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.

Alright, you've hijacked this thread enough. There are people who have lost someone they've considered a close friend, advocate and confidant of sensitive materials. Now it's 20 different responses of you not understanding or accepting what you've been told. MM is prioritizing privacy over oversight on a fetish site. It's really not that complicated. Take it up with him privately if you need to, but no one needs to see your ad hominem replies at this point. This is about people affected by Kelsey Rose not being who she says she was, not your philosophical disagreement.

Well that's not concerning at all given the context of the thread

Another thought on this:

Was the ID used to verify the "Kelsey" account male, or female?

I think the main issue is that people took an account with a green tick and presenting as female, to mean there genuinely was a female user behind the account, and that it had been verified to be female-operated. Now as I've already said there's nothing to stop someone setting up an account and then passing control of it to someone else, but in each of the recent cases the thing that tends to cause problems is:

a) Guys thinking they're talking to a woman when they're actually talking to another guy. Annoying and deceptive but unlikely to do any serious harm.

b) Women entrusting personal information to other people they think are also women, but who arent. And not necessarily anything sexy but more the shared female experience, period issues, and medical stuff - that they'd never share with a male stranger. TBH I see this as worse, as it's a deeper betrayal of trust.

Now we can easily say that people shouldn't read more into verification than it actually is, but the problem is people are going to do so anyway, so we need to be aware and try and mitigate that risk, rather than just going "well everyone should know." And because there's no way to stop another person or people from operating an account after it's been opened, perhaps it should be a small but prominent warning on the personal messages page, "Be aware that other users may not be who they say they are, double check (such as via a video chat) before taking anyone at face value", or something like that.

And note in particular that no amount of super-duper ID checking at the point someone verifies their account will stop them handing it over to their mate / dad / male producer friend / pimp / some random dude from the bar down the street. It's not as if it's even possible to demand that someone submits a fingerprint or passport scan or whatever before they can post a message. So tightening up verification will absolutely not stop things like this happening in the future.

Open possible option I can think of would be some kind of fully verified female-only subsection, which can only be accessed with a "validated female" (which would be a new account tag) account. MM would have to validate the first few users by skype call, but once the forum or group was established, its members could validate other members - so no extra work for MM, but those who want to genuinely be able to converse among other women that they can absolutely trust **are** women (including transwomen but no cis guys), can have a self-policing safe space to do so. It'd work like the Store Owners forum, unless your account is tagged "store owner" you can't access that, likewise only "validated female" accounts would be able to access the Validated Female forum.

Obligatory meme

This...this isn't a philosophical disagreement. Dalamar's tone may be harsh, but he's trying to address some possible answers to the very real problem highlighted by this situation - that being the security loopholes that allow for the possibility of using this site and forum to lure talent into unsecured situations. It's not really something that can be addressed with, "Oh well, nothing I can do because absolute privacy," unless we really want to risk the community being considered too unsafe to work within.

Not to mention that the thread isn't and hasn't ever been (I mean, Nostalgia Erotic Prod.'s first broaching of this topic was about four posts in, and cheers to him for championing this important issue) just commiseration over the deception. I say that as someone who was directly affected by it. I put money toward the "Kelsey" productions with the assumption that it was what it was what it seemed to be, and I carried on conversations with the account (ironically, regarding the last big fiasco) in which "her" identity as a woman (and therefore being the type of person directly affected by the lack of security that fiasco brought to the surface) played a part. Despite that, I think the talent security matter is the most important part of this discussion, as Dalamar, Nostalgic Erotic Prod., and even I in my only other post in the thread have been pushing for six pages now. The only really derailing post I've seen is is...well, one I've quoted above.

So again, you might not like Dalamar's tone (and that's fair), but don't come in here and try to depict his posts as being somehow off topic. They really, really aren't, and the conversation you seem to want to shut down is really, really important. Please don't do that.

Thanks! Just tryna be constructive and positive. Not sure if it's a viable or helpful solution to solve some real bad actors from still trying to be around.

These two notes are important.

A) It is incredibly difficult to police this on the internet.

B) Including that warning and/or similar in various areas around the site would be good house keeping.

That still leaves working with a deceptive producer as a potential issue, especially if they're catfishing and conducting business off the platform.

Have you ever stepped back to wonder if the people didn't see the verified tag here if they would have been as trusting with their information to this confidant? Have you considered that improving the system causing this misinterpretation is something productive to come from all of this? So tell me, what is your solution for something that keeps happening time and time again. There are people that have lost someone and been betrayed, I definitely do not disagree. There have been other conversations in this thread that have happened. There is also this nice easy thing called blocking a profile. Then you won't have to read any of my replies.

You're not going to get me to engage you in an argument by missing the point. Which seems to be a theme here. It's not my job to explain the difference between productivity and beating a dead horse that seems to be a large gap in understanding here. But by all means, continue telling the site's owner to either act against or change his own TOS.

You came to complain and not offer any real solutions, got it, thanks for stopping by.

Irony

I've seen some cluelessness here, but this is something special...

The only person trying to dictate against the flow of the thread is YOU. YOU are the one trying to fight against the topic that has been the focus of the thread since page-bloody-one. The one missing the point is YOU. WE are trying to make the point that part of the site's TOS may, in the long run, prove damaging to the community. That is on topic for a discussion about someone who not just abused the site's trust, but posed a threat to the security and reputation of the community.

You are engaging in the kind of childish, non-engaging, "No, you!" projection used by internet trolls to get their kicks, and it is not at all needed in a thread about this kind of serious topic. I was polite in asking you not to do this before. Now my patience is gone.

Same goes for you, thereald, with your one-word non-response. Neither of you gets to shut down discussion because you don't like it, don't like how people are going about participating (including your completely inaccurate assessments of peoples' contributions - Dalamar has gone on in detail on how to set up better checks, which is more than I can say for either of you), or don't think it's important (and if this is the case, what the hell is wrong with you?!), or whatever other reason you might have. The mods have left this thread open regardless of the topic and tone, which means that they understand the necessity of this discussion. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate. If you do, expect to be called out.

I'm not trying to shut down the discussion. Just pointing something out that I found amusing

It's important, but all the rage is going in the wrong direction, and it's somewhat tedious to read several replies of someone not understanding something that seems quite clear.

And who's fault is that? I mean, my heart goes out to them, for sure but the only person responsible for this outcome is Kelsey.




Which is in itself, is a big part of the problem. To play devils advocate, MM is FINALLY starting to read the room and understand that changes need to be made (which I appreciate, so thank you!), albeit with some consolations, which is a start. We are asking for progress, not perfection. I fully understand that no system will be perfect. It's as the old adage goes: Whenever you make something idiot proof, they go out and build a better idiot.

The point is we move collectively forward to find a solution. I feel we are working towards that dialogue in the other threads on this topic and Messmaster's heart is starting to soften towards moderate solutions which is why I been taking a backseat. Yes, Dala is a bit abrasive but understand that 1) this is NOT An isolated occurrence and 2) We have policies that have evolved very little in the face of emerging threats to the safety of the models and women on this forum. For example, we are just now talking about doing photo verification when similar platforms have had this in place for years.


On the contrary, it's both. Keep in mind, this thread wouldn't be near this long if there were systems in place to better protect or at least ATTEMPT at mitigating instances like this from occurring. This isn't saying it's MM's fault. This is saying that we as a community have failed to evolve beyond simple "honor system" ethics to conduct business on this platform and times are dictating otherwise, ESPECIALLY in light of the events over the past 2 years.

If "oversight" conflicts with privacy, I will chose privacy! Every user still has the responsibility of protecting themselves as we can't guarantee the motives of any user on this site, even if they submitted 10 types of verification. That's still the case and I haven't "finally" realized changes were needed. I've been asking for ideas for enhanced verification outside of sharing our users' private information and you haven't been able to help in that regard, but now we're knocking around some good ideas in a different thread, which are already partially implemented. That's how a productive conversation happens--working together instead of demonizing each other.

I've watched this thread all the way through, just as I watched the Chantelle, Jessie, Skylar, Gia and other "reveal" threads go over the years. I didn't have any contact with Kelsey, nor any of the others.

I think there are trappings that lead some of us to recognize when an account may not be what they claim to be. Some are far more obvious than others. (ahem - Sinnamon)

Messmaster is right - we all need to be vigilant. I think a skeptical attitude towards what you see and hear on the internet is appropriate. (and with AI incoming, all the more important) But it's also possible to be more than one thing. These ongoing misrepresentations of identity are problematic and in some cases, traumatizing. This specific website is the central hub for WAM content, and is head and shoulders above the rest as far as I'm concerned. The content and personalities here wield influence in the community. A tremendous amount of responsibility falls on MM to maintain this place. I've seen it grow since they very very beginning. Been here the whole time, as many of you have. We probably are shielded from a bunch of nonsense regularly because of MM's day in/day out efforts.

That said, the continuing problem of misrepresented identity's needs to be addressed in a more meaningful way. I appreciate MM's concern for privacy. We all do. It should go without saying this is a sensitive topic. However, I do agree that more needs to be done to prevent this type of fraudulent behavior in the future. I appreciate the conversation everyone is contributing to and the ideas for possible ways to make such improvements.

One thing I've heard often over the years, especially in these situations, is about how much work this is for MM. MM, you've even said it yourself, this place has hundreds of thousands of visitors.

My thought is: Is it too big for one person to run, at this point? MM, should you consider hiring professional help to work through these things?

This website is free to view and participate in. For millions of views, there is TON of content. The moderators help, I'm sure, but there is just MM at the top. Could some people be hired? Could the community support that through donations, or from store sale commissions, or even through a subscription model?

