Author Topic: Why are you anonymous? (Read 24854 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #51 on:** August 09, 2011, 19:32 »

Quote from: MatHayward on August 09, 2011, 19:23

I still think that it's bad manners to have a discussion/debate with someone and not be willing to at least sign your first name. That being said, in the grand scheme of things...who really cares?
Have a good one,
Mat

If that's the worst example of bad manners you experience on the web, I'll be amazed.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #52 on:** August 09, 2011, 20:13 »

Quote from: MatHayward on August 09, 2011, 19:23

I still think that it's bad manners to have a discussion/debate with someone and not be willing to at least sign your first name. That being said, in the grand scheme of things...who really cares?

Mat

I go back to the point many have made here. Some agencies are petty and vindictive in how they deal with criticism. It is important to be able to discuss these agencies without the fear of some suck-up trying to win favor by ratting someone out. I think most people here base their judgments on what is written by the poster, not the portfolio. I don't judge others photography, and I have no idea, or interest, in what you shoot. I just think what you write is not correct. ( and, no, I'm not calling you a suck-up)

Ed · « **Reply #53 on:** August 09, 2011, 20:38 »

It's funny, but this whole discussion appears to revolve around something that's similar to the forums at iStock.

You've got some contributors with canisters of a certain color, and others with badges from "cage matches" and others who simply have a badge for being this or that. Everyone has brownie points for one reason or another.

In fact, for a time, they created classifications for contributors that were assigned based on a posting pattern - like a clown for those that joke. The system was scrapped because it did nothing but create silos amongst contributors.

Leaf provides for a way for folks to promote their portfolios by allowing people to create referral links to the micros - and that's terrific for those that want to participate but, based on what I'm reading here, a person may have a 20,000 image portfolio at a traditional agency (or series of agencies) and a 500 image portfolio at a micro and still be looked down upon because they haven't posted up a "referral link" and there are folks here that discount them about not knowing anything about the industry.

That's funny....ridiculous....but funny.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #54 on:** August 09, 2011, 20:55 »

Why do I have to know someone to evaluate his argument? I usually don`t change my opinion with the person I talk to ;-)
Even more: I think objectivity is even stronger if you DONT know to whom you are listening or talking....

RacePhoto · « **Reply #55 on:** August 09, 2011, 22:17 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on August 09, 2011, 20:55

Why do I have to know someone to evaluate his argument? I usually don`t change my opinion with the person I talk to ;-)
Even more: I think objectivity is even stronger if you DONT know to whom you are listening or talking....

Lets see, you find an anonymous person, with no credentials or identity, on the Internet, to be objective material?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #56 on:** August 10, 2011, 03:10 »

Thanks for replying, Mat. I do appreciate it.

I'm not sure how you get to the "I'm right and you're wrong" conclusion straight after admitting that you were wrong to claim anonymous posters were ripping into the artistic merit of other people.

As for your "oh brother" line - well, after you firmly asserted that people were anonymously attacking other artists' work when, in fact, the anonymous attacks are on agencies, then the only rational interpretations are either that you are making completely unfounded statements or that you confuse agencies with artists. So, you see, false statements lead people to make false deductions. It rather seems that you think I am being biased against you and irrationally nasty, when the reality is that I just went where you took me (so it's all your fault

.... err, just to avoid confusion, please take that comment in the lighthearted way that is intended).

You apparently failed to understand that my Libya reference was allegorical. The point was that if you stand up, come out in the open and speak freely and honestly about things concerning Fotolia, you are very likely to be severely punished. Yet you want people to stand up and come out into the open. Given your close association with Fotolia, don't you think it is inevitable that people are going to suspect this is an effort to flush dissidents out of the undergrowth? (And I'm quite rude enough to say that face to face, too).

This is all the more so because as I understand it your unpaid role at Fotolia - a role you must relish or you wouldn't do it for nothing - appears to involve crushing dissent in the forums by gagging dissenters. I really don't understand why someone would want to do that without it being a job assigned to him by his employer but I fully accept your explanation that you are doing it because you want to, not to benefit from it.

