Vetting People

[Do****]

This is millions of men and a few women not trying to just make *** . Lots of fake people

[nh****]

I mean with AI, three fingers held up is pretty easy to do. A quick video chat would be much better. I don't mean a video message but an actual live chat.

[Wi****]

@domkey I agree.. soo many fake women.. and any of thr somewhat real ones just promoting OF.. no real women out here.

[Mr****]

Even a quick video of two blinks, two winks left, two winks right, two blinks is good verification. Most people don't really practice winking, so the unique stresses of the human face in learning (and the occasional chuckle of the seemingly-silly task) aren't easy to capture realistically by Ai-generated modeling, even if you prompt it to do so. Use what makes us human to spot what makes AI uncanny.

[to****]

Yes

[le****]

Absolutely a legit request

[My****]

I hadn’t thought of that. Such a good point.

[My****]

Not only is it completely reasonable, but also good practice to do a verification before sending anything risqué.

[le****]

Or just before you decide to go hang out or grab dinner with one another

[ne****]

Very reasonable. It’s like asking for ID for age verification at a restaurant. If they don’t have a problem and reach for their ID immediately, then they have nothing to hide.

Only the ones who protest or complain at all, give away their red flags

[ey****]

6 hours ago, new-york583917 said:

It’s like asking for ID for age verification at a restaurant. If they don’t have a problem and reach for their ID immediately, then they have nothing to hide.

I'm 43.  I'm very visibly 43. If someone asked for ID at a restaurant I think I'd be in my right to be suspicious

it's all a bit "papers please"

[Mr****]

9 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I'm 43.  I'm very visibly 43. If someone asked for ID at a restaurant I think I'd be in my right to be suspicious

it's all a bit "papers please"

I can understand the point made here, to a point. That said, I've a buddy whom I know is only a year my senior but whose hair shade appears ten years my senior (I've had a very tasty dash of salt to my pepper since my mid-twenties). I also had another buddy, a musician friend, whose hairline had receded before we were both 21 (we spent a lot of time drinking back then and he did NOT hydrate well, so his skin was already leathering up—we, in impetuous youth, referred to him as "the dad friend").

I think in person it *can* be a bit easier to verify that someone is real (though not that they are who they claim to be—that part is only my business when it becomes my business, I tend to avoid asking of peoples' "Bluebeard rooms" when luring them to my type of black mirror). Online, though, it is certainly more difficult to get even that far, yes?

The recognition of sex vs expressed gender, identification of age in a world of filters and manufactured dances of light and shadow, identification of heritage in a world of skewed saturation (if any of those matters be considered of real importance to a person): I think that we must be wary of the "papers" business that you reference, but must also temper that with understanding scrutiny in the opposite direction as well, yes?

[ey****]

21 hours ago, MrDDS said:

I think in person it *can* be a bit easier to verify that someone is real (though not that they are who they claim to be—that part is only my business when it becomes my business, I tend to avoid asking of peoples' "Bluebeard rooms" when luring them to my type of black mirror). Online, though, it is certainly more difficult to get even that far, yes?

I think this is when context can become very important.   And like I think restaurant is a bad example as they have a regulatory duty to verify people are old enough to consume alcohol - and most people fortunate enough to fall under "challenge 25" or similar schemes would appreciate and understand this. 

Equally, I guess.  If the person being ID'd suddenly got a friend request or creepy message on social media from the person who ID'd them, they actually have a massive case here - reporting to the employer would get the person fired and actually pressing charges under a number of info security laws (depending on territory) could lead to a prosecution 

Appreciate I'm taking this in a different direction for a second.

Thread has got 8 pages and it's virtually all men - very few women agreeing that "oddly specific photo" is a reasonable request.  And it's like, ok but it's an oddly specific photo that's not a breach of data privacy...?  Exactly, which is why when someone uses the oddly specific photo they've requested to verify elsewhere it's much more difficult to prove who did it, why, and get any form of case against them.  

But even aside from that.   Why don't you trust the other person?  And I know someone will go "fakes and scammers! Fakes and scammers!" but the fakes and scammers are usually already obvious.  They're doing the hallmark things.  So it is like asking for ID from someon in a bar who is clearly in their 40s, you're either up to something, being a jobsworth, or asking for something disproportional to the context.   

