That's interesting - thanks for that extra info.

Aside from the whole debate about what "verified" means, this raises a separate question about what it means to be a director, especially when that's used as a selling point on videos. I think most people would assume that the director is present on the set, guiding what's going on.

However, I have some notes about film making (planning out one of my future customs), and I believe that there can be a distinction between the director (who creates the shot list) and the cinematographer (aka DP/director of photography, in charge of filming the scene). So, in theory it's not necessarily a red flag for the "director" to be absent, but in the context of WAM videos I think it's unusual.

I.... I mean.... I just....

100% this is what I would assume, especially in a wam context. Quite often there'll be a scene released by a producer and it gets a good reaction and someone will post 'Hey, this was my custom, glad you all liked it'. What they don't say is 'Hey, I directed this scene' because commissioning a scene is not the same as directing it, and frankly its misleading of any producer to conflate the two.

Interestingly, if the Kelsey is actually the boyfriend, then he WAS on set, which means that the director was on set, but just not in the physical body expected.

Except the problem isn't that the director was or wasn't on set, but the misrepresentation used by said director to recruit talent, as well as to use and abuse people here. Anyone's free to use a false or null identity around here, as I'm sure many do for privacy reasons, but when someone turns that false identity into a character to be portrayed for benefits besides anonymity, it starts edging up to and crossing the line. It causes people to do things they wouldn't normally do or interact in ways they otherwise wouldn't, and that's manipulation. That's where the problem lies.

as a fan of film and filmmakers - from a directorial/producer standpoint, it's an alias-proxy-pseudonym situation. it was amazing work. spot on, well executed fetish material that rang their bells very specifically, and I thought were amazing/hit mine too.

from a personal/representation (and friendship) standpoint...

JY

From a marketing standpoint - a branding standpoint? I am OK with a producer promoting the material/product as hardily endorsed by the model/actresses. I understand marketing (I mean, on a basic level). And there is no question, their passion for WAM, its creation and its psycho sexual pleasures and aesthetics, was real.

I don't really have an issue with a site or brand or Producer using models or personas even as a marketing thing, a branding thing. The selling of fetish material and the passionate enjoyment of fetish material almost HAS to go hand in hand for it to be good or great, and thus competitive in the marketplace. I want my favorite producers to succeed (and, really, even ones I don't buy from - there's room for everyone, and so many of you are so talented and dedicated and your models are so gorgeous and game)

So, I have no real hard feelings, I guess you could say, on that part of things. I was fooled. I don't like to be tricked, but I can accept "Wow - amazing material, marketed really distinctly and personally, passionately made" etc. Every great new technology leans hard into adult material, and it's usually one of if not the most consistently financially lucrative ways that tech is used (from old time loops to VHS to digital etc etc). Marketing/personalizing a product to make it even more attractive and special - you feel like you're bonding with the creator, you're supporting the thing you really love - in the digital age -- all fair game, really.

(But, of course, the flip side of the coin is questions of ethics, intent, representation, privacy etc.)

Anyway, the "Who is the author of a WAM scene? And does that make a difference/should it make a difference?" question is a really interesting topic unto itself. As a fan of movies and books/stories, I think "authorship" is really important and a serious matter.

But, for the purposes of fetish material/this conversation -- does and should it matter who produces vs commissions vs films vs directs a scene?

JY

{EDIT: I just saw that a couple of you have literally said stuff I just said about Who is the Director/Who is the Producer? so, sorry to just blast past that and not acknowledge it! It's a really interesting topic/point}

I don't imagine you care what I think. I know you do bc you keep replying

I feel pretty dumb as well bc I commented to kelsey on numerous occasions about how I loved her ideas and all of that stuff

But?I DO recall after she had been around and booming for a few months and seeing all of the writing she was doing? The blogs and whatnot? I remember thinking to myself "okay-this chick is super hot/sits around writing wam blogs/pays money to get customs and yet doesn't have like? A bunch of pics in their gallery?.strange"
I even asked kelsey if she would want to shoot for the house of mess as SOON as she caught my eyeand I can't recall how she respondedI'd have to check my inboxif it's still there.
But I know I asked her to even in a comment and she doted on about how great that would be and how she would love to and blah Dee dah.
Which? Happens all the timebut? I digress.
I feel terrible for all of you who opened up to this person and had a friendship with someone who is a disloyal, crazy fuck.
Some ppl have too much time on their hands. Truly. And some people are also fucking crazy. Truly.
It isn't your fault. "She" played a good game but? Rich was spot on questioning her.
I felt the same way couple months in. Too good to be true! But I thought "maybe this is the start of a new thing! Girls really showing their love of wamhot ones even! How cool! I wish I had the time to do that and was that hot!"
I'm sure mess master is just reading what we all have to say, doing his research and letting everyone take their time to make a statement on here about their run ins with "her" with some more evidence-and then he will comment on it.
So? If you have more evidence proving it? Or if you were affected by this? Either it be you were lied to or even financially dupedpost it. Or message it to him so he can have all the info he needs to make a call if he feels it is necessary.
Ppl fucking up things for everyone else. Now? It's just another way to be scared of women here on the umd.

EDIT: well now I'm gonna look like a crazy person, because I guess he deleted this post while I was replying. Anyway, I'm gonna leave this up for now just on general principle, but I guess most everyone can safely ignore it.


I dunno how to ask this without sounding judgmental, so please don't take this the wrong way, but: Are you okay? You seem really, really tense (or anxious, if we want to use clinical language).

Like, as far as I'm aware murder is not a new problem that only started showing up once we had specific types of governments or whatever. People have been killing other people for a long, long time, and I don't think anyone here is surprised to learn that it's still happening.

If anything, bringing up the government seems like it only contradicts the point you're trying to make. You're saying, I think, that governments aren't doing enough--that is, you're saying that governments have an obligation to do more (or at least better) than they're currently doing. That's why you think individuals have to take their safety into their own hands, right? Because you think governments aren't protecting people well enough.

But if that's true, wouldn't the same basic principle apply here? The "government" of the UMD has an obligation to the community just like real governments have obligations to citizens. So if we can point at real governments when a murder happens and say "you should've done more," why can't we point to the moderation team here and say "you should've done more"? At the very least, even if nothing comes of it, why can't we have that conversation?

I mean, I know you're trying to help people in the way that you think is effective. It just seems to me like people are already trying to help themselves by pushing for a change in the way the site is governed. That sure seems like a valid approach, both here and when it comes to real-world governments. And, just for me personally, I'd like to see that conversation reach its own conclusion (whatever that may be) instead of being, like, stomped on.

Nah,I didn't delete it; an admin did. Must have hit someone's nerve.

My point is that if government agencies, police can't/don't care to protect you, how can you expect someone like MM to play god and be involved in everyone's affairs?

People need to be more responsible for themselves and their own actions. I'm sick and tired of people pointing the finger at others, particular Derek when someone is found out doing something wrong or misrepresenting themselves.

Say you collect everyone's data to the nth degree. Then what? unless you require that for sign in EACH time, you're back to square one.

"Kelsey Rose's" account could have been verified with a real woman's information and then that person never used the account. Could have been stolen/forged IDs etc.

I'm making a throw away fetlife right now to see how easy it is there to start shit posting, but I'm not getting the verification email. Nothing about IDs or anything to start posting pics of extreme CBT like firecrackers in urethras and the other fucked up mutilation based shit they allow there.

Aw man, I thought he was a cool person. Damn it

Because he does care. And so if there are good ideas that he hasn't thought of (or hasn't yet been motivated to implement), it might be useful for us to discuss them.


So why did you bring up the FBI...? That was finger-pointing, right?

Also, again, I have to point out that people are being responsible for themselves. Going to a community leader and directly asking for change is a form of personal responsibility. Forming a coalition with like-minded community members is a form of personal responsibility. What you're doing right now is you're telling them to stop taking responsibility and start disconnecting from each other, the site leadership, and the community at large.

I know you don't think there's a good answer here, but, with respect, that's not up to you to decide. Like I said before, that's the point of everyone having a conversation. If we have the conversation and we don't see a good way forward, then I guess congratulations, you were right. But that's something we can only learn by going through the process.

This has a simple explanation. The markings on this site concerning someone who is allowed to upload explicit content be it based on real or fake ID is similar to what is used on other sites to lend a sense of legitimacy to the account. People have used the same mentality on other social media sites here when it comes to verified accounts. Some of the discussions that are happening have been around that verification process which has been questioned before. People are looking for ways to improve things. Since bad actors are using that verified status to get a sense of trust from their future victims, people start with the person that issues that status, Derek.

Much like someone wearing a uniform to gain access to your house to case the joint. When a robbery happens, people remember hey, we had a visit from someone from company X to offer us a service. The police use that information to track down a possible unsub. The police might also tie that information from the company to find other victims. Using that same example, but applying it here. Person gets scammed by a verified user here. Whether they discuss the terms of the transaction here or not does not matter. This is a point of identity for the police to use. The person tells the police, User B who is verified on the UMD is who I was talking to. The police then go to Derek and say we need the identity of user B for a fraud investigation. I am assuming based on statements previously made that Derek would require a warrant before releasing that info. The person also makes a post about it and there are a few me too posts. The police could then reach out to Derek to contact those people to add as victims of the same fraud.

Classic example of (i'll use a PG term....total fabrication). "I know something that you don't and it's terrible but I am not going to say anything because it's not my business." What that translates to is "I want to be relevant and have clout but you have to believe me because i can't prove anything because I'm making it up."

If there was someone in a community YOU belong to that could be deceiving others, IT IS an ethical responsibility to say something (ok, i give you the pass on saying something publicly, but do it privately to the site owner and let him investigate). Yeah you don't have to, but if you don't, your just blessing the behavior and putting others at risk. But the likely scenario here is that you have nothing.

The post was automatically deleted after receiving multiple reports.

Please do not make transphobic statements or delve into unrelated conspiracy theories.

Thanks.

Can you let me know on the side what statement was supposed transphobic? I can't even read the entire post myself now that I made it and others have only quoted bits and pieces.

Also, I don't know what was delving into conspiracy theory, I posted links to stories about local crimes in my area and the inadequacy of security at the governmental levels to make the point that if they can't, there's no way an individual like a site creator could possibly be expected to just "do better".

I kinda wanna fight the guy who created Kelsey. Maybe Texas Death rules!

Unless you go as hard as Atsushi Onita, don't even bother

Onita/Terry Funk/Cactus Jack take your pick I suppose.

I can understand that.
I don't think Kelsey was like entirely made up though. Like just because the person in the pictures wasn't Kelsey doesn't mean that the person I was communicating with wasn't genuine in their conversation with me.

Like I'm not picturing some person not into wam at all just sort of laughing and being like
"hahah these idiots are into messy stuff! This idiot is talking about slime! What a muppet."

I think I was talking to someone whose really into slime from that gameshow, and is either female or enjoys presenting as female online. I don't think there was anything nefarious or Ill intended, it probably just snowballed as the lie got bigger.

I would love to agree with this but I just can't. Agree that this guy was really into slime as well as some nastier stuff. Agree that as the lie snowballed it got harder to keep up, which might explain teasing some awesome looking scenes and then never releasing them. Possibly they didn't think what they were doing was as bad as it was.

I don't think this was a trans woman and I think there was something nefarious about the lie: using the lie to manipulate people into sending them photos, setting up a fetlife account using someone else's nudes, writing gross fiction about this fantasy persona that had this dead woman's appearance. A truly horrible thought that I can't shake is the idea that the real woman found out about the online pics in 2021 and killed herself (I have no evidence for this, but I can't stop thinking that's what happened).

If he'd just been honest about who he was from the start, we'd have a fantastic producer whose work we'd all enjoy.

Bit late to the party, hold my hands up as someone who was duped by this.

I think in hindsight it's a case of disappointing but not overly surprising, deep down those suspicions that you ignore/don't care for because it's either not worth the hassle or concern. (one thing that I found "odd" was the lack of new pics over time after the initial start up on the instagram account, and those ones mostly looked like random old FB era type and quality pics) still, they clearly went a long way with the con, I feel sorry for those who were duped on more serious levels than I was, whether women or whoever shared deeper personal stuff with them.

For the most part I think a huge chunk of aour conversations would have been broadly similar had I known it was a guy as it's clear there's a decent crossover in our wam tastes.

Regrettably I made the mistake of ordering a custom ages ago, no idea if it ever got filmed or not, as clearly the person behind the persona did actually make some content, but obviously a finacial write off there.

Never been a huge socialiser within the wam community, so found them easy going after they started messaging me about customs I did (for a different now disgraced producer)

I'm late to the party too but count me as one of the people who always thought Kelsey was a bit sus. Between Chantelle and this I just assume now that everyone here is a guy.

The verification process is obviously flawed, but no matter what you do people will always slip through the cracks (and with the growing use of AI this stuff will only become more common). Personally, I wish we could just do away with the ID requirement altogether, but I understand why it's in place.

Wait...you mean some of the women we see messy on here are not really on here talking to us about WAM??...but she had a picture...it can't be

I just did a Google search on Messmaster and the first thing that came was a link to a vacuum cleaner available to buy on Amazon.

I can only conclude that Messmaster's day job is as a door-to-door salesman who demonstrates vacuum cleaners.

Can't say I'm surprised. But I am definitely a little more creeped out than originally. I found my way here from Deviantart when "Kelsey" opened a slime store. I bought most of her scenes. Also I wrote a script for "her" to make into a comic because that was what "she" did over there and in response I got a link with nudes of the dead girl. At the time I was happily married and didn't want anyone sending me that. This just makes it worse. Thanks for the info. It is appreciated.