Author Topic: Confirmed Identities on MSG (trial for a month?) (Read 40491 times)

gbalex · « **Reply #175 on:** May 29, 2013, 17:16 »

Quote from: pieman on May 29, 2013, 16:45

Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.

Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.

Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.

Hope you will forgive me if I don't take you at your word!

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/did-a-test-a-istock/msg112217/#msg112217

Quote from: rinderart on August 18, 2009, 20:14

Hey Guys. well... I screwed up doing this. I got a letter from them.My account has been suspended. It was a very, Very stupid thing to do and I broke the agreement with them I've had for 4 1/2 years and I take full and complete responsibility for my actions. If I would have not said anything, no One would have known. it didn't prove anything at all about exclusives getting better treatment at all. I did this as a test and maybe to shed some light on the long Lingering doubts about this long running issue. There are no images on the site that do not belong to me or anyone else. if they terminate my account for doing this, I don't Blame them One bit and I told them so. Bottom Line, it was a Dumb thing to do and Im sorry for it. I hope they understand but, If not I'll take the hit I deserve. Thanks to my friends for the support. laurin

Amanda_K · « **Reply #176 on:** May 29, 2013, 17:27 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 29, 2013, 17:16

Quote from: rinderart on August 18, 2009, 20:14
Hey Guys. well... I screwed up doing this. I got a letter from them.My account has been suspended. It was a very, Very stupid thing to do and I broke the agreement with them I've had for 4 1/2 years and I take full and complete responsibility for my actions. If I would have not said anything, no One would have known. it didn't prove anything at all about exclusives getting better treatment at all. I did this as a test and maybe to shed some light on the long Lingering doubts about this long running issue. There are no images on the site that do not belong to me or anyone else. if they terminate my account for doing this, I don't Blame them One bit and I told them so. Bottom Line, it was a Dumb thing to do and Im sorry for it. I hope they understand but, If not I'll take the hit I deserve. Thanks to my friends for the support. laurin

He was banned for breaking the agreement. If you break a contract and announce you've broken it that is different than being banned for stating an opinion. I'm not saying it's never happened just pointing out that this specific case wasn't over an opinion but an action. For accuracy.

stockastic · « **Reply #177 on:** May 29, 2013, 17:28 »

Privacy and civil liberties are constantly under threat from people saying "what do you have to hide"? When you hear that phrase, an alarm should sound.

One of the big problems with democracy is that bad stuff - things that are wrong on first principles - can sometimes be enacted with a bare majority. The 60% can unduly restrict the rights of the 40%; or confiscate their property. The fact that something is desired by 51% doesn't make it right; there are objective issues of ethics and fairness. To some extent that's why we have a judicial branch of government.

This problem is called the "tyranny of the majority".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Freedom · « **Reply #178 on:** May 29, 2013, 17:33 »

Quote

He was banned for breaking the agreement. If you break a contract and announce you've broken it that is different than being banned for stating an opinion. I'm not saying it's never happened just pointing out that this specific case wasn't over an opinion but an action. For accuracy.

Amanda, do you know the context of this?

At that time, if I remember correctly, Laurin said he had asked his friend who was an exclusive to upload one of his images which was initially rejected, so as to prove that the exclusives got preferential treatment. He was bragging about it here.

Amanda_K · « **Reply #179 on:** May 29, 2013, 17:51 »

I remember the discussion at the time, I was just pointing out that he didn't get banned for saying he thought inspections were unfair but that he actually did something to try to prove it and then told people about it. So action vs opinion.

I'm not taking sides or judging what happened there but we should be careful not to represent it as a case where someone got banned for something they wrote, since a lot of people worried about using names are partially basing it on fear of being banned for negative opinions. Hope that clarifies a bit.

fotografer · « **Reply #180 on:** May 29, 2013, 18:02 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 29, 2013, 16:42

A few common themes here:

The "anti" folks are great at adding minuses

Nobody knows who is giving the minuses so why would that make any difference if people are anonymous or not?

gbalex · « **Reply #181 on:** May 29, 2013, 18:06 »

Quote from: Amanda_K on May 29, 2013, 17:51

I remember the discussion at the time, I was just pointing out that he didn't get banned for saying he thought inspections were unfair but that he actually did something to try to prove it and then told people about it. So action vs opinion.