Like, I dunno.  If the person you're talking to doesn't do the pose, what's the worst that happens when you meet? That they don't show? That they don't quite look like their profile?  

It doesn't even do anything to asses if the person is dangerous, or otherwise trustworthy.  Hell, you know... if I was gonna do some form of big long con I'd play along with most verifications.  I mean, we've all seen the tindr swindler

[Mr****]

9 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I think this is when context can become very important.   And like I think restaurant is a bad example as they have a regulatory duty to verify people are old enough to consume alcohol - and most people fortunate enough to fall under "challenge 25" or similar schemes would appreciate and understand this. 

Equally, I guess.  If the person being ID'd suddenly got a friend request or creepy message on social media from the person who ID'd them, they actually have a massive case here - reporting to the employer would get the person fired and actually pressing charges under a number of info security laws (depending on territory) could lead to a prosecution 

Appreciate I'm taking this in a different direction for a second.

Thread has got 8 pages and it's virtually all men - very few women agreeing that "oddly specific photo" is a reasonable request.  And it's like, ok but it's an oddly specific photo that's not a breach of data privacy...?  Exactly, which is why when someone uses the oddly specific photo they've requested to verify elsewhere it's much more difficult to prove who did it, why, and get any form of case against them.  

But even aside from that.   Why don't you trust the other person?  And I know someone will go "fakes and scammers! Fakes and scammers!" but the fakes and scammers are usually already obvious.  They're doing the hallmark things.  So it is like asking for ID from someon in a bar who is clearly in their 40s, you're either up to something, being a jobsworth, or asking for something disproportional to the context.   

Like, I dunno.  If the person you're talking to doesn't do the pose, what's the worst that happens when you meet? That they don't show? That they don't quite look like their profile?  

It doesn't even do anything to asses if the person is dangerous, or otherwise trustworthy.  Hell, you know... if I was gonna do some form of big long con I'd play along with most verifications.  I mean, we've all seen the tindr swindler

Tinder swindler was a wild setup, that's it's own mess to pack before unpacking. But, I think that might be more of a credit to you in the sense of procedural adherence: most people aren't as methodical, especially when *** and attention start heading south of the belt border.

There is something to be considered for the pretense of a sense of personal control of the situation: like a pyrrhic sort of "If I'm going to be Dahmer'd by this person later, I at least want to know that this person was smart enough to pass all my tests and slip under the radar first" sort of thing. In the darkest sense possible, it may be a small light at the end of a tragic tunnel that "the end" wasn't from an idiot but from a cunning predator (a sort of backward justification of one's own sense).

But, all horrid half-jokes aside: it might just be a better means of circumventing a catfish, yes? Pretty easy to gage proportions when placing a person in a peculiar position; pretty hard to look perfect when positioned outside your comfort zone. You know how catfishes can potentially be.

[ey****]

8 hours ago, MrDDS said:

There is something to be considered for the pretense of a sense of personal control of the situation: like a pyrrhic sort of "If I'm going to be Dahmer'd by this person later, I at least want to know that this person was smart enough to pass all my tests and slip under the radar first" sort of thing.

It's funny in the sense... like, you've unlocked another problem I see.

Is sometimes things go bad.  Someone suffers phsyical, sexual, financial, etc. harm - or even like, the somewhat *** of turning up to a coffee shop to meet someone who no-shows while some guys on the next table are sniggering arousing some suspicion - though I don't entirely get the "I was misled" if someone appears older/fatter/etc in real life. We all want to show our best side.  I just checked and my current profile picture is 2 years old.  I don't think I've changed much, but it's certainly out of date.  That said, we're all gonna age anyway

But yeah... sometimes things go bad and some folk will offer sympathy.  And some will offer suggestions... and some of the suggestions kinda, sometimes leaning into somewhat blaming the person "this wouldn't have happened if...." and actually, it may well have.  So yeah, perhaps this does sometimes lead folk to make daft requests which don't change a lot

And that is something, like... what does the photo actually prove?  OK, they are who they say they are - but, right now, what is the harm if they're not?   You're not suddenly gonna send *** or give away excessive personal info to someone online just cos they sent a photo? Right?

 

[Mr****]

Yesterday at 10:33 AM, eyemblacksheep said:

It's funny in the sense... like, you've unlocked another problem I see.

Is sometimes things go bad.  Someone suffers phsyical, sexual, financial, etc. harm - or even like, the somewhat *** of turning up to a coffee shop to meet someone who no-shows while some guys on the next table are sniggering arousing some suspicion - though I don't entirely get the "I was misled" if someone appears older/fatter/etc in real life. We all want to show our best side.  I just checked and my current profile picture is 2 years old.  I don't think I've changed much, but it's certainly out of date.  That said, we're all gonna age anyway

But yeah... sometimes things go bad and some folk will offer sympathy.  And some will offer suggestions... and some of the suggestions kinda, sometimes leaning into somewhat blaming the person "this wouldn't have happened if...." and actually, it may well have.  So yeah, perhaps this does sometimes lead folk to make daft requests which don't change a lot

And that is something, like... what does the photo actually prove?  OK, they are who they say they are - but, right now, what is the harm if they're not?   You're not suddenly gonna send *** or give away excessive personal info to someone online just cos they sent a photo? Right?

 

Considering the person using a thread like this to genuinely learn from it might be somewhere between 2/3 to 1/2 our ages, with the accompanying lack of life experience or "bullshit detection" experience, one might be fairly unpleasantly surprised.
I think there is a natural and typical lack of ability to gage these things objectively. When considering how stressful it can be to choose a healthy meal for lunch/dinner once hunger begins clouding judgment, I'm sure that can be understood in presence of lust and active libido, yes? The answer is always "Screw how you feel, do what needs be done", of course; but that's also a little coarse and neglectful of the strength that mental state actually has on behavior. So, people look for these tricks and secondary "just in case" checks to give them an advantage in choosing (even something as simple as "avoid aisle 18 at the grocer"), which itself is a strong sign of good heads on shoulders, yes?
The photo proves that the other person is willing to be cooperative. It does not prove that they are a safe person, nor is it meant to (that's what the "neutral zone date" stress test is for—early red / green flag assessment ). Full to the point: lack of cooperation in introductions is just not worthwhile to entertain oneself with, all pleasantries of brat behavior aside. So, in general, it's best to just play along with the seemingly senseless ask: all people are fully rational beings within their own frame of reference, and it might be worthwhile to consider the view of the world from that frame when determining if a thing actually is pointless. (You might even note an insight that allows the typical lack of efficacy in explaining this to be bypassed so they understand your view, which is always a desired goal, yes?)

[ey****]

1 hour ago, MrDDS said:

The photo proves that the other person is willing to be cooperative. It does not prove that they are a safe person, nor is it meant to

Yep. I get that, but what does even cooperative mean, and again within context - why do they need to be?

Equally, what assurance does the person who receives the request have that it is merely for 'verification' (that they are who they say they are, that their photo is relatively up to date so on) and not being used to, say, verify elsewhere?   Because the person receiving the request (because the other person claims not to trust them) has no assurances the person making the request can themselves be trusted.

This is often one of the big kinda cycles.   

And so often, yeah - this is actually a big reason why a lot of women (as in women who are definitely real, cos I've met them in real life) will not do this dance.   Typically it's a guy who contacted her in the first place, who is now wanting validation she is "real" (why did he reach out in the first place?!) but to do so involves her providing something she has now way of knowing he's not trying to use to verify somewhere else or with someone else.  

I mean, hell, there are people on other sites will sell you verification photos so perhaps someone being co-operative might be more of a concern than someone who is a little unsure.

 

I guess the cold thing is really, that whilst a woman's biggest f*ar from dating is being attacked to any degree - a man's still is "she might not look like the photo" or "I might be scammed out of a small amount of ***"

[Mr****]

58 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Yep. I get that, but what does even cooperative mean, and again within context - why do they need to be?

Equally, what assurance does the person who receives the request have that it is merely for 'verification' (that they are who they say they are, that their photo is relatively up to date so on) and not being used to, say, verify elsewhere?   Because the person receiving the request (because the other person claims not to trust them) has no assurances the person making the request can themselves be trusted.

This is often one of the big kinda cycles.   

And so often, yeah - this is actually a big reason why a lot of women (as in women who are definitely real, cos I've met them in real life) will not do this dance.   Typically it's a guy who contacted her in the first place, who is now wanting validation she is "real" (why did he reach out in the first place?!) but to do so involves her providing something she has now way of knowing he's not trying to use to verify somewhere else or with someone else.  

