I don't have time to read all 10 pages but I support what Leaf is proposing. Tayler, please go ahead and implement this - and if some people rather not post than stand behind their own words, good riddance.

Our words should be able to stand on their own with out the benefit of names behind them. In my opinion some people in this world put far to much weight in the musings of a few big names built utilizing smoke and mirrors.

I did not give your post an -neg but I found it offensive and surprising from someone I did respect.

Quote from: jbarber873 on May 30, 2013, 13:25

Quote from: pieman on May 30, 2013, 12:14

Quote from: jbarber873 on May 30, 2013, 08:45

Quote from: pieman on May 30, 2013, 07:15

I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.

Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.

   For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
   Keep your cookies.
   Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.

You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.

Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.

  Leaf hasn't entered into a contract with me to sell my images, only to unilaterally change that contract because it was "unsustainable".  As for being banned, it's of no consequence and did not enter into the decision to leave IS. The point is that you come here and try to turn this into one of your " let's make a joke about pie and you'll do what I say " threads, and I don't buy it. If anything, your posts reinforce Leaf's point, since by knowing who you are we are well aware of your complete lack of credibility.
  Maybe I should change my vote...

Actually I made a joke about cookies, not pies. And the name Pieman was used due to the fact that Lobo was already taken back in January 2008. I'm glad I could participate in the reinforcement of the point Leaf was trying to make. I suspect that was my intent.

Anyhoo, I will leave you all to it. I think this a pretty lively discussion though so I will continue to lurk

Yes Lobo we have noticed that this conversation has really sparked your attention and participation at an unusual level.

Quote from: jbarber873 on May 30, 2013, 13:25

Quote from: pieman on May 30, 2013, 12:14

Quote from: jbarber873 on May 30, 2013, 08:45

Quote from: pieman on May 30, 2013, 07:15

I just want to know who people are in here so I can send them cookie-grams. I have a guy who doesn't change much for shipping so I can send all over the world for pretty cheap.

Whatever the outcome, I look forward to the adventure.

   For many of the people on this forum, this is not an "adventure", this is the real world of making a living. Unlike most businesses, we not only have to deal with agencies changing the terms of our agreements to suit themselves, we also have to deal with petty and arbitrary enforcers who only want to see a hundred "woo-yay" posts when they do it.
   Keep your cookies.
   Oh, and my name is Jim Barber. You banned me a long time ago, and i haven't contributed to your agency for years.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that exactly what this discussion is about? A change to the terms of the use of this site? Leaf has indicated why he is looking to test this change in his initial post. I would have to say that it's a valid concern and part of why the majority of the people I talk to about these boards are hesitant to participate.

You can be mad at me for you being banned. I can't say I've always been 100% valid in the bans. However, as mentioned in previous posts, I'm more than reasonable when it comes to reinstatements. If you are of the ilk who WILL NEVER COME BACK well then that's fine too. Why care about being banned from a place you no longer what to participate in.

Whew. Okay, I hope you all get things sorted in here.

  Leaf hasn't entered into a contract with me to sell my images, only to unilaterally change that contract because it was "unsustainable".  As for being banned, it's of no consequence and did not enter into the decision to leave IS. The point is that you come here and try to turn this into one of your " let's make a joke about pie and you'll do what I say " threads, and I don't buy it. If anything, your posts reinforce Leaf's point, since by knowing who you are we are well aware of your complete lack of credibility.
  Maybe I should change my vote...

Actually I made a joke about cookies, not pies. And the name Pieman was used due to the fact that Lobo was already taken back in January 2008. I'm glad I could participate in the reinforcement of the point Leaf was trying to make. I suspect that was my intent.

Anyhoo, I will leave you all to it. I think this a pretty lively discussion though so I will continue to lurk

  Once again not talking about the real issues, only pies and cookies...

The fastest way to get people to leave is to have the discussions here become uninteresting or the members and visits dwindle. IMO Tyler should either implement this or state that the idea has been shelved. One way or the other we can move on versus leave the topic hanging indefinitely

In a nutshell.    But I think maybe it's already too late.

IMO all the positives and negatives have now been highlighted. This thread is now starting to showing some heavy (unnecessarily) casualties. Hope with jsnover that it can come to a quick conclusion now!

Agree 100%.

Very disappointed to see we'd lost Rubyroo today too. She was an interesting and valuable member of this community.

As much as I like the idea of participants being required to provide a portfolio link, I suppose some exceptions would have to be made for site administrators that pop in occasionally. They may not actually have a portfolio.

Anonymous can make false claims and flase accusations. Anonymous can be an agency come here to watch us...

Well, that's just life in the big city, I guess.  And it also sort of makes the opposite case: if I'm anonymous, I don't have to worry about an agency "watching" me.

But identity disclosure has obviously become a religious issue - and there's no arguing with fundamentalists.  They want us anons out of their church, and they want a "Defense Of Identity Act". 

Oh my, what a discussion!  It would be interesting to see how many thumbs up and how many thumbs down each post gets, because I have the feeling that negative posts may look like -10 but that doesn't mean the don't actually have 20 +'s, you can't even see them because of the 30 -'s! 

The little piece of reality here that makes me sick to my stomach, is the fact that so many of us feel it is necessary to protect freedom of speech from the very people we entrust to sell our material!!! 

I've seen the copycats theory presented..... (I am personally too lazy to look for and reproduce hot photos  ETA I should add ethical to this too - but I am definitely too lazy...)... wouldn't it be easier for a copycat to go right to the agency than to one of our portfolios to see what the hottest selling photos are? 

  I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Leaf's proposal is that we just try it for a month. If it works out that the site is better, then the arguments against it, will just fade away. If it's not any better, then it can just go back to how it is now.
  I suspect that people that are against a trial, are afraid that the outcome might produce a better experince for the microstock community. If not, then their arguments will have been proven correct. A trial is the only way to find out for sure.

  I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Leaf's proposal is that we just try it for a month. If it works out that the site is better, then the arguments against it, will just fade away. If it's not any better, then it can just go back to how it is now.
  I suspect that people that are agaisnt a trial, are afraid that the outcome might produce a better experince for the microstock community. If not, then their arguments will have been proven correct. A trial is the only way to find out for sure.

I'm not so sure people would come back, 4 people already left just at the suggestion of it, some of them probably won't be back.  If it works out better then great but if it doesn't is the site done?

Quote from: rimglow on May 31, 2013, 12:41

  I think a lot of people are forgetting that the Leaf's proposal is that we just try it for a month. If it works out that the site is better, then the arguments against it, will just fade away. If it's not any better, then it can just go back to how it is now.
  I suspect that people that are agaisnt a trial, are afraid that the outcome might produce a better experince for the microstock community. If not, then their arguments will have been proven correct. A trial is the only way to find out for sure.

I'm not so sure people would come back, 4 people already left just at the suggestion of it, some of them probably won't be back.  If it works out better then great but if it doesn't is the site done?

tickstock, what are you still doing here?    I thought you said, "See ya later then.  I'm out." (2nd post of the whole thread)

One important suggestion that was made by Jsnover didnt get picked up, its about agency employees posting here need to get a banner regardless if they want it or not.

Shouldn't they be allowed to be anonymous too?

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 31, 2013, 13:03

One important suggestion that was made by Jsnover didnt get picked up, its about agency employees posting here need to get a banner regardless if they want it or not.

Shouldn't they be allowed to be anonymous too?

They are still anonymous, just a banner that says which agency they are with. If you stick an IS banner on pieman, you still dont know who he is.