I am refraining from voting.

If you want to have verified members, I believe the only way you can do it is to have a verified members forum area where we can speak freely as ourselves.

I removed my links about 4 years ago when, and I think the exact words in that threat were:  "You people are a bunch of hypocrites... as a matter of fact, I'm going to....." and he/she went to Dreamstime and flagged keywords in our photos.  It's no secret who I am, or where you can find me, but if you want to be somehow vengeful to anyone i.e. "That person (who I just had a spat with on MSG) is using my photos as source material for illustrations...  this person has their port immediately suspended from SS.

BUT ASIDE FROM THE FORUM - wouldn't it be a good idea to have a verified member panel/guild/collective.  We place ourselves on the list, we have votes and when an issue comes up - and a majority of us agree on how to proceed, ONE VOICE represents the group and presents our concerns as they arise.  It isn't exactly a union, but if suddenly a body of 60,000 photos and illustrations has a unified/verified voice THEY might take it with more credit than each of us whining on a forum.

And, having my user name on display helps control my sarcasm in most cases.  If I was anonymous I don't think I would exercise that self control.

Quote from: Pixart on October 14, 2011, 17:52


BUT ASIDE FROM THE FORUM - wouldn't it be a good idea to have a verified member panel/guild/collective.  We place ourselves on the list, we have votes and when an issue comes up - and a majority of us agree on how to proceed, ONE VOICE represents the group and presents our concerns as they arise.  It isn't exactly a union, but if suddenly a body of 60,000 photos and illustrations has a unified/verified voice THEY might take it with more credit than each of us whining on a forum.

Very good idea IMHO. 

Quote from: bettan on October 14, 2011, 17:17provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean.

You are a new (?) member and anonymous. Your rather provocative post came an hour after you signed up. Just go back to your old ID please and post from there. Hi and bye.

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on October 14, 2011, 17:59

Quote from: bettan on October 14, 2011, 17:17provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean.

You are a new (?) member and anonymous. Your rather provocative post came an hour after you signed up. Just go back to your old ID please and post from there. Hi and bye.

Ofcourse, like Attila The Nun. Your real identity I presume?  how very ironic.

I believe real identities should be required. it prevents bashing behind anonymity and allows for qualification of comments and experience. I would also support Tyler requiring verification upon registration, even if a user chooses to be anonymous in the forum to avoid agency backlash.

another thing Tyler, is that bringing back the ignore stats has fueled the sophomoric attitude that pervades here. I realize the quickest accusation at me will be that with 31 members ignoring me I'm biased. I'm not making the suggestion for that reason. I can be very blunt and people react, and I realize my tone is not conveyed well in a forum. it is what it is. not to mention as an iStock exclusive, I'm a relative minority here. but I am not anonymous and I stand behind my comments or I readily apologize for any if appropriate. the point being that allowing people to count ignore stats is entirely childish and it is a game that add fuels to the fire in already negative threads here. keep the function, lose the public rating visibility. keep reputations, that function seems to be used well.

allowing anonymous users to post freely also allows for multiple accounts and trolling running amuck. as it does here frequently.

I don't think requiring true identity would be all that good of an idea, especially with at least one agency publicly stating they would take retribution for things said in public fora.

That said, some of the spats and arguments are pretty annoying and childish, and people coming back repeatedly with different usernames is annoying.

A side forum for only people that are verified might be nice though.

Generally I'd advocate for a pretty loose hand on the reigns here, but when people start insulting each other directly as opposed to disagreeing with what they said, it just gets messy, so go ahead and delete that stuff. Sometimes it might be tongue in cheek or meant as a joke, but that can be hard to convey with text. Just because you put a smiley after an insult doesn't mean it is ok.

I do appreciate this forum and most of its members. Over time there are some I have come to value their opinions more than others. Some people just seem to talk a big game but don't really follow it up. Maybe they actually do have a good game, but since they don't follow it up their posts don't carry as much weight for me. When a discussion descends into a pissing contest I usually either grab the popcorn or stop reading.

Quote from: pancaketom on October 14, 2011, 18:27
I don't think requiring true identity would be all that good of an idea, especially with at least one agency publicly stating they would take retribution for things said in public fora.

That said, some of the spats and arguments are pretty annoying and childish, and people coming back repeatedly with different usernames is annoying.

A side forum for only people that are verified might be nice though.

Generally I'd advocate for a pretty loose hand on the reigns here, but when people start insulting each other directly as opposed to disagreeing with what they said, it just gets messy, so go ahead and delete that stuff. Sometimes it might be tongue in cheek or meant as a joke, but that can be hard to convey with text. Just because you put a smiley after an insult doesn't mean it is ok.

