Quote from: fullvalue on March 13, 2011, 11:59

I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.

Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue.  If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA.  Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.

And an accountant.

Maybe we're better off having the conference call be with a team comprised of a lawyer, an accountant and a programmer that are not contributing to ISP as artists - a group of our choosing.  Time to follow through with the union concept in that we form a group to hire the three that will sign the NDA but not be hindered in the forums.

Quote from: cclapper on March 13, 2011, 12:04

Quote from: fullvalue on March 13, 2011, 11:59

I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.

Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue.  If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA.  Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.

And an accountant.

Maybe we're better off having the conference call be with a team comprised of a lawyer, an accountant and a programmer that are not contributing to ISP as artists - a group of our choosing.  Time to follow through with the union concept in that we form a group to hire the three that will sign the NDA but not be hindered in the forums.

That sounds like a very decent plan imho!

Another thought is how are the chosen 5 even to know what is revealed in the conference call is even the truth? Which seems in awful short supply at iStock at the moment. It's certainly possible that they'll just get fed a bunch of spin anyway.

I nominate:

Mr Bojangles the cat
An autographed picture of Pat Sajak
An oak log with a wig on
A Tickle Me Elmo
A Spiderman costume

I like that a whole thread is devoted to nominating 5 people to keep secrets. 

The Supreme Court and chief Lord Justice, the NSA, CTU, CIA and FBI, should also be present. Banned from further forum use is the Al Quaida, Red-Brigade BUT not the liberation army of this forum. Basta!

Another thought is how are the chosen 5 even to know what is revealed in the conference call is even the truth? Which seems in awful short supply at iStock at the moment. It's certainly possible that they'll just get fed a bunch of spin anyway.

My concern as well. If istock were about telling the truth, why have they told so many lies in the past months? Why does the site continue to be unsecure? Why do other sites seem to have it all under control? You will never convince me that what gets said to Sean, JoAnn or anyone else will be the truth. It will be spin.

I totally trust Sean, JoAnn and some others mentioned that I know, but I just don't believe that this is going to change anything at all.

Take the fraud issues off the table for a minute...what about the whole wreck the site is in? How many times have admins said fixes were coming, and then it ends up worse?

I think it's too little, too late. I think cthoman's nominations make about as much sense.

edit: their cash cow is now under attack from some of the big guns...of course they are going to try to appear to be reaching out. No one will convince me that this effort is sincere...we're again talking greediness and money. No improvements for contributors.

edit: their cash cow is now under attack from some of the big guns...of course they are going to try to appear to be reaching out. No one will convince me that this effort is sincere...we're again talking greediness and money. No improvements for contributors.

Agreed.

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2011, 11:07

I'm sure that Sean for one would be happier knowing that this was a genuine, unpreventable, major fraud assault (assuming for the moment that it is) and not just his agent's negligence or worse.

If I were in Sean's position, I would be letting my lawyer do my talking with Istock at this point. 

Well you've certainly got a point, but sometimes you need to know if it's worth throwing good money after bad.

Quote from: fullvalue on March 13, 2011, 11:59

I like Paul Cowan's suggestion that the five have a list of questions they can answer in advance of the meeting.

Since this is a spinoff of the fraud thread, it's fair to assume that this conference relates only to that issue.  If it covered any other issues, then the five should refuse to sign the NDA.  Finally, if possible the group should include a lawyer and a programmer.

And an accountant.

and maybe a lie-detector operator!

Quote from: caspixel on March 13, 2011, 13:04

Quote from: cthoman on March 13, 2011, 12:50

I nominate:

Mr Bojangles the cat
An autographed picture of Pat Sajak
An oak log with a wig on
A Tickle Me Elmo
A Spiderman costume

I like that a whole thread is devoted to nominating 5 people to keep secrets.  

I just reread that and am literally LOL. "An oak log with a wig on" ROFL

What? You don't have all these things just laying around your office set up at a child's tea party table? Well, everything, but the Spiderman costume because you've gotta wear that (of course).

Every time I read that list new waves of laughter roll out.  It's the funniest thing I've read in a while. "An autographed picture of Pat Sajak" LOLOLOL

Thank you for that.

This prob will not affect me much, i just started at IS, very few pics. Although i have had a large batch of $ taken away from me at another micro co, for the same reason, "fraud".

This is what is in my mind:

lets say we make and sell a crap load of wiggets to walmart (for resale) and walmart in turn sells them to the public, via there stores.
along comes a groop of scammers/criminals who bought a butt load of our wiggets with stolen credit cards.
walmart would not be charging us for the stolen items?! They would just absorbe it as the cost of doing biz! And possibly follow up with the authorities to try and recup the loss.

Why is it not like this with the micros?

Actually the proper analogy is a bit different -- the stolen credit cards were used to buy CREDITS from iStock, which were then exchanged for images, but they didn't buy the images directly from the contributors with the credit cards.  I was checking to see if credits could be used to buy anything else, like perhaps merchandise from the store (because then would they go back to the manufacturer of the merchandise and ask for their money back?) -- but I guess they can only use the credits on image downloads, and not on anything else.   

   This is a brilliant move on istocks part, and fits right in with the strategy of shutting down dissension in the forums. Once you get anointed into the "inner circle" you are pretty much locked up from talking about istocks business. A great way to put the vocal, thoughtful contributors into a box and throw away the key! There might be a lot of people complaining about the management at istock, but to me they are firing on all 8 cylinders. Dressing up the numbers, lowering the costs of images they sell, raising the costs to buyers and keeping the extra profits, shutting down the complaints, and making istock look like a great bet in the ipo market. Well done! I, for one, will buy the stock when it comes out. ( And sell it before the next quarterly earnings report).