I really appreciate the work you do, MM, and I know this site is your baby 110%, but if you had paid support, maybe it could help prevent this type of stuff?

Thanks for the props I do need professional help, but not that kind It's not really about hiring employees or help tho. The issue is privacy as well as indemnification. The bottom line is that as a website operator, I cannot be held responsible for the people and relationships on the site, and I don't want to mislead people into a false sense of security. The people who want me to "do more" want me to take on additional responsibility for guaranteeing them that the people they're talking to on here are in fact the actual person, and ultimately I would be disingenuous if I absolutely promised them that. I do refine the verification process as billers, laws, and ideas from the community shape it. But I have to maintain a clear separation of responsibilities of this site vs what users are responsible themselves for.

Great to hear you agree that a $150 price isn't enough for labor and supplies - which is what was said and what was being responded to. Appreciate your clarification. Plus - you can air out your truth here in the forum (why do you want these things done secretly?). If you would love to pay models more and you already paid more than was being alleged - not sure why it took a bit more poking for you to let us know so. And you're welcome - gotta love the people centering themselves as victims because this obviously sparks questions and trust issues...

Really gross to come to this thread and say you know of another fake and that you won't tell

Alright, after reading everything - I gotta admit I don't feel any closer to understanding what happened that led to this exactly. I understand MM's concern for privacy, but I feel like a couple key questions are being danced around that could help us actually come up with a solution, which I gotta say given the tension and uneasiness doesn't make me feel any better.

My initial questions on page one, were meant for understanding not for anyone to feel blamed and to become defensive. Was a fake Kelsey Rose ID supplied (not to mention what happened with taxes) - if so, sounds like something that should be reported and I'd like to know what next steps will be. Was it a business entity named Kelsey Rose that had a profile appearing to be fully operated by a female that had another ID supplied that didn't match this avatar?

Since this profile was found to be deceptive including an admission of guilt - why can't we be given this answer?

Any verified profile has an ID with it - great, people have given plenty examples why this isn't enough. Without giving info into a third party, can you:

a) if a verified profile is labeled as female and has a femme presenting avatar - the ID provided is of a likeness that could be the individual in real life*
b) if a verified store's profile is labeled as female and uses a femme presenting avatar as the spokesperson they should have an ID provided that is of a likeness that could be the individual in real life (a business entity may be under someone else - that ID should be provided too - but it should be proved that the "spokesperson" is also an image that they have the rights to use through ID)*
c) if a verified profile has multiple people attached to it (like a couple's account) all IDs should be provided*

*IDs are then checked off and on to insure that those who began the store are still on board or if not, the profiles are updated to be accurate (biannually? Plus as suspected?)

Besides rechecking IDs occasionally - this doesn't seem like much more work.

Also, I've only been here a bit more than 2 years and tbh I thought the verification was more than it apparently is - I think the conversation about changing the wording on this was dismissed fairly quickly AND gotta say many of us (and no new talent) will be aware of the whole community change verification shift. Using a system that is widely viewed in other social media as is deceiving (even if not intentionally). I think a helpful quick facts for new models that clarified certain things could be extremely helpful. (This being a top of the list thing because being a female producer/model on this (especially actually having the fetish) is hella taxing and isolating...

Gross that this individual found this and took advantage of them. That is on them not UMD and MM. But hopeful some actual change comes from this blow up...

I think "she" completely represents this community in a nutshell on UMD

She publicly attacked me on here for my points of view regarding the mostwam situation, while at the same time supporting and protecting another known sex offender which this community still protects. Oh there are plenty of others like her on here

The disgusting hypocrisy that was shown towards mostwam spearheaded by people like her, while openly protecting other people, other producers is one of the most disgusting things I've ever had the witness to see.

This news about Kelsey has made new year! A truly disgusting human being.

A truly great comeuppance

This whole situaion, and some others over the years, have reminded me why I never want to get that emotionally involved with this place, and why I left it so long before I even started posting.

I'm here for a means to an end, frankly. I enjoy civil conversation and discussion and I always try to be courteous, but I'm not here to make friends and have never really considered myself part of the "WAM community". This is a private part of my life and I prefer to keep my involvement with it at arm's length. You don't make friends by starting with your fetishes, that's open to all sorts of exploitation. You may think you're friends with people on here, but unless you physically meet them (which itself comes with risks, the old "never meet your heroes" applies), all you've really befriended is an idealised form of someone, the way they present themselves in a fantasy world. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a punk and am nowhere near as cool, handsome and confident as "Mike" in my stories. I'd be a massive disappointment. But I am an honest and decent bloke, so if even I can distort my identity, there's no limit to what someone with no morals will do.

Please stay safe. My sympathies are with anyone who was exploited by this piece of work, and most of all, whoever this poor girl is that seemingly doesn't even get the dignity of an early death without being used for sexploitation.

None of this means that Leon isn't a convicted sex offender or that your misguided views on Mostwam are vindicated.