I do appreciate this forum and most of its members. Over time there are some I have come to value their opinions more than others. Some people just seem to talk a big game but don't really follow it up. Maybe they actually do have a good game, but since they don't follow it up their posts don't carry as much weight for me. When a discussion descends into a pissing contest I usually either grab the popcorn or stop reading.

good post...I agree with everything you said and I like the idea of a side forum with verified identities too.

Quote from: bettan on October 14, 2011, 18:14

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on October 14, 2011, 17:59

Quote from: bettan on October 14, 2011, 17:17provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean.

You are a new (?) member and anonymous. Your rather provocative post came an hour after you signed up. Just go back to your old ID please and post from there. Hi and bye.

Ofcourse, like Attila The Nun. Your real identity I presume?  how very ironic.

In the end, it was an epic fail, wasn't it, Bettan?  You hoped to prove that anonymity was bad and all that happened was people took you with a pinch of salt.

Quote from: RT on October 14, 2011, 08:08
What's the point of proving one's identity, I could put my real name but that isn't what my portfolio is under and it's the same for the vast majority of contributors.

We've seen instances where an agency has taken direct action over what's been said here, again a good reason for anonymity.

The biggest problem you have here is your own censorship, you allow people to make statements on MSG and then when they're challenged or asked to provide some form of evidence you delete the posts and lock the thread,I appreciate this is a good revenue source for you and of course there should be a balance of politeness but to allow fraudulent statements to go unchallenged undermines the whole idea of an independent forum.

So on one hand your asking people to prove their identity but not to provide any proof of what they say. Pointless really.

Well said, I originally joined MSG because it offered a frank place to discuss aspects of the business without ramifications from the various micros. I also appreciated that fact that there are strong individuals here with significant business experience in the industry who were able to frankly speak their mind and discuss the various elephants in the microstock room.  That environment has been lost if the room fosters censored see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil communication.  

Are you really doing your visitors a favor if you leave them vulnerable by fostering censorship to honest discussion and frank debate?

Quote from: Microbius on October 14, 2011, 11:51
There's definitely a very fine line to tread.
It gets to be a real problem when there are those who aim to use any forum they contribute to as a marketing tool for their business or to set themselves up as gurus.

There are those who want complete control over any interaction they have on a forum so they can present themselves in the best light possible regardless of where the truth lies. I know that this has led some on other forums (SS for example) to build up relationships with moderators to effectively shut down any questioning of their position and to have posts outing untruths deleted. As well as building up small gangs like in a school playground that get PMed to post on queue and bully other forum members.

What this ultimately means is that you end up with a forum no one in the know would ever contemplate reading, let alone contributing to.

You made some great points here, while these individuals and the site may benefit monetarily by increased exposure; ultimately censorship  destroys healthy and honest interaction within the community!

Quote from: Zeus on October 14, 2011, 15:23
Of those who like complete anonymity, I ask why? What is it that you are afraid of?

Speaking my mind freely without the fear of getting kicked out of an agency because of it.

MSG might as well be censored by a moderator, because it is censored by bullies, usually hiding behind anonymity. while I agree that you should not have to risk your account by speaking your mind, you should not be allowed to use that protection as a weapon against other contributors. there's a line that is regularly crossed here and being anonymous allows it to be crossed far more easily.

at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.

Quote from: lisafx on October 14, 2011, 17:33
Tyler, I really strongly urge you not to require identity checks for people posting here.  The ability to post anonymously is the main reason this forum has such an open and free exchange of opinions.  If you take that protection of anonymity away, you will find far fewer honest discussions and the industry will have lost a valuable resource.  

I think exactly the same.    

Requiring confirmed identities would be a big mistake for MSG.

If this suggestion would become a requirement, imagine the size of the gap (or better said emptiness) left by my leaving

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 14, 2011, 19:24

Quote from: bettan on October 14, 2011, 18:14

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on October 14, 2011, 17:59

Quote from: bettan on October 14, 2011, 17:17provocative or just a bit too close to the truth?  for comfort I mean.

You are a new (?) member and anonymous. Your rather provocative post came an hour after you signed up. Just go back to your old ID please and post from there. Hi and bye.

Ofcourse, like Attila The Nun. Your real identity I presume?  how very ironic.

In the end, it was an epic fail, wasn't it, Bettan?  You hoped to prove that anonymity was bad and all that happened was people took you with a pinch of salt.

