I did a look up on a dude I was looking at buying a car from. The site had no clue I was doing it for a car sale. I just had to agree to their terms saying I would not use it to stalk someone etc. There is not really anything these sites gather that would relate to a random fetish site.

Yes! I agree this extra step is crucial.

In theory, there are ways it could be cross-referenced, e.g. if all the searches (verification checks) come from the same IP address as the UMD website, or if cookies are shared between websites.

In practice, I don't personally see that being a significant concern, but it's not my decision to make.

Can't you add into practice that if a producer/storefront is going to have a front facing identity to represent their brand/name that that individual's ID has to be verified so it's clear they have the right to do so?

This wouldn't include stores that rotate their profile pictures to be models they've filmed with (and I agree these type of stores should be labeled store instead of a gender)

Just because something has "always been that way" doesn't mean it can't change and obviously in this situation it should be. What are the barriers to changing it?

For us American forum members, Tesco would be like Costco

The IP address is associated with a domain. I am sure there is a computer behind the IP address, but I don't think that is one that MM would use. I am assuming that the site is hosted in the cloud. I am pretty sure that MM does not login to the web server hosting the UMD and surf the internet.

The only cookies I can think of that would be shared with other sites from the UMD are tracking cookies. The main use for those is advertisements. Like seeing ads for things you looked at on Amazon in an ad on your local news website. Sure Amazon could take measures like what MM has to help prevent cookie trackers from reading things on there. The other place cookies would be used is to track your website activity between sites is like for example, if you click on a youtube link from UMD. Depending on the link it may show a redirect or a reference to the place the link was clicked on. Like someone having a discount code in their special link.

Honestly, there is a bigger threat from spyware or malware being on your computer and the bad actor wanting your cookies to try and steal your identity by using the places you visit. Then setting up a phishing campaign based on those websites to trick you into putting your password in somewhere.

There is a bigger risk of thieves breaking into MM's house and stealing the external hard drive and decrypting it to get the ID jpgs that people have sent in than there is a site used for verification tracking your ID to the UMD.

^This

Are people seriously suggesting that users' profile pictures should be a real picture of themselves?

On a publicly accessible fetish site.

For a fetish that is really quite weird.

Am I missing something?

I don't think anyone has suggested that it should be mandatory for everyone to post a photo of themselves. What we're saying is that you shouldn't use a photo of someone else (or an AI generated image) and claim that it's you.
NB That's not you personally (thereald), just the general "you".

So, I think there are 4 options for your profile picture:
a) Use a photo of yourself.
b) Use a photo of a model you've worked with and mark it clearly as a model.
c) Use a picture that doesn't look like a real person (e.g. a jug of custard).
d) Don't have a profile picture at all.

Enforcing this rule is a separate question, which then comes back to the purpose of this thread (i.e. a different type of verification badge).

Just to play devil's advocate. Strictly speaking, did 'Kelsey Rose' ever explicitly claim the profile picture was them? Or did everyone just assume it?

An awful lot of people have profile pictures of a favourite scene (I used to), or an iconic piece of 'mainstream wam', or a clearly not them AI image (like I currently do) - are you saying these need to go?

Take a look at this discussion:
https://umd.net/forums/ycdtotv-retro-slime-scenes

"Kelsey" never explicitly said "I am the person in my profile picture" (in those exact words), but it was strongly implied.


If it was up to me then yes. Or at the very least, the profile picture should have some kind of label on it to say "This is not me".

How about we flip it, so that if users want to state that the photo is of them, they have a label that says "this is a photo of me" - and have that be verified as an optional additional verification step, if they want it.

Anyone without the label we can assume to be not who they appear if we so wish, and anyone who is happy to be public can be verified as being them. (after all, they are saying that they are happy for their photo to be in public).

(Except this wouldn't work, as several people have mentioned - as soon as verification was done, control of the account could be transferred to someone else.)

Sorry to be a downer, but everyone seems to be missing the point - we can have all the rules and verification we want, but there is NOTHING any of us can do that prevents a verified account being operated by someone else. The only way that could be achieved would be if you had to have some kind of biometric device or facial regcognition camera active every time before you could log in. Which simply isn't going to happen.

MM is not law enforcement. There is nothing he can do to force people to follow rules.

And as SlapstickStuff has just posted elsethread, this has all happened before, many times, all the way back to Phoebe 25 years ago.

Requiring both ID and a headshot of th person holding that ID, Filthy Girl's suggestion at the start of this thread, would help a bit. But it would be foolish to think that it will in any way prevent another Kelsey situation from happening. Better to educate new people to never assume that anyone in an online forum is genuinely who they appear to be. Sad, but sadly necessary.

Interestingly enough the biometric device stuff is how the Chinese are trying to enforce restrictions on kids playing too much video games. It works sometimes. But is beatable.

Honestly, I think we should remove any indication of anything that might be misconstrued as some kind of trust. We now know that there is nothing verified with the accounts. It is just a check that says verified to satisfy billing companies that a jpg claiming to be an ID was sent in. People are used to social media companies signifying legitimate accounts or trusted accounts with some kinds of positive marking. This would also apply to moderators as well as all accounts with a special indication should be questioned. Unfortunately, you are more likely to be scammed, taken advantage of etc by people with an indication that they are not just the normal user account.

For these conversations - we are only referring to stores/producers that are verified and especially those using actual photos to serve as their front facing persona.

Also I gently encourage you to not say this fetish is quite weird - it really isn't, society has just perceived it that way and lets all encourage each other to take the stigma of it being weird away

Store owners have lives outside this site and shouldn't be forced out of public anonymity. I think any user should be able to have any picture, especially a producer having a 'main model' that is the face of their store. Changing the requirements on profile pictures won't prevent another hoax user, it will just change the nature of the next hoax.

Sorry to disagree, but in a very real everyday sense, this fetish is weird. I have no shame about who I am, but this is a weird fetish to have. It's odd, peculiar. Unusual. Weird.

No one is saying the store front or producer needs to display their real identity but for verification purposes to the site administrator, they need to prove the the owner of the account is the person on the ID they submitted. If that is a model who sells content or here or a producer like myself, we would require photo identification as well as photo verification that the person on the ID is in fact the account holder. (Ie taking a selfie while holding the license clearly visible in the shot)

A few replies were veering that way, so that's why I brought it up. Saying things to the effect of "either it's a photo of you or if not it needs to be an inanimate object". So I'm glad no-one's saying it, because for a while it looked like a couple of people might be.

Even in that bit you paraphrased, there's an alternative ("either X or Y"). Have you seen anyone who's actually said "You must go public with your true photo, no exceptions"? If not, stop scaremongering.

I wasn't scaremongering, but I was concerned with people seemingly wanting greater security at the expense of privacy. I was simply asking a question - and the answer has been no, which is reassuring.

The freedom to create a safe, anonymous online persona on a forum like this is a freedom I cherish and hold dear. If I were to start a store, I'd still like that freedom to have a (publicly) anonymous persona.