I mean, hell, there are people on other sites will sell you verification photos so perhaps someone being co-operative might be more of a concern than someone who is a little unsure.

 

I guess the cold thing is really, that whilst a woman's biggest f*ar from dating is being attacked to any degree - a man's still is "she might not look like the photo" or "I might be scammed out of a small amount of ***"

Valid! I've not often encountered many women unwilling to do such verifications; but also, I assess in other ways and present myself in such dances as "the being who needs to gain *your* trust". Predators are seldom interested in such advances because it reads like a potential predator, and plays to the likelihood that their own motives are predatory 😊 (Primal play in non-sexual spaces is among my favorites, I enjoy cowing would-be predators.)

There are always two sides to this dance, and the perspective of security is never fully ascertained (that's why I strongly discipline, and then refuse, submissives who dive into TPE in earnest without any sort of scrutiny).

[Mr****]

58 minutes ago, eyemblacksheep said:

Yep. I get that, but what does even cooperative mean, and again within context - why do they need to be?

Equally, what assurance does the person who receives the request have that it is merely for 'verification' (that they are who they say they are, that their photo is relatively up to date so on) and not being used to, say, verify elsewhere?   Because the person receiving the request (because the other person claims not to trust them) has no assurances the person making the request can themselves be trusted.

This is often one of the big kinda cycles.   

And so often, yeah - this is actually a big reason why a lot of women (as in women who are definitely real, cos I've met them in real life) will not do this dance.   Typically it's a guy who contacted her in the first place, who is now wanting validation she is "real" (why did he reach out in the first place?!) but to do so involves her providing something she has now way of knowing he's not trying to use to verify somewhere else or with someone else.  

I mean, hell, there are people on other sites will sell you verification photos so perhaps someone being co-operative might be more of a concern than someone who is a little unsure.

 

I guess the cold thing is really, that whilst a woman's biggest f*ar from dating is being attacked to any degree - a man's still is "she might not look like the photo" or "I might be scammed out of a small amount of ***"

Valid! I've not often encountered many women unwilling to do such verifications; but also, I assess in other ways and present myself in such dances as "the being who needs to gain *your* trust". Predators are seldom interested in such advances because it reads like a potential predator, and plays to the likelihood that their own motives are predatory 😊 (Primal play in non-sexual spaces is among my favorites, I enjoy cowing would-be predators.)

There are always two sides to this dance, and the perspective of security is never fully ascertained (that's why I strongly discipline, and then refuse, submissives who dive into TPE in earnest without any sort of scrutiny).

[ey****]

16 minutes ago, MrDDS said:

There are always two sides to this dance, and the perspective of security is never fully ascertained

I guess there's things always to remember.  Which is sometimes to appreciate there is this juggling act that if you're asking for something to validate the other person, how are you also validated.  And of course also a case of what is the cause of the doubt.  I think often this is why sometimes for both sides agreeing to a video chat can be a measure - because you're both seeing in real time that you are who you say you are - and it can be done via 3rd parties without giving away telephone numbers.  

Whilst of course as someone said elsewhere, people can fake using AI (or a pre-recorded video was part of a big scam a few years ago) anyone who can do that, well, that's far more sophisticated than faking a photo.    I guess a lot depends on the context of current discussions.  Sometimes even offering the other person a video call can be a good move because while it's mutually beneficial, it is less likely to come over as lacking trust.

 

 

[Mr****]

8 hours ago, eyemblacksheep said:

I guess there's things always to remember.  Which is sometimes to appreciate there is this juggling act that if you're asking for something to validate the other person, how are you also validated.  And of course also a case of what is the cause of the doubt.  I think often this is why sometimes for both sides agreeing to a video chat can be a measure - because you're both seeing in real time that you are who you say you are - and it can be done via 3rd parties without giving away telephone numbers.  

Whilst of course as someone said elsewhere, people can fake using AI (or a pre-recorded video was part of a big scam a few years ago) anyone who can do that, well, that's far more sophisticated than faking a photo.    I guess a lot depends on the context of current discussions.  Sometimes even offering the other person a video call can be a good move because while it's mutually beneficial, it is less likely to come over as lacking trust.

 

 

Now that sounds like a pretty good solution (you know, until AI crosses uncanny valley in real-time haha).

[Do****]

I have had so many fake accounts , they want *** and other things . Report them immediately