I'm not taking sides or judging what happened there but we should be careful not to represent it as a case where someone got banned for something they wrote, since a lot of people worried about using names are partially basing it on fear of being banned for negative opinions. Hope that clarifies a bit.

I don't think there is any denying that IS read what Laurin wrote here and took action based on his MSG comments. No one including LR is disputing that those actions broke the rules.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/did-a-test-a-istock/msg112217/#msg112217

Quote from: rinderart on August 18, 2009, 20:14

Hey Guys. well... I screwed up doing this. I got a letter from them. My account has been suspended. It was a very, Very stupid thing to do and I broke the agreement with them I've had for 4 1/2 years and I take full and complete responsibility for my actions. If I would have not said anything, no One would have known. it didn't prove anything at all about exclusives getting better treatment at all. I did this as a test and maybe to shed some light on the long Lingering doubts about this long running issue. There are no images on the site that do not belong to me or anyone else. if they terminate my account for doing this, I don't Blame them One bit and I told them so. Bottom Line, it was a Dumb thing to do and Im sorry for it. I hope they understand but, If not I'll take the hit I deserve. Thanks to my friends for the support. laurin

gostwyck · « **Reply #182 on:** May 29, 2013, 18:13 »

Quote from: pieman on May 29, 2013, 16:45

Nope. No one has been banned from iStock based on anything they have said here. I can attest to this fact as I have been responsable for the majority of the bans since well before I was a member here. I first opened my account here in 2008 and since then I have been actively lurking, with an occasional post here and there.

Account bans and Forum bans are entirely different things, however, the contributors in these boards are entirely free to say whatever they like. And as you might have noticed there are plenty of choice comments directed at iS, Getty, and myself which haven't translated into any repercussions with peoples accounts.

Leaf, good luck. It's not easy keeping a community rolling without upsetting a few people along the way. Whatever you I hope it continues to push the discussions towards civility and conversation rather than trolling and flamethrowers.

Soooo ... why did Sean have his account terminated, for example? You can't tell me it was because of his involvement with Stocksy, the supposed reason given at the time, being as lots of other IS contributors are openly active with Stocksy. Why was Sean, the #4 contributor on Istock's sales (and generally a massive cheerleader on Istock's behalf), picked upon? The only logical conclusion was his forum activity either here, there or wherever.

Lizard · « **Reply #183 on:** May 29, 2013, 18:15 »

Why should it be full black or white matter , why cant part of the forum or some topics or some voting , whatever, require confirmed identities and leave the rest the same ?

Personally I have nothing against writing under my full name but I respect those who don't want to do it.

Perhaps the one who opens a topic can decide if it will be confirm identity seen only or all are welcomed to participate.

Just a thought

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #184 on:** May 29, 2013, 18:21 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 29, 2013, 16:28

Quote from: leaf on May 29, 2013, 16:22
I was also given a taste of what a 'real identities' forum is like, and I like it and wondered that that would be here.
It may not be the same here, people have different interests that aren't compatible. Bruce and Stocksy want to bash all the microstock sites and photographers to gain some part of the market, I don't think that will be reconciled by getting rid of anonymity.

See, that's the kind of thing it's fun to hide behind an anonymous account and say

mirkic · « **Reply #185 on:** May 29, 2013, 18:34 »

Hey guys!

I'm a "reader" for most part, than an active "writer" of MSG and all I can say is that when everything is gone, the money, youth, jobs, carriers, etc... all you are left with is you name! All you are leaving to this world is your name. And everything you do in this world, you should do with your first and last name beside it! Otherwise, don't do it! And I know I'll remember a few names that I came across over the years reading forums all around the web and working in microstock business.

Some I'll remember by not knowing the right spelling and some for writing smart and useful stuff. Also, over the years, I was upset that only Lobo (Pieman) didn't reveal his identity at IS and after a while I found out his real name and also got his photo on my comp (however strange that may sound

But it's much easier to speak to someone when you know they are "This and That" person living in this and that country, having long, short or whatever family history... It's just more personal and more civil. It's more "real".

And also, many times, I'm not believing in many things that people I know in person are saying they did or are doing (stupid sentence) and certainly I ain't going to believe in many anonymous advice's given here to some people seeking for advice. It's ok that there is a group of people that know each others and have pseudonyms and stuff and over the years, somehow you get to know who is who but it's always harder to engage in any kind of discussion when someone on the other end is cursing, trolling, telling people they don't know s@#$t while the people telling them that are "pro's and they got the world under them"... It's easier and more civil with real persons.

If you (anyone that can't show something they did/are doing, portfolio, skill, anything that would classified them as pro's or beginners) are trying to explain something, under pseudonym, myself, or for that matter, anyone else with mind of their own, wouldn't believe a word you are saying and there goes the topic - off topic! Calling names, fighting etc.

With my real name, I'm more careful what I'm saying and if I'm wrong with anything I'm gonna sooo apologize cause I'm just like that in "real life"... there is no trolling or continuing fighting etc... You stick with yourself.

You are what you are! Your name is all you are left with. Well, at least in my case. Everything will pass. This will pass. Good and bad will pass and all you left is your name. Will it be clear and shiny or dirty and muddy, it's up to you!

Whatever you do, you should take responsibility for you actions as anyone saying anything in the past - did. Got a ban? Deleted account? Choose your words wisely and the chat would become much more civil. Also, if you are backing something up, you should know the consequences involved or possible reaction from anyone involved in your comments. People, agencies, groups, anyone...

Except, off course, if you change your name legally. Than you're off the hook and you can do anything

) Joke

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #186 on:** May 29, 2013, 18:57 »

Quote from: mirkic on May 29, 2013, 18:34

...Whatever you do, you should take responsibility for you actions as anyone saying anything in the past - did. Got a ban? Deleted account? Choose your words wisely and the chat would become much more civil. Also, if you are backing something up, you should know the consequences involved or possible reaction from anyone involved in your comments. People, agencies, groups, anyone...

I think you're making some assumptions here that aren't warranted. People in some cases were not being rude or choosing their words rashly - it was two groups (contributors and agencies) facing off over unilateral power grabs by an agency. As I read what you've written, it suggests that the banned contributors deserved what they got.

I don't believe I have ever conducted myself online in a way that I wouldn't in person. I'm generally very polite although I have upset agencies by pointing out - civilly - the unfairness in what they have done/are doing. It was something of a shock to have Fotolia threaten to delete my account just for trying to stand up for ourselves as contributors. Knowing what I now know about most of the agencies, I realize that I'm swimming in a shark infested sea where ethics, fairness and long term thinking are in dangerously short supply.

It's all very well saying "this will pass" but if I were feeding my family with my stock income (I'm not; it's part time and a supplement), a lot of bad things could happen if agencies did to others what Getty did to Sean Locke (which was petty, vindictive and wholly targeted at intimidating other contributors, IMO).

I'd prefer a setting in which anonymity wasn't needed, but that's not the case.

I'll ignore the trolls and you ignore anyone who's anonymous. No need for making a huge deal out of this.

tickstock · « **Reply #187 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:03 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 29, 2013, 18:21

Quote from: tickstock on May 29, 2013, 16:28
Quote from: leaf on May 29, 2013, 16:22
I was also given a taste of what a 'real identities' forum is like, and I like it and wondered that that would be here.

It may not be the same here, people have different interests that aren't compatible. Bruce and Stocksy want to bash all the microstock sites and photographers to gain some part of the market, I don't think that will be reconciled by getting rid of anonymity.

See, that's the kind of thing it's fun to hide behind an anonymous account and say

What would change if you knew my name, could see my portfolio, or saw how much I was making? This is what I believe Stocksy's marketing plan is based on the things I've heard from Bruce http://blog.microstockgroup.com/bruce-livingstone-interview/ especially at the beginning of the interview. Me being anonymous doesn't change what he said. Maybe if I wasn't anonymous you could insult my portfolio?

stockastic · « **Reply #188 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:10 »

Obviously, people split into 2 groups. One group is fine with anonymity. The other group is made uncomfortable by it, and describes it with derogatory terms, like "hiding".

There's a simple solution: a checkbox labelled "only show me posts from members with public identities". That way, people in my group can see all the posts, from everyone; and people in the other group can have what they seem to want: a discussion that only includes people like themselves. I guess it's a "values" thing.

fotografer · « **Reply #189 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:16 »

We don't even need a checkbox: The people that don't want to see posts by anonymous members can just hide all posts from them. That's what I do with trolls when they get really annoying.

tab62 · « **Reply #190 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:16 »

The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide. Leaf might have to flip a coin to determine the winner lol!

Okay, let's just pretend that we try it and if we don't like it after only 30 day another poll can be taken which will give the power to decide - seems fair to me. Nothing major can happen in 30 days that would ruin this site forever. The old saying- "Nothing ventured - nothing gained" applies here...

emblem · « **Reply #191 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:19 »

I don't get it....why try and fix something that's not broken. If this goes ahead it could the death knell of this forum.

gbalex · « **Reply #192 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:21 »

Quote from: tab62 on May 29, 2013, 19:16

The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide. Leaf might have to flip a coin to determine the winner lol!

Okay, let's just pretend that we try it and if we don't like it after only 30 day another poll can be taken which will give the power to decide - seems fair to me. Nothing major can happen in 30 days that would ruin this site forever. The old saying- "Nothing ventured - nothing gained" applies here...

I will assume that you will NOT be excluded during the next 30 days and that you have no problem with the fact that many of us will be!

cathyslife · « **Reply #193 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:26 »

Quote from: emblem on May 29, 2013, 19:19

I don't get it....why try and fix something that's not broken. If this goes ahead it could the death knell of this forum.

It seems that maybe leaf does think its broken and would like to try something different.

emblem · « **Reply #194 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:29 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 29, 2013, 19:26

Quote from: emblem on May 29, 2013, 19:19
I don't get it....why try and fix something that's not broken. If this goes ahead it could the death knell of this forum.

It seems that maybe leaf does think its broken and would like to try something different.

The sanitisation of the forum would be terminal in my view....

w7lwi · « **Reply #195 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:46 »

I've been sitting here most of the afternoon, drinking my screwdrivers and working my way through 8 pages of comments. A few of you here know who I am, but I suspect most do not. I was raised at a time in history when personal information was considered just that ... personal. It was never, ever to be published to anyone who did not have an imminent reason to know. That was ingrained in me and I still believe in it. It's a cultural thing.

That said, I have no problem letting Tyler know my full name and have a link to one or more of my portfolios. I seem to recall in a previous forum that something like this was suggested, that Tyler have this information and he alone would make the decision to admit an applicant to MSG. The downside to this, of course, is that it would bury Tyler up to his eyeballs in work ... something he needs like a bad case of social disease.

Never-the-less, I would have no problem with a one-time fee to cover this added work on his part. It only makes sense that if someone is commenting on some issue or another, he/she be qualified to make those comments. Perhaps some sort of icon could be added to the individual's forum name to indicate they had been vetted.

The second part of this would be swift action against anyone, trolls or other, who abuse the privilege, and it is a privilege, of posting here. Perhaps a two week time-out for a first offense and total banning for continued offenses after the first time. Strict, even draconian, measures are likely the only thing that will reign in those who purposely abuse their posting privileges.

mirkic · « **Reply #196 on:** May 29, 2013, 19:54 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 29, 2013, 18:57

Quote from: mirkic on May 29, 2013, 18:34
...Whatever you do, you should take responsibility for you actions as anyone saying anything in the past - did. Got a ban? Deleted account? Choose your words wisely and the chat would become much more civil. Also, if you are backing something up, you should know the consequences involved or possible reaction from anyone involved in your comments. People, agencies, groups, anyone...

I think you're making some assumptions here that aren't warranted. People in some cases were not being rude or choosing their words rashly - it was two groups (contributors and agencies) facing off over unilateral power grabs by an agency. As I read what you've written, it suggests that the banned contributors deserved what they got.

I don't believe I have ever conducted myself online in a way that I wouldn't in person. I'm generally very polite although I have upset agencies by pointing out - civilly - the unfairness in what they have done/are doing. It was something of a shock to have Fotolia threaten to delete my account just for trying to stand up for ourselves as contributors. Knowing what I now know about most of the agencies, I realize that I'm swimming in a shark infested sea where ethics, fairness and long term thinking are in dangerously short supply.

It's all very well saying "this will pass" but if I were feeding my family with my stock income (I'm not; it's part time and a supplement), a lot of bad things could happen if agencies did to others what Getty did to Sean Locke (which was petty, vindictive and wholly targeted at intimidating other contributors, IMO).

I'd prefer a setting in which anonymity wasn't needed, but that's not the case.

I'll ignore the trolls and you ignore anyone who's anonymous. No need for making a huge deal out of this.

Agree with that. I don't know how that slipped my mind. Just got caught up reading last several posts about rude behavior, trolling etc...

Looking at it from that perspective, one can say that anonymity may be a solution for some folks...

cthoman · « **Reply #197 on:** May 29, 2013, 20:00 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 29, 2013, 16:32

I would say that a reading of this forum thread should make the advantages of allowing anonymity obvious already. We have, so far, examples of Sean Locke, JoAnn Snover, Bobby Deal, and Laurin Rinder all having been directly penalized by various agencies as a result of things they've said or admitted to in these forums.

We also have a growing list of valuable "anonymous" contributors who will cease to participate at all if they are forced to go public.

Even though I won't be directly affected, as I am already public, I expect we will all be affected by the chill this is going to put over the open exchange of ideas and information. If I wanted sanitized pablum I would still be frequenting the agency forums.

I'm not sure that anonymity would have prevented these things from happening. Most of the people on here aren't really all that anonymous. If an agency is out for your blood because of something you did or are doing, they are probably going to find you and punish you regardless.

lisafx · « **Reply #198 on:** May 29, 2013, 22:42 »

Quote from: tab62 on May 29, 2013, 19:16

The voting is so close that this reminds me of the election between Al Gore and Georg Bush where the state of Florida demanded a recount which took months to decide.

Okay, I know it's totally OT, but I live in Florida, and I voted here in that election. Since it was personal for me, let me clarify something for you. THE RECOUNT DIDN'T HAPPEN. It was blocked by the US Supreme Court. So no, a recount didn't decide the election. To this day nobody knows for sure what that recount would have shown because it wasn't allowed to be completed.

SNP · « **Reply #199 on:** May 29, 2013, 23:43 »

I think anonymity is the weapon of choice for anyone who is willing to be aggressive, and even abusive with forum posts. I think Tyler made a perfectly reasonable compromise; that those wishing to remain anonymous can do so, but should have to pay a nominal fee. simply as a small administrative hurdle to reduce multiple accounts and abusive posters. it would make this forum more informative in my opinion. otherwise, the information is often buried in the bickering and escalation. there is a lot of great stuff here, but it's also a circus

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Is it a good idea or bad?

Author Topic: Confirmed Identities on MSG (trial for a month?) (Read 40491 times)

gbalex

Amanda_K

stockastic

Freedom

Amanda_K

fotografer

gbalex

gostwyck

Lizard

Sean Locke Photography

mirkic

Jo Ann Snover

tickstock

stockastic

fotografer

tab62

emblem

gbalex

cathyslife

emblem

w7lwi

mirkic

cthoman

lisafx

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors