Author Topic: Confirmed Identities on MSG (trial for a month?) (Read 40372 times)

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #200 on:** May 30, 2013, 00:53 »

Confirm identies? Ever notice how you never see Clark Kent and cthoman in the same room at the same time?

falstafff · « **Reply #201 on:** May 30, 2013, 00:59 »

Quote from: SNP 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

Oh Stacey! you have changed since joining Stocksy. You have becoame too clean.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #202 on:** May 30, 2013, 00:59 »

Quote from: lisafx 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.

Another OT, but I think relevant to this discussion about trolls and general unpleasantness:-
I'd love to know why someone gave Lisa a -1 for this statement of fact.
Is the person brave enough to explain? Thanks!

leaf · « **Reply #203 on:** May 30, 2013, 01:01 »

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 30, 2013, 00:59

Quote from: lisafx 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.

Another OT, but I think relevant to this discussion about trolls and general unpleasantness:-
I'd love to know why someone gave Lisa a -1 for this statement of fact.
Is the person brave enough to explain? Thanks!

Actually 2 minuses and a plus.
.. I really need to work on the mod to show how many +'s and how many -'s. I'm just worried how much of a mess it will be to get working that i don't dare start.

Pixart · « **Reply #204 on:** May 30, 2013, 01:05 »

Good one Leo!

gbalex · « **Reply #205 on:** May 30, 2013, 01:13 »

Sure there are aggressive trolls here, but I would say that the majority of those who post anonymously are not aggressive or abusive and to label them as such is not productive or fair.

In fact I can remember a certain non anonymous poster at msg frequently changing their username to anonymous pseudo's, so that they could take angry swipes as their sales started to slide and frustration rose at istock.

In my opinion sites have the most to gain from msg censorship. Historically being harsh and aggressive is certainly not exclusive to anonymous posters here, yet they are being singled out and excluded.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #206 on:** May 30, 2013, 01:29 »

Quote from: falstafff on May 30, 2013, 00:59

Quote from: SNP 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

Oh Stacey! you have changed since joining Stocksy. You have becoame too clean.

believe you should look at yourself first, actually you will never change (lost case) but curiously you always manage to get back again and again to this forum while bashing it as much as you can on SS, now pack and leave lagereek

falstafff · « **Reply #207 on:** May 30, 2013, 01:31 »

Quote from: Leo on May 30, 2013, 00:53

Confirm identies? Ever notice how you never see Clark Kent and cthoman in the same room at the same time?

Brilliant! like it.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #208 on:** May 30, 2013, 01:36 »

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 suggested the exact same thing and got voted down, you get voted up. Its a fickle place, shows that the crowd is definitely divided

fotografer · « **Reply #209 on:** May 30, 2013, 03:06 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 29, 2013, 20:00

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.

I think the difference is that they can't be 100% who it is most of the time and don't think that they would go banning anybody unless they were totally sure that they have the right person.

fotografer · « **Reply #210 on:** May 30, 2013, 03:07 »

I'm wondering if many people here have a anonymous and a named account. If so by doing this it might actually increase the percentage of anonymous accounts if they decide to keep that one and ditch the named account.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #211 on:** May 30, 2013, 03:09 »

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.

1) I don't believe that the things Sean said/posted had nothing to do with his banning - OK, he said them on the iStock forums as well as here, so maybe it was the comments on your forum rather than this one that caught the eye of whoever decided to dump him, but I doubt if the outcome would have been different if he had only been posting here.
Why do I believe that? Well, it wasn't the quality of his photography that got him dumped. He hadn't actually submitted anything to Stocksy - and it seems unlikely that he ever would have done given the cost of abandoning exclusivity. What he did that made him different was the way he alerted people to what was going on at iStock and the greasemonkey scripts he wrote.

2) I do believe that dumping Sean was quite deliberately intended to send a "nobody is safe" message throughout the stock community. Otherwise, why not talk to him about his scripts and Stocksy and how he needed to get more "on board" with company thinking? According to his account of the events there was never any intention to have a proper discussion.

3) Having iStock ban-hammer wielder "Thor" Lobo tell us that it is a really good idea to remove anonymity because nobody will get hurt is like hearing the wolf (pun intended) tell the lambs that they don't need to hide inside a guarded enclosure because they won't be at any risk if they roam around in the woods.
The mere fact that Lobo thinks its worth the trouble of advising Leaf (on a chummy moderator to moderator basis) that dumping anonymity would be a good idea should set alarm bells ringing.

And you know what? I already feel ever so slightly nervous about posting this, because I am clearly taking a position that opposes the wishes of the iStock spokesman .

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #212 on:** May 30, 2013, 03:35 »

Quote from: Amanda_K on May 29, 2013, 16:46

I don't think first name last initial and a portfolio link is at all unreasonable.
.....

The second thing is it makes me really sad to see so many people thinking that the solution to the behavior of companies like Fotolia is to hide and censor themselves rather than deciding to work with better partners or pushing for a change in policy. There seems to be a ton of complaining about bad policies but when people refuse to fight back what change can be expected?