Now, let us look at where you don't "want to go". You don't want to make any comment about Fotolia issuing threats against contributors for making honest comments in an independent forum. I notice that this is not a case of you denying it, you just don't want to talk about it, so I assume you know it is true. You apparently "don't want to go" as far as promising to act in solidarity with me if I reveal my name and Fotolia boots me out as a result. It also seems that you "don't want to go" to any condemnation of Fotolia for cutting commissions or for its deceitful behaviour over distorting the "percentages" it pays through currency-related sleight of hand.

Mat, I assume you are an ordinary, decent, guy who hates to see your colleagues having their earnings slashed so that a corporation can get richer, objects to companies using financial tricks to trick money out of people, and is disgusted when corporations use their financial clout to bully and silence the little guy.

So why don't you ever say that? Well, you can't, can you, because your friends might punish you if you did? So the price you pay for writing under your own name is that you can't be honest with us.

Perhaps I am wrong, though. Perhaps you think it is clever for agencies to squeeze, bully and trick contributing artists. Maybe you "don't want to go there" because you know you would be shredded by all the artists here who have seen their earnings cut. If you do like corporate bullies for some strange reason, then maybe you are trying to flush out anonymous dissenters for punishment. Who knows?

You see how it is, Mat? Because you have given your name, I can't know what you really think. Because I am anonymous, I can tell you precisely what I think. Which do you think is more honest and reliable?

You think I am a coward for not giving my name. I think you are a coward for giving your name but not telling us what you think. Come on, Mat - be brave! Go there! Go to all those thoughts and feelings that you bottle up because you've been too scared to have people associate them with your name. Tell us what you really think about these issues. Because if you daren't then you completely destroy your own case against anonymity.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #58 on:** August 10, 2011, 03:32 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on August 09, 2011, 22:17

Quote from: velocicarpo on August 09, 2011, 20:55
Why do I have to know someone to evaluate his argument? I usually don`t change my opinion with the person I talk to ;-)
Even more: I think objectivity is even stronger if you DONT know to whom you are listening or talking....

Lets see, you find an anonymous person, with no credentials or identity, on the Internet, to be objective material?

That's an interesting question. I would float the idea that the quality of information will be inversely proportional to the benefit the poster may gain from readers acting on it. The identity of the person providing it is far less relevant (and probably harder to determine) than the reason for them giving it. Internet identities are very unreliable and usually impossible to check. I would guess that information from an anonymous source is likely to be far more reliable than information from a source with a carefully constructed, apparently perfect, fake identity.

Freedom · « **Reply #59 on:** August 10, 2011, 03:41 »

Well said. Jsnover's experience at Fotolia where she was banned from its forum and is not allowed to go back as a contributor had proven BT's points.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 10, 2011, 03:10

Thanks for replying, Mat. I do appreciate it.

I'm not sure how you get to the "I'm right and you're wrong" conclusion straight after admitting that you were wrong to claim anonymous posters were ripping into the artistic merit of other people.

As for your "oh brother" line - well, after you firmly asserted that people were anonymously attacking other artists' work when, in fact, the anonymous attacks are on agencies, then the only rational interpretations are either that you are making completely unfounded statements or that you confuse agencies with artists. So, you see, false statements lead people to make false deductions. It rather seems that you think I am being biased against you and irrationally nasty, when the reality is that I just went where you took me (so it's all your fault .... err, just to avoid confusion, please take that comment in the lighthearted way that is intended).

You apparently failed to understand that my Libya reference was allegorical. The point was that if you stand up, come out in the open and speak freely and honestly about things concerning Fotolia, you are very likely to be severely punished. Yet you want people to stand up and come out into the open. Given your close association with Fotolia, don't you think it is inevitable that people are going to suspect this is an effort to flush dissidents out of the undergrowth? (And I'm quite rude enough to say that face to face, too).

This is all the more so because as I understand it your unpaid role at Fotolia - a role you must relish or you wouldn't do it for nothing - appears to involve crushing dissent in the forums by gagging dissenters. I really don't understand why someone would want to do that without it being a job assigned to him by his employer but I fully accept your explanation that you are doing it because you want to, not to benefit from it.

