Quote from: SNP on October 14, 2011, 14:34

Lisa - it is ironic that you are not anonymous but you favour anonymity. lol.

What can I say? ...

I totally appreciate your point.  However, I mentioned I frequently have pulled my punches because of being out in the open as I am.  I am glad anonymity affords some the ability to be more blunt. ...Some other sites are known for canceling accounts of outspoken members of this forum.  Ask JoAnn or Bobby Deal.  

I don't see the irony in someone who is open advocating for the option for people who wish to remain anonymous. And as far as the consequences being real, as Lisa pointed out, I know that they are. Other people can avoid that sort of underhanded agency retaliation and I fail to see any sufficiently strong basis for denying them that.

And as far as SNP's descriptions of this forum, I think she and I must be visiting different places as I don't recognize the wild west she describes. But as I said, if a thread becomes a slug fest I just stop reading. Life's too short.

The issue we have here beside anonymous having a license to attack anonymously is that it will make agency officials and/or Representitives not wanting to post messages, answer questions and/or concerns without the fear of personal attacks. They don't have to come here but they do and people should appreciate that even if what they post or answers they give is not to your satisfaction. If anonymous wants to remained anonymous then they need to be confirmed by Tyler. Maybe charge them too ... lol

at literally every single photography event I have attended concerning stock, photographers comment about how scared they are to post here and how mean people get. it's completely unprofessional and unproductive.

Really? Maybe, those photographers should grow a pair. I'm kidding.  

Seriously though, I don't think it's really all that unwelcoming. You don't get as much sugar-coating here, but I find that a little more realistic. The world isn't all unicorns and lolly pops or hugs and rainbows. I would think as artists most of us are used to some criticism (I know I am).

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case because minor disagreements seem to quickly turn into name calling. And here we are with a thread about it. Maybe, everybody should get out the metaphorical sandpaper and toughen up their skin.  

Quote from: ProArtwork on October 14, 2011, 15:29

The issue we have here beside anonymous having a license to attack anonymously is that it will make agency officials and/or Representitives not wanting to post messages, answer questions and/or concerns without the fear of personal attacks. They don't have to come here but they do and people should appreciate that even if what they post or answers they give is not to your satisfaction. If anonymous wants to remained anonymous then they need to be confirmed by Tyler. Maybe charge them too ... lol

If you were responding to my post, then I think it still apples, as agency representatives are non-anonymous members, so if any personal attacks are made, the cowardly confirmed identity gets outed.

No, I was not responding to your post. I did not see your post. I believe I started to write before you posted. I had walked away from the pc and then came back to finish up what I was writing.

Honestly, why would anyone be "scared" of harsh words on a website, especially if they are only here as a representative of an agency?

Outright insults are deleted ASAP and any sensible person will judge remarks according to the credibility of the author - and you soon lose credibility if you try to flame people.

Honestly, why would anyone be "scared" of harsh words on a website, especially if they are only here as a representative of an agency?

It becomes a distraction and not productive, something Tyler and I'm sure most are trying to avoid. There are times when messages should not be clouded by distraction.

"Progress is made by attacking problems than attacking people."

Well, if you don't like any anonymous users, you don't have to listen to their opinions. Just click the Ignore link. They don't exist anymore for your sake. I only ignore one person, not because that person was anonymous, I felt that person was too biased and aggressive, not to me, but in general.

When we joined, we made a choice, some preferred to use their real ID, some not. No I don't think confirmed ID will add values to the opinion. Anonymous opinions are still opinions from valid persons. The important thing is the point, not the person.

I believe real identities should be required.

You say that but in fact you posted anonymously, under several different aliases, for some months. I got the impression that it was only because your style of writing and your views were so overtly distinctive that you gave up on anonymity.

Why would you want to ban people from doing what you have chosen to do yourself? Am I '"bullying" you now because I have pointed out the hypocracy in your arguement and I disagree with you?

I'm not going though 4 pages of this stuff so I'll just add my opinion.

I think it may add some value but I'm guessing that would eliminate the ability to be anonymous. If so, I think it would it do more harm than good. While some people hide their identities to enable them to attack people, there are probably more people that have good reason to be anonymous. And for those people, myself included, would probably become lurkers or just stop coming here.

^ you probably won't see my post since it seems you're lucky #32...but your post makes a point. instead of stating why you disagree, or welcoming discussion, you've posted an inflammatory, dead end response. aren't we beyond the popularity games of high school at this point?

I am anonymous but I don't have a single person on ignore even though there are times I want to.  The reason? I enjoy reading comments from people for which I disagree because sometimes I change my mind.  Now, for me, I have a few reasons for remaining anonymous and one of them was already pointed out.  Someone started flagging unnecessary keywords on my images at DT because I disagreed with them in a forum discussion (not on MSG, of course).  The other reason is that for simple posts in Istock, I have received three threatening site mails.  On another forum I am banned already for calling the BS card with a "the next one we will close your account".  None of these posts used foul language but DID make someone else look like a fool.  If that can happen on their own forums I am a little nervous about what can happen here when certain threads are followed such as sensitive FT and IS threads. Not all of us anonymous posters are trolls or hide behind a cloak.  I make it a personal policy to never bash someones port because I think that is unfair since mine isn't available for someone to criticize.  However, like SNP, I call them like I see them just as I would if I weren't anonymous.  Some people call that cowardly...you are anonymous so you say anything.  In my case, that isn't the issue.  Self policing is my personal policy.

^ self-policing would be ideal if it worked. but as many have pointed out, it seems that there are serious consequences for having an opinion in our industry. that sucks. I've been verbally pushed around and wrist-slapped many times on iStock, sometimes I deserved it, sometimes it was pre-eptive and sometimes it was uncalled for and I was pi55ed off. but I also believe that companie's have the right to limit damage to their reputation, especially when it is libelous and inaccurate.

so again, the compromise seems anonymity is allowed, but qualified by an admin on MSG. no one here could honestly believe that their anonymity would be compromised by Tyler. it's fairly standard to require user registration on forums.

I really don't disagree with you.  There is always a gray area.  I'd go along with Tyler if that was the case.  However, if he required our identity to be public then Tyler has to allow us to disengage our real identity from the current anonymous one. Probably easy to do but we'd lose all of our rankings and such.

In the end, it was an epic fail, wasn't it, Bettan?  You hoped to prove that anonymity was bad and all that happened was people took you with a pinch of salt.

Nah I just ignored the fresh troll. I'm not that anonymous and Baldricks Trousers isn't, at least not to me. Maybe we became anonymous to avoid vindicative trolls. I also think people should be judged on their posts and on their track record. Anybody making bold statements an hour after signing up doesn't belong to that group.

Hi all,
I voted "yes", but to be honest, I don't care.

Only reason that I would say "no" is because I don't want to miss out on posts written by anonymous posters. I am one of them but the senior microstockers on this forum know me.
As somebody mentioned earlier, if you take our information, you should be very careful with how you share it.

Kone