Amanda, what is the point of just putting last initials (I know it is Tyler's idea, not yours)? How hard do you think it would be for the agencies to identify Sean L, Lisa Y, JoAnn S, Paul C etc? You might just as well insist on full names.

I'm at a loss to know what you would do to change Fotolia's policies. Criticising them is frowned on and likely to get you thrown out, let alone trying to organise some sort of concerted action against them. I dumped Fotolia, not because I thought their policies were unfair, but because I concluded that they had tried to cheat me out of my earnings. I will dump any agency if I feel that I can no longer trust it to behave honestly - after all, there is a great deal of trust involved in believing that agencies are recording all the transactions - but I am unlikely to dump them for any other reason.

I stopped supplying iStock for five months after the Google Drive deal, I stopped supplying 123 for a few months over the commission cut, I'm rather suspicious about what Shutterstock is doing with BigStock subscriptions, Dreamstime's payment structure has become almost impossibly complicated and it has also cut commission percentages (Oh and Alamy cut commissions, too). I'm not on Envato or Pond 5.

So should I stop supplying Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Alamy and Bigstock, too? That will leave me with DepositPhotos as my top earner, followed by Canstock and Scanstock. Since this is my main source of income, that would make life rather difficult.

I would be grateful if you would tell me how I can fight back rather than complaining, while continuing to earn my living.

gbalex · « **Reply #213 on:** May 30, 2013, 04:00 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2013, 03:09

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.

1) I don't believe that the things Sean said/posted had nothing to do with his banning - OK, he said them on the iStock forums as well as here, so maybe it was the comments on your forum rather than this one that caught the eye of whoever decided to dump him, but I doubt if the outcome would have been different if he had only been posting here.
Why do I believe that? Well, it wasn't the quality of his photography that got him dumped. He hadn't actually submitted anything to Stocksy - and it seems unlikely that he ever would have done given the cost of abandoning exclusivity. What he did that made him different was the way he alerted people to what was going on at iStock and the greasemonkey scripts he wrote.

2) I do believe that dumping Sean was quite deliberately intended to send a "nobody is safe" message throughout the stock community. Otherwise, why not talk to him about his scripts and Stocksy and how he needed to get more "on board" with company thinking? According to his account of the events there was never any intention to have a proper discussion.

3) Having iStock ban-hammer wielder "Thor" Lobo tell us that it is a really good idea to remove anonymity because nobody will get hurt is like hearing the wolf (pun intended) tell the lambs that they don't need to hide inside a guarded enclosure because they won't be at any risk if they roam around in the woods.
The mere fact that Lobo thinks its worth the trouble of advising Leaf (on a chummy moderator to moderator basis) that dumping anonymity would be a good idea should set alarm bells ringing.

And you know what? I already feel ever so slightly nervous about posting this, because I am clearly taking a position that opposes the wishes of the iStock spokesman .

Frankly the thought has crossed my mind that the sites might have been pushing for this behind the scenes, that is pure conjecture of course.

leaf · « **Reply #214 on:** May 30, 2013, 04:10 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 30, 2013, 04:00

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 30, 2013, 03:09
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.

1) I don't believe that the things Sean said/posted had nothing to do with his banning - OK, he said them on the iStock forums as well as here, so maybe it was the comments on your forum rather than this one that caught the eye of whoever decided to dump him, but I doubt if the outcome would have been different if he had only been posting here.
Why do I believe that? Well, it wasn't the quality of his photography that got him dumped. He hadn't actually submitted anything to Stocksy - and it seems unlikely that he ever would have done given the cost of abandoning exclusivity. What he did that made him different was the way he alerted people to what was going on at iStock and the greasemonkey scripts he wrote.

2) I do believe that dumping Sean was quite deliberately intended to send a "nobody is safe" message throughout the stock community. Otherwise, why not talk to him about his scripts and Stocksy and how he needed to get more "on board" with company thinking? According to his account of the events there was never any intention to have a proper discussion.

3) Having iStock ban-hammer wielder "Thor" Lobo tell us that it is a really good idea to remove anonymity because nobody will get hurt is like hearing the wolf (pun intended) tell the lambs that they don't need to hide inside a guarded enclosure because they won't be at any risk if they roam around in the woods.
The mere fact that Lobo thinks its worth the trouble of advising Leaf (on a chummy moderator to moderator basis) that dumping anonymity would be a good idea should set alarm bells ringing.

And you know what? I already feel ever so slightly nervous about posting this, because I am clearly taking a position that opposes the wishes of the iStock spokesman .

Frankly the thought has crossed my mind that the sites might have been pushing for this behind the scenes, that is pure conjecture of course.

Only one site has ever expressed their wish for exposed identities on the forum, and that was 3 years ago. When I said it wasn't going to happen they said they'd stop visiting the forum. Whether they have or haven't I don't know but it didn't really matter.

fotorob · « **Reply #215 on:** May 30, 2013, 06:58 »

@leaf:

Maybe you should make it rock hard clear that there is a difference between "one's real name being known" at your forum and "showing that real name in the forum".

Maybe it can be compared to some microstock agencies: They require you upload some kind of picture ID, but publicly you can choose a pseudonym and nobody else sees your ID.

Maybe there are even internet services that act as a broker so even you don't know their ID, though a company can guarantee you the person is real and has only one account.

falstafff · « **Reply #216 on:** May 30, 2013, 07:10 »

Funny this. It is dead easy finding out who is hiding behind a pseudo. There is even a so called unauthorized " service" that provides that. Finding out for yourself is almost just as easy, as long as you know how.
I mean if its possible to hack your way into the Pentagon, finding out a pseudo is like a walk in the park.

If an agency really wants to find out who is behind a certain pseudo. They can.

I thought this was common knowledge by now.

pieman · « **Reply #217 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.

Xanox · « **Reply #218 on:** May 30, 2013, 07:18 »

Quote from: leaf on May 29, 2013, 03:09

Quote from: halfshag on May 29, 2013, 03:09
Definitely worth trying it out for a month. Might even discourage the use of multiple accounts.

exactly

so where's this army of evil trolls hiding behind multiple accounts ?
by all means i'm the only official and long standing troll here.

if you want to go the way of the Alamy forum i'm afraid this forum will quickly die of boredom and lose at least 50% of the active users but feel free to try it out.

as for the right to anonymity, well there would be not even need to discuss it ... the whole idea of privacy is a lost cause with the many Facebook, Twitter, etc ... forums are the last bastions of privacy.

cobalt · « **Reply #219 on:** May 30, 2013, 07:33 »

Tyler didn´t say he wants to delete anonymous accounts. He just said he is thinking of moving the forum rules to make it clear he prefers accounts with members who can recognize each other.

He also offers the option of anonymity if you want it, but wants to charges a fee from those who do. It could also become a "premium perk" for those who pay and support msg.

I think it is worth trying it for a month, to see how people would feel about it. And of course the question is, would such a forum attract new people?

jbarber873 · « **Reply #220 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.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #221 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:54 »

Quote from: Xanox on May 30, 2013, 07:18

Quote from: leaf on May 29, 2013, 03:09
Quote from: halfshag on May 29, 2013, 03:09
Definitely worth trying it out for a month. Might even discourage the use of multiple accounts.

exactly

so where's this army of evil trolls hiding behind multiple accounts ?
by all means i'm the only official and long standing troll here.

if you want to go the way of the Alamy forum i'm afraid this forum will quickly die of boredom and lose at least 50% of the active users but feel free to try it out.

as for the right to anonymity, well there would be not even need to discuss it ... the whole idea of privacy is a lost cause with the many Facebook, Twitter, etc ... forums are the last bastions of privacy.

I dont use my real name on Facebook either, and I have 5 extra accounts on facebook with photos, real fake friends, and fake personal info to use whenever I need to. People use their real name on Facebook because they want to be found, not because they want to hide for whatever reason. Twitter? People use all kinds of fake names there. Some people use their real name for a reason there as well. Forums are a different type of social media and used for different purposes.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #222 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:56 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2013, 07:33

Tyler didn´t say he wants to delete anonymous accounts. He just said he is thinking of moving the forum rules to make it clear he prefers accounts with members who can recognize each other.

He also offers the option of anonymity if you want it, but wants to charges a fee from those who do. It could also become a "premium perk" for those who pay and support msg.

I think it is worth trying it for a month, to see how people would feel about it. And of course the question is, would such a forum attract new people?

I am not paying 60 dollars a year to be anonymous. Thats a whole year of DP earnings, come on now.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #223 on:** May 30, 2013, 08:57 »

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.

game set and match !

falstafff · « **Reply #224 on:** May 30, 2013, 09:05 »

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 30, 2013, 08:56

Quote from: cobalt on May 30, 2013, 07:33
Tyler didn´t say he wants to delete anonymous accounts. He just said he is thinking of moving the forum rules to make it clear he prefers accounts with members who can recognize each other.

He also offers the option of anonymity if you want it, but wants to charges a fee from those who do. It could also become a "premium perk" for those who pay and support msg.

I think it is worth trying it for a month, to see how people would feel about it. And of course the question is, would such a forum attract new people?
I am not paying 60 dollars a year to be anonymous. Thats a whole year of DP earnings, come on now.

In your case we make it 150, pounds sterling. Hows that grabbing you?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Is it a good idea or bad?

Author Topic: Confirmed Identities on MSG (trial for a month?) (Read 40372 times)

Leo Blanchette

falstafff

Travelling-light

leaf

Pixart

gbalex

luissantos84

falstafff

Poncke v2

fotografer

fotografer

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

gbalex

leaf

fotorob

falstafff

pieman

Xanox

cobalt

jbarber873

Poncke v2

Poncke v2

Poncke v2

falstafff

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors