Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fab seems to be photo-verifying a lot of people who are definitely not real these days. In the age of Photoshop, where it is so easy to edit what something says on a plain piece of paper, is it an outdated method that needs reviewing by the moderators? Would another method, like taking a photo of your passport next to your face and perhaps also scanning it in as well, for example, make people think twice about their behaviour and what they feel they can get away with on here? Discuss." I don't have a passport and even if I did it wouldn't match who I am here. For a girl like me it's difficult that way. My verifications speak for themselves yet I know its difficult for those not in my position. So how would your method work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It isn't compulsory to be photo verified though is it? So surely a moot point. " For new profiles I think it is, a friend had her account suspended a day after joining until she had photo verified herself & then they reinstated her account | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fab seems to be photo-verifying a lot of people who are definitely not real these days. In the age of Photoshop, where it is so easy to edit what something says on a plain piece of paper, is it an outdated method that needs reviewing by the moderators? Would another method, like taking a photo of your passport next to your face and perhaps also scanning it in as well, for example, make people think twice about their behaviour and what they feel they can get away with on here? Discuss. I don't have a passport and even if I did it wouldn't match who I am here. For a girl like me it's difficult that way. My verifications speak for themselves yet I know its difficult for those not in my position. So how would your method work? " A passport was just an example. The point is more that photo-verification isn't robust enough to keep fakes away who are attempting to appear as legitimate as possible, and that is dragging down the quality of the site and will only put more genuine people off if they end up being duped by a fake photo-verified profile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The trouble with using some form of official documentation would be that a lot of people would be deterred by the potential data protection issues it would bring - I'm definitely genuine but wouldn't be comfortable having a pic of my passport or driving licence used and uploaded to the site. Whilst I agree that pic verification is potentially open to abuse if it's not taken as an absolute by other users, and those users use other things like common sense, instincts and simple checks to further verify someone is who they say they are then pic verification shouldn't be needed at all. I think part of the problem for those that have problems with timewasters and the like is that they don't use some due diligence and common sense and get too caught up in the excitement of a potential meet and end up forgetting the basics." I don't have either a passport or driving license so I would be buggered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It isn't compulsory to be photo verified though is it? So surely a moot point. " We imagine that most people who are verified and have been on here a bit won't entertain profiles that aren't photo-verified (with the notable exception of profiles that have several *displayed* verifications from others). That's certainly the approach we take. Making the process more robust would allow people who don't want to be messaged by unverified profiles to only communicate with people who are, at the very least, who they say they are. As it stands, that is not possible with the current method of photo-verification. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to be a lot of people with onlyfans pages. Don’t think passport is a good idea at all the security to hold that information is really quite, can’t think of the word, delicate? May I suggest video verification you have to say a specific phrase on camera. That would work don’t know if it would stop the onlyfan people though." A video is a good idea! Certainly much harder to fake and Fab has the feature for it now, so there's no reason a verification video shouldn't be possible   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to be a lot of people with onlyfans pages. Don’t think passport is a good idea at all the security to hold that information is really quite, can’t think of the word, delicate? May I suggest video verification you have to say a specific phrase on camera. That would work don’t know if it would stop the onlyfan people though. A video is a good idea! Certainly much harder to fake and Fab has the feature for it now, so there's no reason a verification video shouldn't be possible "It is what certain internet banks do. You could create random phrases so that it isn’t the same phrase everytime as well. This is my one good idea of the year and I have used it in July  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree it’s a problem. I tend not to message anyone who’s “new” but sometimes make an exception if they’re photo verified. Been caught out a few times by some who are clearly not all they claim yet who have managed to get verified. Difficult to suggest an effective answer. I’d not want to upload anything like a passport page to Fab for data protection reasons, even though I’ve got plenty of veris. And I guess even the fakes might sometimes be willing to share face pics if they are not serial offenders..... Will be interested to see if anyone can suggest a reliable alternative " It's definitely not an easy one to answer, and as many have pointed out, using official documentation to verify you are who you say you are opens up a whole host of other questions. However, we would propose the counter-point that many of us happily provide all sorts of sensitive data to the likes of Facebook, only for it to be sold to all sorts of shady organisations who have malicious intent. Is providing a Passport or another form of ID to Fab really that bad, providing they acted in line with GDPR regulations? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter " That's your choice. We're not suggesting it become compulsory, we're merely suggesting that photo-verification is easy to dupe in 2020 and the Mods should have a look at it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter That's your choice. We're not suggesting it become compulsory, we're merely suggesting that photo-verification is easy to dupe in 2020 and the Mods should have a look at it." In that same vein videos can be easily manipulated as well | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easiest forms of verification both of which work for us: Video call with them (live). or Have them take a photo with something specific happening in it. We wouldn’t bother to meet anyone now that wouldn’t agree to either of the above, some might consider it ‘jumping through hoops’, our response to that would be that maybe somebody desperate might be better suited to them haha. Plenty of hot people on here and many happy to do these simple things. If not it stops them bothering you "This is the best way to ensure that you know who you are talking to. If someone wants to meet then having a video call, or on cam in the chat room, is the easiest to know they are who they say they are. Until that point, even photo-verified, I treat most with a degree of skepticism . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter That's your choice. We're not suggesting it become compulsory, we're merely suggesting that photo-verification is easy to dupe in 2020 and the Mods should have a look at it. In that same vein videos can be easily manipulated as well " I work in the media sector specialising in video, they really can't be manipulated anywhere near as easily as a photo can. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It isn't compulsory to be photo verified though is it? So surely a moot point. For new profiles I think it is, a friend had her account suspended a day after joining until she had photo verified herself & then they reinstated her account" It isn't compulsory. Some new profiles are required to PV before they become live on site. How the site chooses those that must PV I don't know. But it isn't a requirement for every new profile. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easiest forms of verification both of which work for us: Video call with them (live). or Have them take a photo with something specific happening in it. We wouldn’t bother to meet anyone now that wouldn’t agree to either of the above, some might consider it ‘jumping through hoops’, our response to that would be that maybe somebody desperate might be better suited to them haha. Plenty of hot people on here and many happy to do these simple things. If not it stops them bothering you
This is the best way to ensure that you know who you are talking to. If someone wants to meet then having a video call, or on cam in the chat room, is the easiest to know they are who they say they are. Until that point, even photo-verified, I treat most with a degree of skepticism ."The only problem with cam in the chatroom is you would be shocked how, many have a broken camera or the other person isn’t here right now. It’s almost like people don’t want to be seen or are on here on their own without another person. 
I’ll bang the video verification drum though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to be a lot of people with onlyfans pages." Can you report those profiles please, as that site isn't allowed on Fab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It seems to be a lot of people with onlyfans pages. Can you report those profiles please, as that site isn't allowed on Fab." Will do I just keep forgetting every bloody time. Think I’ll do it later then not bother. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter " Exactly - that, common sense and taking my time to get to know people are all I've ever used in four years on the site and not once have I had my time wasted or been duped. As I said further up a lot of the time when you see people who have had their time wasted it's been because they've let the prospect of a meet take over and have forgotten one of those three very basic things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter That's your choice. We're not suggesting it become compulsory, we're merely suggesting that photo-verification is easy to dupe in 2020 and the Mods should have a look at it. In that same vein videos can be easily manipulated as well I work in the media sector specialising in video, they really can't be manipulated anywhere near as easily as a photo can." If it’s about seeing a person and saying a phrase, an audio can be added over a video... everything digital is open to manipulation with very simple apps on your phone. It’s an idea but breakable just as easy as a photo | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter That's your choice. We're not suggesting it become compulsory, we're merely suggesting that photo-verification is easy to dupe in 2020 and the Mods should have a look at it. In that same vein videos can be easily manipulated as well I work in the media sector specialising in video, they really can't be manipulated anywhere near as easily as a photo can. If it’s about seeing a person and saying a phrase, an audio can be added over a video... everything digital is open to manipulation with very simple apps on your phone. It’s an idea but breakable just as easy as a photo " It's really not as easy to convincingly manipulate video as it is a photo. They'd have to be a professional in order to successfully dupe someone and an app wouldn't cut it. I'm speaking from experience here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter That's your choice. We're not suggesting it become compulsory, we're merely suggesting that photo-verification is easy to dupe in 2020 and the Mods should have a look at it. In that same vein videos can be easily manipulated as well I work in the media sector specialising in video, they really can't be manipulated anywhere near as easily as a photo can. If it’s about seeing a person and saying a phrase, an audio can be added over a video... everything digital is open to manipulation with very simple apps on your phone. It’s an idea but breakable just as easy as a photo " It is harder to break if you have to post the video straight after seeing what phrase you have to say. You see the phrase on one page, it refreshes to another, you have to say the phrase in 10 seconds or you get kicked out and have to reverify. People who want to do digital manipulation would have to put in effort to do that. Really am banging the drum for this  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter That's your choice. We're not suggesting it become compulsory, we're merely suggesting that photo-verification is easy to dupe in 2020 and the Mods should have a look at it. In that same vein videos can be easily manipulated as well I work in the media sector specialising in video, they really can't be manipulated anywhere near as easily as a photo can. If it’s about seeing a person and saying a phrase, an audio can be added over a video... everything digital is open to manipulation with very simple apps on your phone. It’s an idea but breakable just as easy as a photo It's really not as easy to convincingly manipulate video as it is a photo. They'd have to be a professional in order to successfully dupe someone and an app wouldn't cut it. I'm speaking from experience here." All depends on the verification. Even the photo verification here doesn’t have to be a face | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter That's your choice. We're not suggesting it become compulsory, we're merely suggesting that photo-verification is easy to dupe in 2020 and the Mods should have a look at it. In that same vein videos can be easily manipulated as well I work in the media sector specialising in video, they really can't be manipulated anywhere near as easily as a photo can. If it’s about seeing a person and saying a phrase, an audio can be added over a video... everything digital is open to manipulation with very simple apps on your phone. It’s an idea but breakable just as easy as a photo It is harder to break if you have to post the video straight after seeing what phrase you have to say. You see the phrase on one page, it refreshes to another, you have to say the phrase in 10 seconds or you get kicked out and have to reverify. People who want to do digital manipulation would have to put in effort to do that. Really am banging the drum for this "That’s if the site builds in live video recording, which it currently doesn’t have | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If it's a worry confirm with them early on, a quick call or few minutes on a cam chatting is better than a green flag. If you know there are wrong uns about then prepare. " Exactly that - for me it's something that is incumbent on users as individuals (and adult ones at that) to beware and take the necessary steps to protect themselves, not for the site to hold responsibility itself. Photo verification for me is a bonus the site provides not an absolute guarantee - responsibility for checking someone is genuine should be down to the individual users and not necessarily the site - yes it's responsible behaviour for the site to validate as much as it can, within reason, but ultimately the site is a facilitator not a guarantor. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter Exactly - that, common sense and taking my time to get to know people are all I've ever used in four years on the site and not once have I had my time wasted or been duped. As I said further up a lot of the time when you see people who have had their time wasted it's been because they've let the prospect of a meet take over and have forgotten one of those three very basic things." The advice you have given is great, genuinely, but we're trying to look at this topic from the point of view of people who are relatively new and not just people who are experienced at using the site. Not everyone is as vigilant or knows how to be vigilant in the right ways because some people might be neurodiverse, for example, and might not pickup on things that are 'off' as easily as some others. It's easy to say "just use common sense" when you're used to knowing what the red flags are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Going back to your original OP... make people think twice about their behaviour and what they feel they can get away with on here? Even if people are photo / video verified, it will not stop people behaving how they already do or think what they can get away with. If someone is rude or offensive to you just report it and block. Lots will be said on messages that some like but on the other hand so many won’t like. There are things I don’t like seeing / hearing so I just block as and when I come across them so that individual doesn’t interact in my fab life again " It wasn't clear from the original post, but that was more specifically related to having something like a passport on record with Fab. People definitely behave a lot better when they think it could have repercussions or could link back to them. Ultimately though, as you suggest, some people won't care regardless. Great advice about blocking and that is always the approach we take too | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter Exactly - that, common sense and taking my time to get to know people are all I've ever used in four years on the site and not once have I had my time wasted or been duped. As I said further up a lot of the time when you see people who have had their time wasted it's been because they've let the prospect of a meet take over and have forgotten one of those three very basic things. The advice you have given is great, genuinely, but we're trying to look at this topic from the point of view of people who are relatively new and not just people who are experienced at using the site. Not everyone is as vigilant or knows how to be vigilant in the right ways because some people might be neurodiverse, for example, and might not pickup on things that are 'off' as easily as some others. It's easy to say "just use common sense" when you're used to knowing what the red flags are." In this day and age where internet scams and the like are highlighted daily as dangers and people are more generally aware of those dangers - there really is no reason people should not take responsibility for making their own checks. It's not even about things being "off" or "red flags" - whether you're new or have been around a while if you've used the internet for any length of time, which for most to have found their way here they will have done, it's about personal awareness as much as anything and protecting yourself. And there are no end of steps that you can take to do that, regardless of your background and make up. Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a foolproof method to protect people, but there really isn't one. Your video suggestion could work, but with thousands of new members signing up every week who is going to sit through all those video clips to validate them (we're talking hundreds of man hours) and who is going to pay for the additional server space required to store them? So it comes down to balance and users taking responsibility for themselves and their own safety and not relying wholly on the site to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" However, we would propose the counter-point that many of us happily provide all sorts of sensitive data to the likes of Facebook, only for it to be sold to all sorts of shady organisations who have malicious intent. Is providing a Passport or another form of ID to Fab really that bad, providing they acted in line with GDPR regulations? " Valid point.... but sometimes the issue isn’t the data itself - its purely the fact you’re using the platform. I am happy to show anyone I meet my passport.... It’s the fact I’m on Fab at all that I wouldn’t want my work colleagues, my neighbours or my (grown up) kids to know about. They all know I’m on Facebook...!” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wouldn’t do either, official document or video. I’ll stick with my gut as a filter Exactly - that, common sense and taking my time to get to know people are all I've ever used in four years on the site and not once have I had my time wasted or been duped. As I said further up a lot of the time when you see people who have had their time wasted it's been because they've let the prospect of a meet take over and have forgotten one of those three very basic things. The advice you have given is great, genuinely, but we're trying to look at this topic from the point of view of people who are relatively new and not just people who are experienced at using the site. Not everyone is as vigilant or knows how to be vigilant in the right ways because some people might be neurodiverse, for example, and might not pickup on things that are 'off' as easily as some others. It's easy to say "just use common sense" when you're used to knowing what the red flags are. In this day and age where internet scams and the like are highlighted daily as dangers and people are more generally aware of those dangers - there really is no reason people should not take responsibility for making their own checks. It's not even about things being "off" or "red flags" - whether you're new or have been around a while if you've used the internet for any length of time, which for most to have found their way here they will have done, it's about personal awareness as much as anything and protecting yourself. And there are no end of steps that you can take to do that, regardless of your background and make up. Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a foolproof method to protect people, but there really isn't one. Your video suggestion could work, but with thousands of new members signing up every week who is going to sit through all those video clips to validate them (we're talking hundreds of man hours) and who is going to pay for the additional server space required to store them? So it comes down to balance and users taking responsibility for themselves and their own safety and not relying wholly on the site to do so." Can't help but feel you're repeatedly missing the point. Nobody is suggesting the site takes complete responsibility for the safety of its members. We are suggesting Fab takes more responsibility than it currently does though and some good suggestions have been made in this thread by others, even if the original example provided opens up its own can of worms. Videos could be just a few seconds long and could be kept on the server for a limited amount of time to prevent them taking up space on hard drives and endless man hours. Yes they would have to increase capacity for this in some regards, but if the site is going to survive it will need to modernise at some point. What happens when something truly awful happens to someone on Fab after a profile has been verified and they weren't who they claimed to be? Are people and the site just going to victim-blame and say "they should have been more careful"? It's easy to say things like that as a man (and this is the male half speaking for this part) because you and I won't be the target of people with the most malicious intents. Ultimately, the lack of robust filtering puts many people off as it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being verified or photo verified is a choice, or it was. Why do so many on here feel the urge to change how the site operates to meet their own preconceptions. After all we all join knowing exactly what we are signing up to. Snowflakes will freeze hell before I hand over my passport for some imagined benefit others may see in that process..." This discussion has nothing to do with "snowflakes", but we thank you for your valid contribution nonetheless | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easiest forms of verification both of which work for us: Video call with them (live). or Have them take a photo with something specific happening in it. We wouldn’t bother to meet anyone now that wouldn’t agree to either of the above, some might consider it ‘jumping through hoops’, our response to that would be that maybe somebody desperate might be better suited to them haha. Plenty of hot people on here and many happy to do these simple things. If not it stops them bothering you "Years ago on another site I was asked by a couple to send a pic holding a toothbrush in my mouth. A) face picture that matched my profile pic, B) I’d go to some effort, C) difficult to fake D) I have good dental hygiene. Thought that was brilliant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we see a profile with no verifications but a photo verification flag we assume its fake. If we get a message off anyone with only 1 or 2 verifications and we check their verification tree and all the profiles have verified each other we presume they are fake. Fakes are easy to spot and getting a verification is easy, go to a club or go on cam. Would we upload our official documents here to prove who we are? Would we hell and neither would any of our swinging friends. Use your common sense and you wont go far wrong." You know everyone who joins fab starts with zero verifications? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Easiest forms of verification both of which work for us: Video call with them (live). or Have them take a photo with something specific happening in it. We wouldn’t bother to meet anyone now that wouldn’t agree to either of the above, some might consider it ‘jumping through hoops’, our response to that would be that maybe somebody desperate might be better suited to them haha. Plenty of hot people on here and many happy to do these simple things. If not it stops them bothering you
Years ago on another site I was asked by a couple to send a pic holding a toothbrush in my mouth. A) face picture that matched my profile pic, B) I’d go to some effort, C) difficult to fake D) I have good dental hygiene. Thought that was brilliant. "That's amazing hahaha!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being verified or photo verified is a choice, or it was. Why do so many on here feel the urge to change how the site operates to meet their own preconceptions. After all we all join knowing exactly what we are signing up to. Snowflakes will freeze hell before I hand over my passport for some imagined benefit others may see in that process... This discussion has nothing to do with "snowflakes", but we thank you for your valid contribution nonetheless "I think you choose the wrong type of snowflake! Just in case anyone missed it your premise has a fundamental flaw. Passports and other ID are photo verifications! And with the frequency with which such data is lost abused stolen etc, by so many corporates why would I trust anyone with my personal data.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we see a profile with no verifications but a photo verification flag we assume its fake. If we get a message off anyone with only 1 or 2 verifications and we check their verification tree and all the profiles have verified each other we presume they are fake. Fakes are easy to spot and getting a verification is easy, go to a club or go on cam. Would we upload our official documents here to prove who we are? Would we hell and neither would any of our swinging friends. Use your common sense and you wont go far wrong." If you've ever been to a club, you'll know that you are expected to bring as much as, in some cases, 2 forms of I.D. and something like a utility bill to prove who you say you are. It's interesting that people wouldn't offer up a passport online but would bring all of this stuff to a swingers club and keep it in a cheap locker. How is it any more or less safe? Or is this merely due to a perception of what is and isn't safe in person vs online? As we have pointed out already, the "common sense" argument doesn't work for everyone. Newbies and people who's brains are wired differently are more likely to assume that if the site has verified someone as real, that is worth trusting...unless they have read this thread, of course | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being verified or photo verified is a choice, or it was. Why do so many on here feel the urge to change how the site operates to meet their own preconceptions. After all we all join knowing exactly what we are signing up to. Snowflakes will freeze hell before I hand over my passport for some imagined benefit others may see in that process... This discussion has nothing to do with "snowflakes", but we thank you for your valid contribution nonetheless
I think you choose the wrong type of snowflake!
Just in case anyone missed it your premise has a fundamental flaw. Passports and other ID are photo verifications!
And with the frequency with which such data is lost abused stolen etc, by so many corporates why would I trust anyone with my personal data....
"It wasn't a premise, it was an example being offered up to get the ball rolling. The idea is that people contribute their own suggestions, some get it, some don't | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In this day and age where internet scams and the like are highlighted daily as dangers and people are more generally aware of those dangers - there really is no reason people should not take responsibility for making their own checks. It's not even about things being "off" or "red flags" - whether you're new or have been around a while if you've used the internet for any length of time, which for most to have found their way here they will have done, it's about personal awareness as much as anything and protecting yourself. And there are no end of steps that you can take to do that, regardless of your background and make up. Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a foolproof method to protect people, but there really isn't one. Your video suggestion could work, but with thousands of new members signing up every week who is going to sit through all those video clips to validate them (we're talking hundreds of man hours) and who is going to pay for the additional server space required to store them? So it comes down to balance and users taking responsibility for themselves and their own safety and not relying wholly on the site to do so. Can't help but feel you're repeatedly missing the point. Nobody is suggesting the site takes complete responsibility for the safety of its members. We are suggesting Fab takes more responsibility than it currently does though and some good suggestions have been made in this thread by others, even if the original example provided opens up its own can of worms. Videos could be just a few seconds long and could be kept on the server for a limited amount of time to prevent them taking up space on hard drives and endless man hours. Yes they would have to increase capacity for this in some regards, but if the site is going to survive it will need to modernise at some point. What happens when something truly awful happens to someone on Fab after a profile has been verified and they weren't who they claimed to be? Are people and the site just going to victim-blame and say "they should have been more careful"? It's easy to say things like that as a man (and this is the male half speaking for this part) because you and I won't be the target of people with the most malicious intents. Ultimately, the lack of robust filtering puts many people off as it is." Not missing any points at all, but could argue you've missed a number of mine and in fact appear to have missed the one I made that essentially agreed with your principle when I said: "Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a foolproof method to protect people, but there really isn't one." Fab does take responsibility too - it provides photo verification, and various other verification tools to supplement and assist users with deciding how genuine people are. For me that is sufficient responsibility. Even at a few seconds long that's a heck of a lot of server space required, which would have to be funded - not to mention time to check each video and validate it - who's going to do that do you think? As far as I know photo verifications are all done by volunteers currently and would guess checking them is a matter of seconds - checking a video verification will take a lot longer - so the net effect would be people waiting for validation for a lot longer, the site having to charge more to pay for paid resource and the extra server space etc. And keeping the verification videos for only a short space of time would kind of defeat part of their object wouldn't it? Not victim blaming in the slightest but do think people place too much expectation on the site and don't take sensible steps, and responsibility for their own actions sufficiently to protect themselves either. And the "truly awful" that you refer to has happened at least twice to my knowledge - can't comment as to the details as I don't know them, but am sure the site assisted in each of them responsibly. Whilst I agree the safety if all users is important (regardless of gender) a video verification isn't going to guarantee that, and nor is any other kind of verification - so again it comes down to people taking responsibility for themselves and making judgement calls based on that. I'd also venture that the vast majority of those that bemoan the fakes and timewasters you're seeking to minimise are men who have been duped by other men, because in their excitement at the thought of getting their cock wet they didn't think to reverse image a pic and wonder why it got hits on multiple porn sites
I'll close by saying again, I understand where you're coming from, and in an ideal world people would not be duped or placed in danger, but I am also realistic enough to know that it's idealistic and there is no practical solution to a problem that I'm not even sure as big a problem as you suggest it is.
The current system isn't perfect, but combined with all the things I have mentioned (common sense, due diligence, use of relevant tools etc) it's as good as any, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In this day and age where internet scams and the like are highlighted daily as dangers and people are more generally aware of those dangers - there really is no reason people should not take responsibility for making their own checks. It's not even about things being "off" or "red flags" - whether you're new or have been around a while if you've used the internet for any length of time, which for most to have found their way here they will have done, it's about personal awareness as much as anything and protecting yourself. And there are no end of steps that you can take to do that, regardless of your background and make up. Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a foolproof method to protect people, but there really isn't one. Your video suggestion could work, but with thousands of new members signing up every week who is going to sit through all those video clips to validate them (we're talking hundreds of man hours) and who is going to pay for the additional server space required to store them? So it comes down to balance and users taking responsibility for themselves and their own safety and not relying wholly on the site to do so. Can't help but feel you're repeatedly missing the point. Nobody is suggesting the site takes complete responsibility for the safety of its members. We are suggesting Fab takes more responsibility than it currently does though and some good suggestions have been made in this thread by others, even if the original example provided opens up its own can of worms. Videos could be just a few seconds long and could be kept on the server for a limited amount of time to prevent them taking up space on hard drives and endless man hours. Yes they would have to increase capacity for this in some regards, but if the site is going to survive it will need to modernise at some point. What happens when something truly awful happens to someone on Fab after a profile has been verified and they weren't who they claimed to be? Are people and the site just going to victim-blame and say "they should have been more careful"? It's easy to say things like that as a man (and this is the male half speaking for this part) because you and I won't be the target of people with the most malicious intents. Ultimately, the lack of robust filtering puts many people off as it is. Not missing any points at all, but could argue you've missed a number of mine and in fact appear to have missed the one I made that essentially agreed with your principle when I said: "Don't get me wrong, it would be great to have a foolproof method to protect people, but there really isn't one." Fab does take responsibility too - it provides photo verification, and various other verification tools to supplement and assist users with deciding how genuine people are. For me that is sufficient responsibility. Even at a few seconds long that's a heck of a lot of server space required, which would have to be funded - not to mention time to check each video and validate it - who's going to do that do you think? As far as I know photo verifications are all done by volunteers currently and would guess checking them is a matter of seconds - checking a video verification will take a lot longer - so the net effect would be people waiting for validation for a lot longer, the site having to charge more to pay for paid resource and the extra server space etc. And keeping the verification videos for only a short space of time would kind of defeat part of their object wouldn't it? Not victim blaming in the slightest but do think people place too much expectation on the site and don't take sensible steps, and responsibility for their own actions sufficiently to protect themselves either. And the "truly awful" that you refer to has happened at least twice to my knowledge - can't comment as to the details as I don't know them, but am sure the site assisted in each of them responsibly. Whilst I agree the safety if all users is important (regardless of gender) a video verification isn't going to guarantee that, and nor is any other kind of verification - so again it comes down to people taking responsibility for themselves and making judgement calls based on that. I'd also venture that the vast majority of those that bemoan the fakes and timewasters you're seeking to minimise are men who have been duped by other men, because in their excitement at the thought of getting their cock wet they didn't think to reverse image a pic and wonder why it got hits on multiple porn sites
I'll close by saying again, I understand where you're coming from, and in an ideal world people would not be duped or placed in danger, but I am also realistic enough to know that it's idealistic and there is no practical solution to a problem that I'm not even sure as big a problem as you suggest it is.
The current system isn't perfect, but combined with all the things I have mentioned (common sense, due diligence, use of relevant tools etc) it's as good as any, and if it ain't broke don't fix it."We didn't ignore that point, it was actually yet another thing you said that missed the point because we aren't suggesting there is a foolproof method to protect people. We are suggesting the current methods Fab utilises, particularly the photo-verification system, are outdated in the year 2020. As for the difference in file sizes, there isn't a big difference between a high quality photo (as most people's camera phones take these days) and a video a few seconds in length at 1080p. It wouldn't be as difficult as is being suggested. The purpose of a video verification is so the mods can check the person uploading it is real and is who they say they are, so having it on there beyond that wouldn't be necessary at all. If anything, you could save space when compared with a verification photo, which, as far as I'm aware, stays stored on the site. Perhaps some people don't take sensible enough precautions, but that just sounds like a massive generalisation to us. A small minority of people not being careful enough isn't a good enough reason for the site to not improve its verification procedures. As we have pointed out, the photo-verification method is clearly broken, and therefore does need fixing. Anyone can nab a picture of someone holding up a piece of paper and replace the text with their fab username, images like this are repurposed for internet memes all the time. We raised it because it's becoming a bigger problem and we're definitely not the only ones to have noticed it. Surely the best thing to do is nip it in the bud before it spirals out of control, and not after? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fab seems to be photo-verifying a lot of people who are definitely not real these days. In the age of Photoshop, where it is so easy to edit what something says on a plain piece of paper, is it an outdated method that needs reviewing by the moderators? Would another method, like taking a photo of your passport next to your face and perhaps also scanning it in as well, for example, make people think twice about their behaviour and what they feel they can get away with on here? Discuss." Maybe they are real, but just not to your taste. You can always just move on and find a profile that is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we see a profile with no verifications but a photo verification flag we assume its fake. If we get a message off anyone with only 1 or 2 verifications and we check their verification tree and all the profiles have verified each other we presume they are fake. Fakes are easy to spot and getting a verification is easy, go to a club or go on cam. Would we upload our official documents here to prove who we are? Would we hell and neither would any of our swinging friends. Use your common sense and you wont go far wrong. If you've ever been to a club, you'll know that you are expected to bring as much as, in some cases, 2 forms of I.D. and something like a utility bill to prove who you say you are. It's interesting that people wouldn't offer up a passport online but would bring all of this stuff to a swingers club and keep it in a cheap locker. How is it any more or less safe? Or is this merely due to a perception of what is and isn't safe in person vs online? As we have pointed out already, the "common sense" argument doesn't work for everyone. Newbies and people who's brains are wired differently are more likely to assume that if the site has verified someone as real, that is worth trusting...unless they have read this thread, of course "We have never taken ID to cupids or Infusions. As for common sense, with everything you soon learn as you go along. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell you what, let's leave it there - you obviously believe there's a problem, and believe it's the sites problem to fix rather than people taking their own precautions and responsibility. Whilst I don't disagree that a more foolproof system would be an ideal, ir that there are *some* profiles who are not genuine, I don't believe the problem is as big as you are making out and personally think you're taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut A few seconds video is vastly bigger file size than a pic too - I've just compared the two using a short 9 second video clip and a pic - 10Mb vs 1.5Mb - now multiply that by thousands of users and you start to get an idea of the problem - would you be willing to pay the extra required to maintain that? You've also twice now ignored my question about who is going to maintain that by sitting through and validating video verifications? Or who will pay for it if someone was hired to do so? There are many ways that you can verify a user is who they say they are for yourself as have been shown on this thread. In my opinion the site works well as it is - it's simple, effective and if you have your wits about you serves it's purpose without the need for any bells and whistles. " If it's something that can be so easily manipulated then it is literally the sites problem to fix it. If you remove the photos put up from photo verifications then you will make sufficient space for a few hundred, or maybe even a few thousand, video verifications a week. Fab might well have the capacity for those kinds of numbers anyway, or at least some of it. If you only keep the verification videos live for say, a week, you are constantly rotating that available space for new profiles to become verified. Simple. I can't comment on the conditions under which you recorded that, which device was used, the resolution etc. so results may vary on the final file size, but the obvious solution is that you put a cap on length and file size just like any other website would. We've ignored it because it's a loaded question. You know we don't know Fab's capacity for storing the data (though a perfectly reasonable solution has been offered above) and neither do you. As for who checks the video verifications, if they're a few seconds in length then it would be the same people who currently check the photo-verifications. I imagine they don't glance at them for 0.25 seconds and then immediately approve them seeing as they're people and not machines, so the extra time it would take is negligible if it was, say a 5-8 second video. The site works well for you and it works fairly well for us too, as so happens, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved and it doesn't mean it works well for everyone - as we have pointed out numerous times. The number of verified fakes has definitely spiked recently and whilst that may not be a problem for you, it will be for other people hoping to navigate it successfully. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we see a profile with no verifications but a photo verification flag we assume its fake. If we get a message off anyone with only 1 or 2 verifications and we check their verification tree and all the profiles have verified each other we presume they are fake. Fakes are easy to spot and getting a verification is easy, go to a club or go on cam. Would we upload our official documents here to prove who we are? Would we hell and neither would any of our swinging friends. Use your common sense and you wont go far wrong. If you've ever been to a club, you'll know that you are expected to bring as much as, in some cases, 2 forms of I.D. and something like a utility bill to prove who you say you are. It's interesting that people wouldn't offer up a passport online but would bring all of this stuff to a swingers club and keep it in a cheap locker. How is it any more or less safe? Or is this merely due to a perception of what is and isn't safe in person vs online? As we have pointed out already, the "common sense" argument doesn't work for everyone. Newbies and people who's brains are wired differently are more likely to assume that if the site has verified someone as real, that is worth trusting...unless they have read this thread, of course "Clubs I've been to that ask for ID dont keep it though, they dont even photocopy it. Theres a huge difference between allowing someone to ID check your documents on the spot and give them back, and a website to hold them for all eternity..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell you what, let's leave it there - you obviously believe there's a problem, and believe it's the sites problem to fix rather than people taking their own precautions and responsibility. Whilst I don't disagree that a more foolproof system would be an ideal, ir that there are *some* profiles who are not genuine, I don't believe the problem is as big as you are making out and personally think you're taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut A few seconds video is vastly bigger file size than a pic too - I've just compared the two using a short 9 second video clip and a pic - 10Mb vs 1.5Mb - now multiply that by thousands of users and you start to get an idea of the problem - would you be willing to pay the extra required to maintain that? You've also twice now ignored my question about who is going to maintain that by sitting through and validating video verifications? Or who will pay for it if someone was hired to do so? There are many ways that you can verify a user is who they say they are for yourself as have been shown on this thread. In my opinion the site works well as it is - it's simple, effective and if you have your wits about you serves it's purpose without the need for any bells and whistles. If it's something that can be so easily manipulated then it is literally the sites problem to fix it. If you remove the photos put up from photo verifications then you will make sufficient space for a few hundred, or maybe even a few thousand, video verifications a week. Fab might well have the capacity for those kinds of numbers anyway, or at least some of it. If you only keep the verification videos live for say, a week, you are constantly rotating that available space for new profiles to become verified. Simple. I can't comment on the conditions under which you recorded that, which device was used, the resolution etc. so results may vary on the final file size, but the obvious solution is that you put a cap on length and file size just like any other website would. We've ignored it because it's a loaded question. You know we don't know Fab's capacity for storing the data (though a perfectly reasonable solution has been offered above) and neither do you. As for who checks the video verifications, if they're a few seconds in length then it would be the same people who currently check the photo-verifications. I imagine they don't glance at them for 0.25 seconds and then immediately approve them seeing as they're people and not machines, so the extra time it would take is negligible if it was, say a 5-8 second video. The site works well for you and it works fairly well for us too, as so happens, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved and it doesn't mean it works well for everyone - as we have pointed out numerous times. The number of verified fakes has definitely spiked recently and whilst that may not be a problem for you, it will be for other people hoping to navigate it successfully." How do you know that they are fakes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think some people don’t understand the intention behind the photo verification option. It's supposed to give a level of assurance that the person in the picture is the same gender as the person’s profile. What it’s not, is a cast iron guarantee that this process is 100% fool proof. Photo verifications can be and probably are faked. What they are not is a nailed on guarantee that the person is genuine, the profile is genuine, that they won’t waste your time, that they will find you attractive, that they will want to meet you or that they will fuck you. Enjoying the site is about using your common sense, regrettably a skill many seem to lack. I think some people are in too much of a hurry to meet, too desperate, and in their haste they forget to carry out any due diligence. After which they want the site to remedy their mistakes by introducing a whole raft of unworkable and impractical processes." None of the suggestions in this thread could be constituted as "unworkable and impractical processes", even if they would make it slightly more difficult for everyone involved. That is kind of the point though because the extra layer of difficulty acts as an additional deterrent to those seeking to be duplicitous. You're absolutely right about some people (mostly single men) not carrying out even the most basic bits of due diligence, but even the smartest of people can be deceived. Nobody here is asking the site to "remedy their mistakes", and if that is intended a thinly-veiled dig, we're sorry to disappoint you and reveal that being deceived by a fake profile has, fortunately, never happened to us.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we see a profile with no verifications but a photo verification flag we assume its fake. If we get a message off anyone with only 1 or 2 verifications and we check their verification tree and all the profiles have verified each other we presume they are fake. Fakes are easy to spot and getting a verification is easy, go to a club or go on cam. Would we upload our official documents here to prove who we are? Would we hell and neither would any of our swinging friends. Use your common sense and you wont go far wrong. If you've ever been to a club, you'll know that you are expected to bring as much as, in some cases, 2 forms of I.D. and something like a utility bill to prove who you say you are. It's interesting that people wouldn't offer up a passport online but would bring all of this stuff to a swingers club and keep it in a cheap locker. How is it any more or less safe? Or is this merely due to a perception of what is and isn't safe in person vs online? As we have pointed out already, the "common sense" argument doesn't work for everyone. Newbies and people who's brains are wired differently are more likely to assume that if the site has verified someone as real, that is worth trusting...unless they have read this thread, of course
Clubs I've been to that ask for ID dont keep it though, they dont even photocopy it.
Theres a huge difference between allowing someone to ID check your documents on the spot and give them back, and a website to hold them for all eternity....."GDPR wouldn't even allow them to hold it for all eternity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think some people don’t understand the intention behind the photo verification option. It's supposed to give a level of assurance that the person in the picture is the same gender as the person’s profile. What it’s not, is a cast iron guarantee that this process is 100% fool proof. Photo verifications can be and probably are faked. What they are not is a nailed on guarantee that the person is genuine, the profile is genuine, that they won’t waste your time, that they will find you attractive, that they will want to meet you or that they will fuck you. Enjoying the site is about using your common sense, regrettably a skill many seem to lack. I think some people are in too much of a hurry to meet, too desperate, and in their haste they forget to carry out any due diligence. After which they want the site to remedy their mistakes by introducing a whole raft of unworkable and impractical processes. None of the suggestions in this thread could be constituted as "unworkable and impractical processes", even if they would make it slightly more difficult for everyone involved. That is kind of the point though because the extra layer of difficulty acts as an additional deterrent to those seeking to be duplicitous. You're absolutely right about some people (mostly single men) not carrying out even the most basic bits of due diligence, but even the smartest of people can be deceived. Nobody here is asking the site to "remedy their mistakes", and if that is intended a thinly-veiled dig, we're sorry to disappoint you and reveal that being deceived by a fake profile has, fortunately, never happened to us. "No dig intended. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell you what, let's leave it there - you obviously believe there's a problem, and believe it's the sites problem to fix rather than people taking their own precautions and responsibility. Whilst I don't disagree that a more foolproof system would be an ideal, ir that there are *some* profiles who are not genuine, I don't believe the problem is as big as you are making out and personally think you're taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut A few seconds video is vastly bigger file size than a pic too - I've just compared the two using a short 9 second video clip and a pic - 10Mb vs 1.5Mb - now multiply that by thousands of users and you start to get an idea of the problem - would you be willing to pay the extra required to maintain that? You've also twice now ignored my question about who is going to maintain that by sitting through and validating video verifications? Or who will pay for it if someone was hired to do so? There are many ways that you can verify a user is who they say they are for yourself as have been shown on this thread. In my opinion the site works well as it is - it's simple, effective and if you have your wits about you serves it's purpose without the need for any bells and whistles. If it's something that can be so easily manipulated then it is literally the sites problem to fix it. If you remove the photos put up from photo verifications then you will make sufficient space for a few hundred, or maybe even a few thousand, video verifications a week. Fab might well have the capacity for those kinds of numbers anyway, or at least some of it. If you only keep the verification videos live for say, a week, you are constantly rotating that available space for new profiles to become verified. Simple. I can't comment on the conditions under which you recorded that, which device was used, the resolution etc. so results may vary on the final file size, but the obvious solution is that you put a cap on length and file size just like any other website would. We've ignored it because it's a loaded question. You know we don't know Fab's capacity for storing the data (though a perfectly reasonable solution has been offered above) and neither do you. As for who checks the video verifications, if they're a few seconds in length then it would be the same people who currently check the photo-verifications. I imagine they don't glance at them for 0.25 seconds and then immediately approve them seeing as they're people and not machines, so the extra time it would take is negligible if it was, say a 5-8 second video. The site works well for you and it works fairly well for us too, as so happens, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved and it doesn't mean it works well for everyone - as we have pointed out numerous times. The number of verified fakes has definitely spiked recently and whilst that may not be a problem for you, it will be for other people hoping to navigate it successfully." I'll be honest here and say I think not only are you being somewhat naive and idealistic but also doing those that check pic verifications somewhat of a disservice, not to mention taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut as I said before. Simple fact of the matter is pic veris are there to validate the gender of a user and nothing more. Yes they can be photoshopped but you make the assumption that the pic mods aren't on the look out for it and refuse any that appear to be. Interested to know how you *know* "The number of verified fakes has definitely spiked recently" if as you've said earlier you've not experienced them? As for the length of time it takes to validate each picture verification again the assumption it takes 2.5 seconds is I am sure a disservice to the pic mods - and suggests they merely wave through any pics submitted - am sure it takes a lot longer, now extend that to a 10 second video and multiply by thousands of users a week and I stand by my earlier point. Either way I think we'll have to agree to disagree - but perhaps if you feel so strongly about it you should post something in the suggestions forum or drop admin a note. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell you what, let's leave it there - you obviously believe there's a problem, and believe it's the sites problem to fix rather than people taking their own precautions and responsibility. Whilst I don't disagree that a more foolproof system would be an ideal, ir that there are *some* profiles who are not genuine, I don't believe the problem is as big as you are making out and personally think you're taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut A few seconds video is vastly bigger file size than a pic too - I've just compared the two using a short 9 second video clip and a pic - 10Mb vs 1.5Mb - now multiply that by thousands of users and you start to get an idea of the problem - would you be willing to pay the extra required to maintain that? You've also twice now ignored my question about who is going to maintain that by sitting through and validating video verifications? Or who will pay for it if someone was hired to do so? There are many ways that you can verify a user is who they say they are for yourself as have been shown on this thread. In my opinion the site works well as it is - it's simple, effective and if you have your wits about you serves it's purpose without the need for any bells and whistles. If it's something that can be so easily manipulated then it is literally the sites problem to fix it. If you remove the photos put up from photo verifications then you will make sufficient space for a few hundred, or maybe even a few thousand, video verifications a week. Fab might well have the capacity for those kinds of numbers anyway, or at least some of it. If you only keep the verification videos live for say, a week, you are constantly rotating that available space for new profiles to become verified. Simple. I can't comment on the conditions under which you recorded that, which device was used, the resolution etc. so results may vary on the final file size, but the obvious solution is that you put a cap on length and file size just like any other website would. We've ignored it because it's a loaded question. You know we don't know Fab's capacity for storing the data (though a perfectly reasonable solution has been offered above) and neither do you. As for who checks the video verifications, if they're a few seconds in length then it would be the same people who currently check the photo-verifications. I imagine they don't glance at them for 0.25 seconds and then immediately approve them seeing as they're people and not machines, so the extra time it would take is negligible if it was, say a 5-8 second video. The site works well for you and it works fairly well for us too, as so happens, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved and it doesn't mean it works well for everyone - as we have pointed out numerous times. The number of verified fakes has definitely spiked recently and whilst that may not be a problem for you, it will be for other people hoping to navigate it successfully. I'll be honest here and say I think not only are you being somewhat naive and idealistic but also doing those that check pic verifications somewhat of a disservice, not to mention taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut as I said before. Simple fact of the matter is pic veris are there to validate the gender of a user and nothing more. Yes they can be photoshopped but you make the assumption that the pic mods aren't on the look out for it and refuse any that appear to be. Interested to know how you *know* "The number of verified fakes has definitely spiked recently" if as you've said earlier you've not experienced them? As for the length of time it takes to validate each picture verification again the assumption it takes 2.5 seconds is I am sure a disservice to the pic mods - and suggests they merely wave through any pics submitted - am sure it takes a lot longer, now extend that to a 10 second video and multiply by thousands of users a week and I stand by my earlier point. Either way I think we'll have to agree to disagree - but perhaps if you feel so strongly about it you should post something in the suggestions forum or drop admin a note. " This. ^ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
As for mods checking passports etc thats just a complete none starter. Mods aren't even paid employees and I can't see many people giving their personal info next to their cock/pussy pic to some random internet stranger. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