Now, let us look at where you don't "want to go". You don't want to make any comment about Fotolia issuing threats against contributors for making honest comments in an independent forum. I notice that this is not a case of you denying it, you just don't want to talk about it, so I assume you know it is true. You apparently "don't want to go" as far as promising to act in solidarity with me if I reveal my name and Fotolia boots me out as a result. It also seems that you "don't want to go" to any condemnation of Fotolia for cutting commissions or for its deceitful behaviour over distorting the "percentages" it pays through currency-related sleight of hand.

Mat, I assume you are an ordinary, decent, guy who hates to see your colleagues having their earnings slashed so that a corporation can get richer, objects to companies using financial tricks to trick money out of people, and is disgusted when corporations use their financial clout to bully and silence the little guy.

So why don't you ever say that? Well, you can't, can you, because your friends might punish you if you did? So the price you pay for writing under your own name is that you can't be honest with us.

Perhaps I am wrong, though. Perhaps you think it is clever for agencies to squeeze, bully and trick contributing artists. Maybe you "don't want to go there" because you know you would be shredded by all the artists here who have seen their earnings cut. If you do like corporate bullies for some strange reason, then maybe you are trying to flush out anonymous dissenters for punishment. Who knows?

You see how it is, Mat? Because you have given your name, I can't know what you really think. Because I am anonymous, I can tell you precisely what I think. Which do you think is more honest and reliable?

You think I am a coward for not giving my name. I think you are a coward for giving your name but not telling us what you think. Come on, Mat - be brave! Go there! Go to all those thoughts and feelings that you bottle up because you've been too scared to have people associate them with your name. Tell us what you really think about these issues. Because if you daren't then you completely destroy your own case against anonymity.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #60 on:** August 10, 2011, 04:11 »

Quote from: Achilles on August 10, 2011, 03:29

People are way more cruel when using the keyboard rather than their voice, but it's even worse when they are allowed to flame other people and remain anonymous for the sake of free speech. One of the worst case scenarios or extreme examples are London's masked hoodies still rioting and looting the city under the false claim of protesting.

Here is a good reading as to why anonymous posts are bad:
How the internet created an age of rage - http://bit.ly/nl3dJV

Interesting article, Achilles. Of course, the exact opposite view to that of Wikileaks.

Schopenhauer's case rests on the assumption that a truthful writer will gain acclaim and a false one will suffer. But what about cases where truthfulness is punished and lies are rewarded? In that case, accountability (i.e. being named) encourages dishonesty and protects the guilty.

There is no "right answer" to this but it's worth noting that Fotolia's actions against people who spoke honestly under their own names have been directly responsible for some others here choosing to be anonymous.

Achilles · « **Reply #61 on:** August 10, 2011, 04:45 »

I don't know the reasons behind their decision. The penalty might have been applied for something else than just words posted on the forum. Also, being public shouldn't be an excuse for a derogatory language. Extremely rude or messages full of vitriol trying to undermine one agency's reputation should be penalized. You can't use someone's efforts while spiting on his name and expecting him to not react.

Our policy has always been to be transparent and to work together with our contributors. If we have a bad approach in some case I expect us to be penalized, no matter if the users are anonymous or not. If you ban someone without a strong reason, you will be penalized.

There is no perfect solution, that's for sure. My point is that anonymous posts have way more disadvantages for the overall community. There may be an individual advantage but they don't work for the industry. I realize I'm a drop in the ocean, but I will continue not to visit this forum until this problem is taken care of.

luceluceluce · « **Reply #62 on:** August 10, 2011, 06:19 »

I understand the wish to stay anonymous in order to avoid retribution for critical opinions... but for me it's more important to be able to stand by the things I say and have the courage to accept the consequences of them.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #63 on:** August 10, 2011, 06:36 »

Quote from: Achilles on August 10, 2011, 04:45

There is no perfect solution, that's for sure. My point is that anonymous posts have way more disadvantages for the overall community. There may be an individual advantage but they don't work for the industry. I realize I'm a drop in the ocean, but I will continue not to visit this forum until this problem is taken care of.

