A lot of concerns have been raised about the potential for false identities in the community as of recent. Many concerns are based on how the verification tick has been seen as a system to validate the authenticity of the user.

Since this is not what the system was designed to do, I have read all the posts and I made a system proposal that I feel can help prevent issues such as this in the future. This system can make the identity of the user more robust.

Check out my photo and let me know what you think!

In line with what a few platforms do but I would insist on writing the date as well for photo verification. Otherwise this is a great step in the right direction! Thank you!

That was my idea! A bit more robust than like Hinge which just makes you take a photo. I think this could really help people feel more comfortable talking, and especially conducting business, with users.

Thank you. I definitely want this to happen. I thought a lot about it and read all the comments by the concerned users.

I love this idea and I would gladly upload a pic for cross reference with my ID I sent in so we can say "this user's claims can be validated."

I think this is a good place to start. I think a separate topic about this is a good idea. Hopefully more people will chime in so we can have a discussion about this.

Should the UMD use antiquated methods of verifying the user posting nude content is over the age of 18, or should the verification requirements be altered? Also, since this is where a lot of people land, I think as a community we have a responsibility to identify people who are trusted by the site. Which means more needs to go into labeling someone as such.

This is very much like what you have to do to become verified on OnlyFans, except you also had to send a selfie while holding your valid identification.
Not that I know, not like I used to run an OnlyFans...

This is definitely something that's tough to figure a solution for. As it sits now the "verification" system exists as a reactive measure. Basically the requirements set forth by outside institutions. The system is supposed to work in a way that: user uploads document. Now the user can post. If the user uploads inappropriate content, the archived document can be used to pursue legal action against the user. The basic gist is that outside entities don't want association with websites that do not persecute illegal activity.

My idea is more basic as in we can know the person matches the ID, and the ID is for a of age individual. Of course fake IDs throw a wrench into the works, but hopefully with both a photo of the user and the ID card, we can make a very safe assumption they match and are of age.

I'm not a model or producer, but I believe I am a trusted member of the community. After what happened I can see how people have less faith in users they trusted as friends. A measure such as mine could help users not only feel comfortable with each other, but also raise awareness. It's tough to know who you're talking with, but I believe with my system we can create a community of people who everyone can look to as trusted individuals.

When it comes to producers maybe more can be put in place if the community demands it and producers agree. UMD is more akin to a mall as opposed to a store. While the bad behavior of a store in a mall doesn't mean the mall itself is to blame, it can however make it some the mall can put more security measures in place to make the shoppers and other tenants feel safe and comfortable.

Long post but please read it all!

That's one of the systems I drew inspiration from, as well as UMD user feedback. I read into different verification methods used by many popular platforms.

I think with my idea we can definitely help put a lot of the tension at ease when it comes to the verification of individual users, as well set forth a precedent that due diligence is always required when you find who you can trust.

As I stated in my last reply, model/producer verification may need an adjustment as well. That's not my field of expertise at all, but depending on what the community/models see as the best way forward we can look into different changes.

I'm happy to see in the wake of the Kelsey Rose kerfuffle that people on this site like you are not just reacting to the problem but trying to fine a solution to prevent it from happening again. Very proactive mindset

Thank you a lot! It means a lot.

UMD means a lot to me. I've been here for a while and I've met my two best friends ever on this site. I really care about it and I want everyone to know how important a safe and healthy community is.

Times are changing and internet safety is becoming a massive concern. If we can do more to help alleviate any worries of the users, I'd be happy to spearhead any initiative. (Kisses for my friends in the UMD community.)

This seems like a good idea and a step in the right direction. Thanks for spearheading this FilthyGirl!

I would have no issue with uploading a photo with the date to validate my identity (even though I feel like I'm one of the more transparent producers around, FBOW). I would hope other users, especially the most "visible" users on the UMD like producers and moderators, would feel the same.

I'd also like to see the option to have a profile set to "Producer" or "Storefront," rather than a Male/Female gender. I know this has been "in the works" but not sure how close it is to implementation. I don't think it would've helped the Kelsey Rose situation--as that guy was actively trying to deceive the community into thinking he was a female--but it would definitely alleviate some of the confusion that arises any time a profile/storefront is being accessed by multiple people. (Who are often different genders, like a M/F couple.)

I am totally down if this is accepted. It's pretty much a requirement across a wide array of platforms who host adult content and as the internet grows, so will the need for better verification methods. The honor system just isn't going to work anymore.

I also second the storefront/producer idea. I think it is more transparent and reduces any chance of confusion of people thinking they are speaking with a single distinct person instead of a couple or group of people on the same account. It makes sense

I think it's a good idea, especially if it's just an optional step that people can follow.

However, a person wouldn't be breaking any rules if they uploaded photo ID (+ selfie) of a 90 year old man, then said "Here's my profile photo as a 20 year old woman, and here's my super double plus verified status to prove it".

I.e. your system doesn't link the verification to the profile picture. (If it did, it would eliminate male producers like SlapstickStuff who use a model in their profile picture.)

An enhanced checkmark for people who have shown their face next to their ID doesn't sound like a bad idea on the face of it. I just don't want to lend a sense of false security or implied endorsement because of that checkmark, as you can already see is happening with the one we have. There will come a time when even someone with one of those checkmarks will turn out to be a bad apple, and people need to understand the risks of dealing with anyone online and always be vigilant. I'll consider the idea.


I have to be clear that people are not "trusted by the site." I do what I can to keep creeps off this site, but calling them trusted would be a false expectation. I can explain the verification system and what documents have been checked, but that's all. It's really up to everyone to develop their own level of trust with the people they are dealing with.


This. Some people are framing things like I am absolutely against any type of change, and I don't know why they're doing that. My job is to balance privacy and safety, and it's a very nuanced, very difficult line to walk. I like this thread because it's actually suggesting something other than researching user data online.

Dude!

I never got your PM? And it seems like the idea would have been an identity check online anyway?

No online check. Soft check =look at the license and pics to verify identity in house. A hard check goes out other services to verify identity via public records etc. C4S isn't touching a hard check outside of their compliance team anytime soon unless it becomes necessary. All they want to make sure of is that the person running the studio is who they say they are

Good point. A kink to work out. I definitely understand what you're saying.

This could possibly be seen as a badge of honor, someone who doesn't have false information. For producers, SlapstickStuff mentioned a "producer/storefront" tag on the account. I think that's a good idea. As well with that I'd want their gender to match the gender identity of the party responsible for running the account.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's exactly what I do. It all stays in-house.


Right, the person who is verified on the account does not have to be the front-facing personality, which is something I can't stress enough. There are many business and couples' agreements out there, and a lot of stores use W9 information, photo ID's, and payout info that are different from that of the profile's front-facing identity. It's always been that way, so the bottom line is to just be vigilant about recognizing actual fraudulent situations, maintain a robust flagging system, and leave the floors open so people can report to us any time they believe they've observed fraud. The latter is exactly what happened: The fraudster was exposed and driven away from the community. The leverage of an active community working together is beautiful, and that's the major advantage that UMD has.


I recently added an option on your preferences where you can tag the account as personal or run by a rep. I may or may not add more options there, and for now it's not required, but we'll see where it goes. I just don't want it to be one more thing for people to be misled by or blame the site for if someone's tagging is inaccurate.

I don't want to get into forcing people's online gender tags to be based on on what their government ID's say, because that might be different than who they really are inside. It would be endless conflict and resentment on the backend to force them to check a gender they don't identify with. We will have an updated gender/sex tagging system at some point where it would be possible to mark people and content with a binary sex (m/f) tag in addition to gender (which will have its own additional options), but that won't be based on what some ID says.

The best proactive mindset would be to keep the community reminded not to take user authenticity for granted, even if they have a checkmark, enhanced or otherwise. Accepting ID's along with a photo of the user could help with initial verification, but as we've seen over and over again, accounts and relationships do change over time unbeknownst to us. I don't want extra verification checkmarks on an account to lull people into a sense of false security about that account, because as you can see, people are more keen to blame the platform for its users now. So even as we do what we can to keep fraudulent people off of here, we still have to keep hammering the point home that ultimately it's up to the users to be careful about who they are dealing with.

No. By your own admission in other posts, you don't require 2 photos with the persons name and date written down or a photo of the person holding their ID. C4S and other platforms do. They are taking the time to verify that the person on the ID is indeed the owner of the account. That's why this idea Filthy Girl brought up is LONG overdue

We disagree on a lot of things. I am on board with not requiring this. Lives are hard enough for a lot of people. Having a place where they can be their true or authentic self is absolutely important.

Providing a picture that includes today's date will make things more difficult for the average "pretender", but is circumvented by GenAI and other photo manipulation tools. It won't prevent pretenders, but it will make it more work for anyone less than casually determined to open a "fake" account. (for lack of a better term)

Use case: there's currently a widespread scam over social media and Venmo where people are catfished (sometimes with images of porn stars or social media celebrities) for money, and the scammer will provide a picture of "themselves" holding a piece of paper with "today's date" to prove "authenticity". Some are very clever genAI, some are photo composites, and some are stolen from sites like reddit. (gonewild verification anyone?).

A person holding a photo of a photo with a date written across is slightly more fiddley to compose, but can be done with GenAI compositing and assembly (have you seen Firefly? Wow.)

So in the end I agree with MM: While this help filter out some fakes, It's up to us (you, me, us, we) to vet the person with whom we're speaking or intending to do business. And if there's any doubt, then there is no doubt. If they want money from you and won't discuss terms on a video call, then forget it.

Of course this would not be a requirement, as is the already existing policy. This just adds an extra layer of certainty to anyone you talk to. Also solidifying the fact people who don't do such a process can be anyone.

Pretty much this is my compromise and aggregate of the suggestions made to possibly precent any future problems such as this. Of course cracks exist in this, we can play what ifs for hours, no system can truly be perfect, but at least one can exist.

Sorry I didn't understand that's what you meant. This thread is productive and I appreciate Filthy Girl for starting it in a non-divisive, genuine way. It's been more helpful to me than all your condescending posts combined!

Sorry but not sorry. Again, this has been a reoccurring theme here and your first flippant post set the tone. I been pretty reasonable considering and made plenty of suggestions as has others throughout the other thread. I am not going to apologize for putting model safety above your concerns of protecting privacy of studios who need to submit this information anyways to both governing agencies as well as other platforms to sell their clips.

Thank you for highlighting this concern. Again, just when you make something idiot proof, they build a better idiot. This definitely is a good example of how technology is a constant blessing and curse when it comes to the nature of the business.

This will also probably alter how many sites like OF and C4S ultimately verify studios and content in the future as well and any sites who can't keep up technologically will find themselves either gone the way of the dodo or forced to evolve with the times sadly. Life was so much simpler when the worst we had to worry about was downtime from an incoming phone call

I really did not understand what you meant and the apology about that was real. So was my comment about you. It's really evident to me when a conversation is adversarial, or if the person is really with you in trying to improve things. You have been the former. I have been with you on this entire conversation and listening and responding with real answers to every question. I'm not being flippant about the issue at stake. But I am human, and I meant what I said about your approach being condescending in my opinion. I think I'm allowed to say that

Ok, ok. Let's try this.

Firstly, apology accepted and I will try to be more clear the next time.

Secondly, I do apologize if you feel I have been condescending. I am sorry if I said anything that hurt you. I truly am not trying to be condescending. I am trying to get this through to you on how frustrating it is to be us, one of the good guys here who try to display what means to have integrity in this biz but people like Kelsey and people like Chantelle and others continue to ruin it for everyone, YOU included. Like this whole discussion is not to make your job harder, but easier. I am sure you have far better things you would much rather be doing than following thread discussions such as these and putting out fires, right?

If a solid verification system is in place, wouldn't that make your job easier? Wouldn't that reduce events like this from occurring? Wouldn't that present a safer alternative for the models to vet other performers and producers on here? I am not trying to be a dick here, but I am definitely at my wits end on how I can explain how critical this is for the overall health of the community.

I am perfectly fine with a system that is limited to models, performers and studios who sell clips on here. I am not asking for everyone to undergo vetting. That's ridiculous but if you are in a position to take money and work with the women on here, yes, I think you need vetting. 100%. Hell, I elect myself as the first test subject if anyone is that concerned.

I DO think Filthy Girl has a good viable alternative that checks all the boxes for you to start on this. The other alternative was suggested on the other thread where we can elect ourselves willingly to a 3rd party service APART from the UMD as a verification method. That's fine too and could even incentivize producers to do it because then models can then choose who they wish to work with because someone has been verified.

Have said that, I meant what I said when I stated," I gotta lot of love for you". I do! I KNOW you do a lot. I KNOW you mean well but some of us are fed up with this thing continuing and I think we are allowed to say that.

I've been mulling on the various sort of related threads and think most of my points are going to be relevant to the discussion on this one. Just chucking my two penn'orth in as a member of this community. (The conversation has moved on a bit in the 2 hours I've been writing this over, but I'm not re-drafting it, so might be repeating some points, forgive me).

- I don't think I've ever even thought to look at the verification status of a user I've interacted with on here before replying. Possibly because I have a(n un)healthy level of scepticism anyway. Possibly because I'm not usually looking to use this as a platform to find talent to work with, or meet up with anyone one on one (though opportunities have occasionally presented themselves). Possibly because my understanding was pretty clear on the green tick being a permit to post nude images from trying to set a shot of Luna from behind the camera as my profile photo (or what has come to feel like my natural habitat). So it does make me wonder are there a lot of people who either don't notice or care about the difference between a user having a green tick or not?

- I do like the suggestion that started this thread. I've had to do similar for other sites or communities and it's hasn't felt drastically more intrusive than having to upload id. I suspect I'd jump through those hoops to get additional verification. This wouldn't however be a silver bullet, it would mean another hoop to jump through for someone with ill intentions, but those kinds of people will be motivated enough to falsify the documents required if needed. It also wouldn't protect against "drift" in the people behind an account changing over time. It could be that additional verification is time limited to mitigate against this situation (re-verify annually for example) but practically, that's going to generate more overhead. I think all of this discussion so far is for an optional verification tier, which sounds good. If this were to be mandatory to create an account to say post on the forums or view other peoples content, then I think it would probably harm the community in the long run with fewer new people jumping through the hoops to contribute.

- I prefer this suggestion to third party verification. Data leaks happen, so the fewer places with my data, especially in the context of a fetish site, the better. Also, who would pay for it for it? I doubt it's going to be done out of the goodness of third parties heart. I suspect even if this is where it went, I'd jump through the optional hoops anyway, just slightly more begrudgingly.

- I'm a bit on the fence at the idea of a "storefront gender", but that's possibly in part because of the way we operate (myself and Luna, my wife). We started off posting stuff we'd filmed initially for our eyes only once we'd gained a bit of confidence. Seemed perfectly logical to us that it's Luna in the scene, therefore it's Luna's scene, Luna should make an account on here, the scenes be uploaded there and any kick backs go straight to her. Now we know more, it could be argued that if I'm behind the camera and plan most of the scenes, I'm the "producer" and she's the "model" (I'm not getting into the gatekeeping of those two terms, if "content creator" makes you feel better just read it as that). Roll on ~12 months, we've gained a bit more traction than we ever thought or intended, are trying (and mostly succeeding) to keep up with regular releases and are drowning in raw footage. I do all of the editing and operate on much less sleep than Luna. Made perfect sense to us that I should have access to Luna's account to upload stuff to the store once it's edited and she can check she's happy with everything the next day when convenient. I read the TOS cover to cover to check that was above board. I fully suspect this isn't an uncommon arrangement. We hadn't really considered how me having access to her account could be problematic until happenings a few months back, so Luna added a clear note to her profile, which seemed to be the most constructive suggestion that came out of those discussions. So after much pre-amble, my question would be what "gender" should Luna's account be assigned? She's female, all of her content is female (we might eventually dabble with coed, but not something I'm in a rush to do, body confident I aint), she's the only one who replies from the account, but in the strictest sense it should probably be set to "storefront". She could set up a second personal account, but I fully suspect that would go unused and nothing would change in the way we use her account currently (unless there was a change to the TOS that we would then be violating). The suggestion might be heading in the right direction, but I'm not sure it's a "gender".

- I'm going to shout out how useful splunches are for verifying people are who they say they are (obviously not as a verification policy for the site, but for individual due diligence). They take place in a public space, aren't one on one and strictly aren't play events. It was attending a splunch that really kick started our involvement in the community and we've not looked back. We've made good friends, been able to discuss and plan exciting opportunities and collaborations face to face, and had a lot of fun in the process.

- I feel like a lot has been read into profile photos. As far as I can tell, most men's profile photos (producer or otherwise) are of their favourite messy woman (unapologetically Luna in my case). A good number of men's profile photos are also of themselves. Most but certainly not all women's profile photos are of themselves. I don't think this is what's being suggested, but I'd be uncomfortable with any form of verification where your profile photo then has to match the id provided from that point on. I don't intend to post my face publicly and I don't think anyone should be forced to. Even more so if this were to be enforced just for profiles with female gender. Why should the women on here have to jump through extra hoops because of creepy men?

- Creepy men doing weird stuff to erode the trust of women are absolutely the real problem here (and in so many other contexts). What a shame we're having to discuss process, coding, tagging so much because of these kinds of people. We should do as much as is realistically possible so that women are safe here. I fear that nothing discussed so far (on any of the threads) will make a tangible difference, but I would love for stuff to be tried out and my scepticism proved wrong.

One day, I will write a short reply. That day is not today.

The problem with this (and it's something I've come to realise during this discussion) is that no matter what verification system is put in place, there is absolutely nothing to stop an uber-verrified account being subsequently operated by someone else.

This is completetelty different to things like C4S verifying the perfiormers in a specific video. That's proving that the people involved at that exact specific moment in time when that particular video was made are of age, consenting, etc. All of us are already doing the same basic thing here when we obtain model ID before shooting with anyone, and signed model releases for every shoot. So UMD stores effectively already have that, we're all responsible for making sure our models are consenting adults and maintaining records to prove that.

BUT! Forum accounts are totally different - it's not a "single fixed moment in time" thing.

We could literally require that before anyone can sign up as a woman, MM and an entire platoon of UMD minions (messions?) has to fly to their location and conduct a three day interview / interrogation of the prospective member. And then the instant the UMD private jet takes off back to Las Vegas, the verified person hands their account over to whomever is the lastest incarnation of the ChrisBot. And there is **absolutely nothing** that any kind of verification system can do to prevent that.

Think of the Chantelle, or Messy Jessie situations. In both cases, accounts originally operated by the actual people depicted, were subsequently operated by male partners, who weren't even around when the accounts in question were originally set up. How do you prevent things like that?

TBH it's a classic example of "social problems do not always have technical solutions".