Its their prerogative and my treat to them.

I think the ignore button works wonders.

^ you probably won't see my post since it seems you're lucky #32...but your post makes a point. instead of stating why you disagree, or welcoming discussion, you've posted an inflammatory, dead end response. aren't we beyond the popularity games of high school at this point?

Quote from: Slovenian on October 14, 2011, 20:12
If this suggestion would become a requirement, imagine the size of the gap (or better said emptiness) left by my leaving

This is the most persuasive argument I've read in favor of requiring identities.

Quote from: SNP on October 14, 2011, 20:07
MSG might as well be censored by a moderator, because it is censored by bullies, usually hiding behind anonymity. while I agree that you should not have to risk your account by speaking your mind, you should not be allowed to use that protection as a weapon against other contributors. there's a line that is regularly crossed here and being anonymous allows it to be crossed far more easily.

at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.

before joining this forum I did a bit of searching. Only in this thread alone, there are four people, anonymous ofcourse but doing their best to destroy and drumming up a verbal fight. The moderator here must be incredibly slow, havent caught on to it yet and probably wont do either. Not streetwise enough.
These four people are in almost every thread, allowed to destroy and gutting every comment and thread there is.

how come?  and who are the moderators?

Lisa - it is ironic that you are not anonymous but you favour anonymity. lol. I think it would make discussions more honest if people couldn't hide. as I said earlier, I agree with some means of keeping anonymity in the threads, but Tyler should have access and require that accounts are verified. to avoid multiple accounts and trolls, as well as keeping people aware that at least someone knows who they are to curb all-out attacks. I learned over the years to ignore them for the most part, but lots of people get discouraged and I think it benefits all of us to have a larger representation of opinions here.

Although I have no problem using the same ID I use on the agencies, I understand one of the main reasons why people want to remain anonymous (not risking retaliation) and I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows. OTOH, there have been a lot of stir that generates extra work to Leaf. If these problems are mainly generated by the anonymous members, than a solution of confirming identity to Leaf only would be a good compromise. If people don't trust him, then, well, maybe they don't belong to his forum.

Quote from: madelaide on October 14, 2011, 20:38
Although I have no problem using the same ID I use on the agencies, I understand one of the main reasons why people want to remain anonymous (not risking retaliation) and I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows. OTOH, there have been a lot of stir that generates extra work to Leaf. If these problems are mainly generated by the anonymous members, than a solution of confirming identity to Leaf only would be a good compromise. If people don't trust him, then, well, maybe they don't belong to his forum.

good point

Quote from: SNP on October 14, 2011, 20:34
Lisa - it is ironic that you are not anonymous but you favour anonymity. lol.

What can I say?  I don't get high either, but still favor legalizing pot for those that want to use it

I totally appreciate your point.  However, I mentioned I frequently have pulled my punches because of being out in the open as I am.  I am glad anonymity affords some the ability to be more blunt.  

I know you are one who always speaks their mind, but Istock exclusives are in a unique position there.  Some other sites are known for canceling accounts of outspoken members of this forum.  Ask JoAnn or Bobby Deal.  

I would be amenable to a solution where members revealed their identities to Tyler, but still remained anonymous on the forum.  As long as Tyler is willing to shoulder that burden.

Quote from: lisafx on October 14, 2011, 20:53

Quote from: SNP on October 14, 2011, 20:34
Lisa - it is ironic that you are not anonymous but you favour anonymity. lol.

What can I say?  I don't get high either, but still favor legalizing pot for those that want to use it

LOL, I agree! and I agree with your other points. I certainly don't think people should risk their accounts. but I think there's somewhere in the middle that would benefit the discussions here.

Quote from: madelaide on October 14, 2011, 20:38
Although I have no problem using the same ID I use on the agencies, I understand one of the main reasons why people want to remain anonymous (not risking retaliation) and I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows. OTOH, there have been a lot of stir that generates extra work to Leaf. If these problems are mainly generated by the anonymous members, than a solution of confirming identity to Leaf only would be a good compromise. If people don't trust him, then, well, maybe they don't belong to his forum.

Quote: "I appreacite the openess of opinions that the anonymity allows".  Openess?  well its a nice thought but sadly, just in this very thread alone, its as close to the chest as it comes. All sarcastic and ironic postings comes from three members of which I couldnt even guess who they were. They have no proof of credibillity or anything. just, nome de plumes.
Know the culprits?  thats no problem, just go through the postings of just about every thread there is. You will find the same pseudos.