So, you're punishing your community members who are active here and who identify themselves by not interacting with them, for uncontrollable actions by others who wish to remain anonymous for whatever the reason?

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #64 on:** August 10, 2011, 06:55 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #65 on:** August 10, 2011, 07:21 »

Actually, I think the point about using your real name makes your posts Googlable by others is important. E.g. a future employer. You might like to think that doesn't happen, but I know directly and anecdotally that it does. So it's not that I'm looking for a future employer (at the moment!), but who knows who might Google you? It's not that I don't stand behind what I said, but of course, snippets on Google are all out of context, and the person probably doesn't read the whole forum to see the argument you were contributing to.
Of course, probably others with your name also post on the Internet. You'd think that therefore would be a poor way to judge people. But there has been at least one case where someone was refused exclusivity on iStock because someone else with the same name had pics on another site (accepted when checked properly).

Achilles · « **Reply #66 on:** August 10, 2011, 07:44 »

@Pseudonymus: I explained you the reasons behind the SR-EL thing. Our forums are moderated because we are a business. That's why MSG has certain advantages over an agency's own forum. It's very unlikely buyers would come here to look for images. But if they visit our forums and find a contributor saying that the agency is irresponsible and unethical for selling a certain type of license that is bad business.
It is your own opinion, it's true but it all depends on how you put it. I have no issues with tons of posts criticizing one thing or the other as long as the tone stays in common sense language (and that means not affecting the business, your words were certainly not rude). Nobody is forcing you to participate in that license. It's not like we launched it yesterday, it's a 4-5 years old license and no customer criticized it. Just as contributors, they either choose it or not.
I sure threatened you to revoke your forum privileges if you continue to use that manner to express your feelings (it wasn't the first warning afair). It was my decision, good or bad, one can hold me responsible for that. I'll stand by it. You didn't get an anonymous email from CS with a warning, right?

@Slocke: It's my own decision where to go and post. I don't feel comfortable in a place where people wearing hoodies throw rocks at me. It's not something I signed up for. I came here because another member sent me a PM. I've always been and will remain responsive whatever the demands are. I can't monitor these forums anymore because it's simply too time consuming to separate the blunt or the veiled attacks from the honest people.

reckless · « **Reply #67 on:** August 10, 2011, 08:35 »

Quote from: Achilles on August 10, 2011, 07:44

I don't feel comfortable in a place where people wearing hoodies throw rocks at me. It's not something I signed up for.

It seems that this quote from Achilles says it all about dealing with anonymous people on the internet. In the previous post attacking Matt, this pretty much describes the way I saw the conversation unfolding.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #68 on:** August 10, 2011, 08:47 »

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #69 on:** August 10, 2011, 09:02 »

Achilles showing up here makes a pretty good argument for being anonymous. Too late for me; I'm already banned in the Dreamstime Forum. LOL

rubyroo · « **Reply #70 on:** August 10, 2011, 09:47 »

I think that the issue of intention is the critical one.

Certainly if someone's purpose in being anonymous is to simply cause damage then the intention behind their anonymity is clear enough, but I don't think all anonymous posters should be put in that box. To refer to Serbans analogy, precisely as all young people - even all young people in hoodies - shouldn't be assumed to be anarchists and out to destroy their communities. It's a case of the few spoiling things for everyone else.

Some of us just want to participate in the debate and protect our ports from plagiarism. That's my main reason for anonymity here.

Achilles · « **Reply #71 on:** August 10, 2011, 09:48 »

@pseudonymus CS I meant Customer Support
@Warrenprice - you've been banned for attacking a user after reporting an image for bad keywords, prior to a previous warning for advertising competitor sites. Discouraging users to report spam is obviously not something we agree. Or should we also cope with users threatening people flagging an irrelevant image?

I don't want to hijack this thread, feel free to email me if you need any other clarifications.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #72 on:** August 10, 2011, 10:13 »

Quote from: Achilles on August 10, 2011, 09:48

@pseudonymus CS I meant Customer Support
@Warrenprice - you've been banned for attacking a user after reporting an image for bad keywords, prior to a previous warning for advertising competitor sites. Discouraging users to report spam is obviously not something we agree. Or should we also cope with users threatening people flagging an irrelevant image?

I don't want to hijack this thread, feel free to email me if you need any other clarifications.

Threatening? Just a minute there ... I came in to the conversation late and only posted when the person reporting keywords was outed for having spam in her own folder. Her excuse was ... "I have more than 5000 images. I don't have time to go thru all of them."

Then and only then did I jump in ... saying, " You found time to examine another person's portfolio but can't take care of your own? People in glass houses should not throw rocks."

You suggested an apology was needed.

I don't agree. And if you are offering an apology, I accept.

I had already decided that posting in the forum only led to an increase in my blood pressure. I graciously accept the ban.

The point here is ... anonymity might be a good idea.

PS: A warning for advertising competitor sites?

I don't know anything about that. I think you are thinking of someone else???

click_click · « **Reply #73 on:** August 10, 2011, 10:15 »

WOW.

This discussion is making me not want to post at all anymore. Whether it would be anonymously or not.

Just because someone has a "real" identity doesn't mean that it prevents them from flinging nasty remarks around.

So whoever the poster may be (anonymous or not) they either treat their fellow forum buddies with respect or not - regardless of status.

It's the job of the moderators or forum owners to keep their sandbox clean if members are stepping over the line.

It has absolutely nothing to do with anonymity.

gostwyck · « **Reply #74 on:** August 10, 2011, 10:24 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 10, 2011, 03:10

<snip> This is all the more so because as I understand it your unpaid role at Fotolia - a role you must relish or you wouldn't do it for nothing - appears to involve crushing dissent in the forums by gagging dissenters. I really don't understand why someone would want to do that without it being a job assigned to him by his employer but I fully accept your explanation that you are doing it because you want to, not to benefit from it.

Now, let us look at where you don't "want to go". You don't want to make any comment about Fotolia issuing threats against contributors for making honest comments in an independent forum. I notice that this is not a case of you denying it, you just don't want to talk about it, so I assume you know it is true. You apparently "don't want to go" as far as promising to act in solidarity with me if I reveal my name and Fotolia boots me out as a result. It also seems that you "don't want to go" to any condemnation of Fotolia for cutting commissions or for its deceitful behaviour over distorting the "percentages" it pays through currency-related sleight of hand.

Mat, I assume you are an ordinary, decent, guy who hates to see your colleagues having their earnings slashed so that a corporation can get richer, objects to companies using financial tricks to trick money out of people, and is disgusted when corporations use their financial clout to bully and silence the little guy.

So why don't you ever say that? Well, you can't, can you, because your friends might punish you if you did? So the price you pay for writing under your own name is that you can't be honest with us.

Perhaps I am wrong, though. Perhaps you think it is clever for agencies to squeeze, bully and trick contributing artists. Maybe you "don't want to go there" because you know you would be shredded by all the artists here who have seen their earnings cut. If you do like corporate bullies for some strange reason, then maybe you are trying to flush out anonymous dissenters for punishment. Who knows?

You see how it is, Mat? Because you have given your name, I can't know what you really think. Because I am anonymous, I can tell you precisely what I think. Which do you think is more honest and reliable?

You think I am a coward for not giving my name. I think you are a coward for giving your name but not telling us what you think. Come on, Mat - be brave! Go there! Go to all those thoughts and feelings that you bottle up because you've been too scared to have people associate them with your name. Tell us what you really think about these issues. Because if you daren't then you completely destroy your own case against anonymity.

Outstanding and well-constructed post BT.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Why are you anonymous? (Read 24854 times)

TheSmilingAssassin

ShadySue

jbarber873

Ed

velocicarpo

RacePhoto

BaldricksTrousers

Achilles

BaldricksTrousers

Freedom

BaldricksTrousers

Achilles

luceluceluce

Sean Locke Photography

TheSmilingAssassin

ShadySue

Achilles

reckless

TheSmilingAssassin

WarrenPrice

rubyroo

Achilles

WarrenPrice

click_click

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors