# Avatards **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 5, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161 "2010-10-05T19:22:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/341 "2010-10-08T20:29:45Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Either avatars will encourage morons to join the board, in which case we don’t need them, or they will not encourage anyone to join the board, in which case we don’t need them. In both cases they will add a feature that I would consider useful (yes, useful) to this board. And as well as the false dilemma there are other options, such as they may encourage people to join that want intelligent discussion _and_ what they consider to be the bare minimum of forum features. > [@Evil Captor](#): > > I have frequented boards that allow avatars, there seems to be a lowest common denominator effect on them: someone always finds it amusing to have an avatar that involves a naked body part, or something that looks like a naked body part, if rules forbid them, and someone always has to have turd avatar, a shitting avatar, a peeing avatar, etc., whatever the epitome of bad taste for them is, they have to have it as their avatar. Which Internet are you using? I’m a regular poster on many forums with avatars (PhilosophyForums, SmallWarsCouncil, JREF, snopes, TVtropes etc) and I can honestly say I’ve yet to come across an avatar like the ones you’re describing. I had put it down to forum moderation and that on discussion forums, people generally want to talk about stuff, and not arse around like that. But I guess I’ve just been lucky because apparently it’s a _massive_ problem… ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/342 "2010-10-08T20:30:17Z")
> [@Darth\_Hamsandwich](#): > > You can turn the damn things off? Roughly the equivalent of me asking: “Do you mind if I don’t smoke?” 😃 No, it’s like _me asking you_ “do you mind if I paint my dining room burgundy?” It’s assumed that avatars would be _off_ by default, not on. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/343 "2010-10-08T20:36:55Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > The people who are objecting to enabling avatars are inherently selfish. Selfish, unlike the people who _want_ the avatars, who clearly are taking this stance at great personal cost to themselves, obviously. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > \*They \*don’t want them or need them, so they don’t want \*anyone else \*to have them. I think someone made the analogy upthread to smoking, and I think that’s pretty valid, given how terribly poisonous these people apparently think avatars are. I don’t want to make \*you \*smoke; I don’t want to make you inhale \*my \*smoke. I just want to be able to smoke in _my own fucking home_, and for \*my \*friends who \*want \*to smoke in my home with me to be able to do so. Aside from the stragglers who haven’t got the memo about being able to turn avatars off, the main objection\* is your _secondhand_ smoke, to the degree it will ooze out through the cracks around your windows and doors and crap up the atmosphere around here. Admittedly, this smoke will be presumably rather thin, and would not be _anywhere near_ as bad as it would be if we could not turn off avatars at all. But on the other hand, why should I even _risk_ the smoke? We don’t have it now, and everyone seems to be doing okay. Despite some selfish whining from the people who simply cannot _stand_ that they can’t have a pretty little picture by their name. - ETA: well, that and the notion that the presence/absence of avatars will attract/repel idiots, which I consider unproven anyway. I certainly don’t believe that any worthwhile posters will be _repelled_ by the lack of the “bare minimum of forum features” implied by their lack, though. If they’re that sensitive, who needs 'em? ---
**Author:** ![Peeta\_Mellark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bc8723/32.png) [@Peeta\_Mellark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peeta_Mellark)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/344 "2010-10-08T20:46:19Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > Seven pages long over this. WRT avatars: I have frequented boards that allow avatars, there seems to be a lowest common denominator effect on them: someone always finds it amusing to have an avatar that involves a naked body part, or something that looks like a naked body part, if rules forbid them, and someone always has to have turd avatar, a shitting avatar, a peeing avatar, etc., whatever the epitome of bad taste for them is, they have to have it as their avatar. This applies even on boards where the majority of the avatars are tasteful. > > Since someone’s idea of bad taste will INEVITABLY coincide with yours, any board with avatars will repeatedly offend your tastes, whatever they are. Over and over and over again. It’s very much like usernames … someone’s always gotta be Mister Turd, or Pussy McLickLick, or Sir Barfalot, etc. We cannot escape from the onslaught of idiot user names, but we can at least avoid the visual pollution offered by avatars. > > So, bad idea overall. What the hell are you talking about? At the moment I’m regularly visiting four different boards that have avatars and I haven’t seen anything like that. I see self-portraits, kanji characters, wedding pictures, artwork, etc., but whatever community standards and rules there are are obeyed in the avatars. Largely because you can’t get away with shit there. A snide comment in a post has to be read for a moderator to catch it, but dirty pictures get caught at a glance. I’m perfectly happy not having an avatar, but the arguments from the anti-avatar people here are _retarded_. It’s like a bunch of paranoid Luddites set up a message board. Do you wet yourselves in terror if you accidentally look at Twitter? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/345 "2010-10-08T20:53:50Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > I know what you need. > > How about this, instead of an avatar, some sort of audio file plays whenever you are composing a post. … > It would be particularly good for longer posts, as the music would play for longer as you type, building the tension as us mere mortals wait excitedly to hear what bullshit you are going to spout next. I think I have one, and it could probably also be a good “generic answer” for whatever generic “stuff” is being discussed. … Father Jack uttering those most loved and famous words, “ARSE BISCUITS!!”. I found it first, you guys go get your own. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/346 "2010-10-08T21:01:26Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I’m a regular poster on many forums with avatars (PhilosophyForums, SmallWarsCouncil, JREF, snopes, TVtropes etc) and I can honestly say I’ve yet to come across an avatar like the ones you’re describing. I had put it down to forum moderation and that on discussion forums, people generally want to talk about stuff, and not arse around like that. In my 14 years of running a message board, I only had to make _one_ smack-down for a questionable avatar; an image of Johnny Cash giving the finger. The user ended up getting banned shortly afterwards for unrelated reasons. Granted, my site gets about 5% to 10% of the traffic of the SDMB, but scale it up to SDMB proportions, and it’s still not problem I would call “massive”. Otherwise, I never had any problems with “lowest common denominator” avatars being used. Check out GB, where most of the members are Dopers. See any NSFW or questionable avatars? With SDMB members supposedly being the “best and brightest” of the Internet, why do some people think this sophisticated, intellectual crowd would immediately display avatars of nekked body parts, micropenises, baby autopsies and the like if avatars were enabled? If we were the kind of people who would do that, maybe we’re no better, if not worse than than the lulz crowd on some other message boards. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/347 "2010-10-08T21:02:57Z")
Either self-chosen usernames will encourage morons to join the board, in which case we don’t need them, or they will not encourage anyone to join the board, in which case we don’t need them. Either the ability to create threads will encourage morons to join the board, in which case we don’t need it, or it will not encourage anyone to join the board, in which case we don’t need it. Either the ability to post to threads will encourage morons to join the board, in which case we don’t need it, or it will not encourage anyone to join the board, in which case we don’t need it. > [@begbert2](#): > > Selfish, unlike the people who _want_ the avatars, who clearly are taking this stance at great personal cost to themselves, obviously. Neither selfish nor selfless, because their choice affects no one else. If it weren’t possible to disable avatars, then you could absolutely accuse the people who wanted avatars of being selfish. But since _everyone can choose for themselves whether or not to see the avatars_, the selfishness is 100% on the part of those arguing against enabling them. > [@](#): > > Aside from the stragglers who haven’t got the memo about being able to turn avatars off, the main objection\* is your _secondhand_ smoke, to the degree it will ooze out through the cracks around your windows and doors and crap up the atmosphere around here. […] why should I even _risk_ the smoke? Let me know how your campaign to stop everyone from smoking in their own homes goes. I assume you’ll be posting a video of you shortly walking door-to-door to make sure that no one in a 10 mile radius of you smokes on their own property. > [@](#): > > We don’t have it now, and everyone seems to be doing okay. Despite some selfish whining from the people who simply cannot _stand_ that they can’t have a pretty little picture by their name. 1.) No, we’re not doing okay. You have multiple people, including me, who are telling you point-blank that it’s harder for us to tell people apart when there’s no visual cue associated with their name. Is it impossible for us to remember who people are? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. 2.) Please demonstrate how it’s selfish to request something that would affect many users in a positive way and affect no users in a negative way. 3.) I don’t care nearly as much about having a picture myself as I do about other people being able to upload pictures, which would then make it easier for me to remember who’s who. If the \*singular condition \*of enabling avatars were that everyone could have one \*but \*me, I’d agree to it in a heartbeat. > [@](#): > > I certainly don’t believe that any worthwhile posters will be _repelled_ by the lack of the “bare minimum of forum features” implied by their lack, though. I don’t think you’re not repelling prospective posters as much as you are making life slightly more difficult for some people who post here. I’m sure they could also enable the board to be useless with screen readers; who cares if that makes it impossible for blind people to post here? They’re just a bunch of whiners, anyway. > [@Peeta\_Mellark](#): > > Do you wet yourselves in terror if you accidentally look at Twitter? Given the content of their “arguments” here, I can only suspect that the answer to that question is yes. ---
**Author:** ![Wile\_E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c37758/32.png) [@Wile\_E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wile_E)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/348 "2010-10-08T21:17:30Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Oh, pshaw with the drama **queening**. This isn’t your home. It’s a proprietary message board. I would just like to point out that the term “queening” refers to the act of birthing kittens. See? It all comes back to cats. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/349 "2010-10-08T21:20:08Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Either self-chosen usernames will encourage morons to join the board, in which case we don’t need them, or they will not encourage anyone to join the board, in which case we don’t need them. > > Either the ability to create threads will encourage morons to join the board, in which case we don’t need it, or it will not encourage anyone to join the board, in which case we don’t need it. > > Either the ability to post to threads will encourage morons to join the board, in which case we don’t need it, or it will not encourage anyone to join the board, in which case we don’t need it. Why is it okay to talk about the requirement to kill a Jew after every post when you guys do it, but not when us guys do it? > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > Selfish, unlike the people who _want_ the avatars, who clearly are taking this stance at great personal cost to themselves, obviously. > > Neither selfish or selfless, because their choice affects no one else. If it weren’t possible to disable avatars, then you could absolutely accuse the people who wanted avatars of being selfish. But since _everyone can choose for themselves whether or not to see the avatars_, the selfishness is 100% on the part of those arguing against enabling them. You know, if my argument was 100% about stuff that wouldn’t happen if I turned off the avatars, this would be 0% bullshit. But since my argument is 0% about stuff I can turn off, this is 100% bullshit. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Let me know how your campaign to stop everyone from smoking in their own homes goes. I assume you’ll be posting a video of you shortly walking door-to-door to make sure that no one in a 10 mile radius of you smokes on their own property. If the status quo was that avatars were allowed and I was trying to get rid of them, this might be remotely comparable. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > 1.) No, we’re not doing okay. You have multiple people, including me, who are telling you point-blanke that it’s harder for us to tell people apart when there’s no visual cue associated with their name. Is it impossible for us to remember who people are? No, but that doesn’t mean it’s easy. > > 2.) Please demonstrate how it’s selfish to request something that would affect many users in a positive way and affect no users in a negative way. > > 3.) I don’t care nearly as much about having a picture myself as I do about other people being able to upload pictures, which would then make it easier for me to remember who’s who. If the \*singular condition \*of enabling avatars were that everyone could have one \*but \*me, I’d agree to it in a heartbeat. Which raises the question, what would you do if people didn’t bother to put avatar up? Are you going to force _me_ to create an avatar for your personal edification? Are you going to assign me one? Will steps be taken to ensure that no two avatars look similar to one another? I read and post on a blog where they assign avatars to you if you don’t provide one. Lots of duplicates. Nearly useless for identification. (And people talk about the avatars all the time - good thing it’s just a blog.) I suspect that’s the worst case scenario - but it still showcases the weakness of relying on avatars for identification. Is this something you care about? 'Cause if not I wonder if identification is really the point, as opposed to weenie “whee, look at my pretty kitty!” stuff that I don’t care even slightly about supporting. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I don’t think you’re not repelling prospective posters as much as you are making life slightly more difficult for some people who post here. I’m sure they could also enable the board to be useless with screen readers; who cares if that makes it impossible for blind people to post here? They’re just a bunch of whiners, anyway. Interesting how you constantly have to move the focus away from avatars to some other false analogy to try and make your points. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@Peeta\_Mellark](#): > > > > Do you wet yourselves in terror if you accidentally look at Twitter? > > Given the content of their “arguments” here, I can only suspect that the answer to that question is yes. What little I’ve seen of twitter, my problem is that it’s rife with crap and garbage content. Not exactly an advertisement for avatars. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/350 "2010-10-08T21:29:02Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > I can’t help it that you don’t know how pronouns work. You know, that whole “referring to the most recently referenced noun that makes sense in context” thing. > > By your logic, I should be able to say “Poster X really annoys me. She is such a cunt” and not get banned. Because “she” couldn’t refer to Poster X, because that’s against the rules, so I must have been talking about someone else. > > I’m **Shot From Guns** , and I approve this message. > > > [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > > > Since someone’s idea of bad taste will INEVITABLY coincide with yours, any board with avatars will repeatedly offend your tastes, whatever they are. Over and over and over again. It’s very much like usernames … someone’s always gotta be Mister Turd, or Pussy McLickLick, or Sir Barfalot, etc. We cannot escape from the onslaught of idiot user names, but we can at least avoid the visual pollution offered by avatars. > > > > So, bad idea overall. > > ITT: Morons keep coming in after having not bothered to fight their ignorance on the subject, thereby making the same retarded arguments over and over again that are completely and demonstrably wrong. > > 1.) Offensive avatars would be disallowed, in the same way that offensive usernames are not allowed here. If you think the latter are allowed, I encourage you to demonstrate that this is the case by attempting to change your name to Niggerkiller Shittypants. Ideally, I’d challenge you to create an account with the same and see how fast it would get banned, but socks are against the rules, so that option’s out. I have seen plenty of usernames on the Dope that lasted for very long periods of time that were disgusting to me. Perhaps our tastes differ. And yes, I am sure the board mods would probably root out the standard sort of nudity avatars that some find offensive, but would probably leave in others that I find offensive … and why should we force them to do it. > [@](#): > > 2.) If you’re worried about seeing offensive avatars, you can turn them off. And the board will look 100% exactly like it does right now. Except with fewer threads discussing avatars, because those of us who would like them will \*have \*the damned things. Yes, turning off avatars, good idea. Thinking about it, the more democratic response is to allow those who want to have avatars to have them, and those of us who don’t like them can turn them off. I am persuaded. I reverse my position, in the sense that I agree avatars should be allowed. Let those who can tolerate the tastelessness do so. I still feel the tards will rule with regard to offensiveness, however, it will not be MY problem, since I will turn the avatars off. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/351 "2010-10-08T21:32:57Z")
> [@Wile\_E](#): > > I would just like to point out that the term “queening” refers to the act of birthing kittens. In which case, I would like to propose that we refer to what \*\*acsenray \*\*is doing as drama _queefing_. > [@begbert2](#): > > Why is it okay to talk about the requirement to kill a Jew after every post when you guys do it, but not when us guys do it? Because we’re not doing the same thing. The post I was objecting to was saying that allowing long signatures after every post would make the forum worse, but that’s not what we want to do. The post I was parodying was making a ridiculous statement, and I chose to point out how ridiculous it was by applying it to other features we already have. > [@](#): > > You know, if my argument was 100% about stuff that wouldn’t happen if I turned off the avatars, this would be 0% bullshit. But since my argument is 0% about stuff I can turn off, this is 100% bullshit. What is that I don’t even. > [@](#): > > If the status quo was that avatars were allowed and I was trying to get rid of them, this might be remotely comparable. Ah, no money where your mouth is, then? > [@](#): > > Which raises the question, what would you do if people didn’t bother to put avatar up? Are you going to force _me_ to create an avatar for your personal edification? Are you going to assign me one? Will steps be taken to ensure that no two avatars look similar to one another? If you don’t put an avatar up, then you fade back into the mass of people I have a hard time telling apart until you do something spectacularly funny, interesting, or stupid. I’ve moderated at a site larger than this one (over 500k users), and I \*never \*ran into the problem of two people with similar avatars concurrent with similar names. > [@](#): > > What little I’ve seen of twitter, my problem is that it’s rife with crap and garbage content. Not exactly an advertisement for avatars. What’s funny is, my brain decided to read that as Flickr instead of Twitter. Because my brain does weird things with words. Which is why I like \*also \*having pictures attached to them. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/352 "2010-10-08T21:37:34Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > I have seen plenty of usernames on the Dope that lasted for very long periods of time that were disgusting to me. Out of curiosity, can you give me any examples? > [@](#): > > Yes, turning off avatars, good idea. Thinking about it, the more democratic response is to allow those who want to have avatars to have them, and those of us who don’t like them can turn them off. I am persuaded. I reverse my position, in the sense that I agree avatars should be allowed. Let those who can tolerate the tastelessness do so. I still feel the tards will rule with regard to offensiveness, however, it will not be MY problem, since I will turn the avatars off. Yay! Really, I think those whole debate is kind of like same-sex marriage: not in terms of scale, but of the general structure of the arguments. If you make them legal, nobody who doesn’t want one is going to be forced into one. And yet, you still have all of these people screaming that no, \*they \*don’t want to marry any one else of the same sex, so _by God_, no one \*else \*should be allowed to, either! Their “arguments” for how it’s going to ruin society and “traditional” marriage carry about the same amount of weight and logic, too (i.e.: none). All they have is fear and hysteria. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/353 "2010-10-08T21:41:55Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Their “arguments” for how it’s going to ruin society and “traditional” marriage carry about the same amount of weight and logic, too (i.e.: none). All they have is fear and hysteria. (Sigh) Haven’t you ever used the internet before? Because if you had, you’d know on every single message board that allows avatars, regardless of the nature of the message board or its users, discussion is shut down entirely, as all anyone can talk about at all is each other’s images. It’s true! ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/354 "2010-10-08T21:44:44Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Ah, no money where your mouth is, then? No, I merely can recognize a stupid false analogy when I see one - there were about five in your last post, for example. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > If you don’t put an avatar up, then you fade back into the mass of people I have a hard time telling apart until you do something spectacularly funny, interesting, or stupid. I’m confused - you’re saying that avatars only help you tell apart people that don’t do anything that merits them being told apart? And that if I _do_ do any thing that makes me worthy of having my doofy picture remembered, that I didn’t need a doofy picture at all? Not making your case, there. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > I’ve moderated at a site larger than this one (over 500k users), and I \*never \*ran into the problem of two people with similar avatars concurrent with similar names. Maybe I’m _too_ visual. When there’s an avatar, I usually don’t look at the name at all. (Hence it’s a good idea for me to leave the things off.) I feel like pointing out, lest people be confused, that on the scale of 0 to 10, my burning fire to oppress avatar-lovers everywhere is actually hovering at about 1, maybe 1.5. This is seriously petty shit. I’m still not seeing much reason to enable the stupid things, but if they _are_ enabled, I would probably recover from the shock within a few months max. I am mainly posting so enthusiastically because my interest in opposing argumentive _stupidity_ is around 6.8, and boy, is it not in short supply in this thread. With the false analogies and everything. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/355 "2010-10-08T21:50:51Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Haven’t you ever used the internet before? Because if you had, you’d know on every single message board that allows avatars, regardless of the nature of the message board or its users, discussion is shut down entirely, as all anyone can talk about at all is each other’s images. It’s true! The problem is that the sheer weight of the idiocy actually shuts down the whole server before a single post can even be made. So there are actually no forums that allow avatars, so we have no evidence to link to of forums where it’s gone well or badly. They all just disappear. > [@begbert2](#): > > I’m confused - you’re saying that avatars only help you tell apart people that don’t do anything that merits them being told apart? And that if I _do_ do any thing that makes me worthy of having my doofy picture remembered, that I didn’t need a doofy picture at all? Unintelligent people frequently have a problem with ambiguity. Everything must be black or white. It \*must \*be the case that either I can’t tell \*anyone \*apart, or I can recognize _everyone_. > [@](#): > > Maybe I’m _too_ visual. When there’s an avatar, I usually don’t look at the name at all. (Hence it’s a good idea for me to leave the things off.) Yes, isn’t it swell that there’s an option that would enable you to do exactly that? > [@](#): > > I’m still not seeing much reason to enable the stupid things You see no reason to do something that would make a lot of people happy while causing no harm to everyone else? Man, and people think \*I’m \*an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/356 "2010-10-08T21:59:43Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Unintelligent people frequently have a problem with ambiguity. Everything must be black or white. It \*must \*be the case that either I can’t tell \*anyone \*apart, or I can recognize _everyone_. Then I’ll try to say this slower: by your own statement you apparently don’t _need_ to recognize everyone, and the ones that are notable, you’ll note anyway. It’s not “everyone needs to be instantly distinguished” or “nobody does”. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Yes, isn’t it swell that there’s an option that would enable you to do exactly that? For another example of black and white, it’s not just “I love avatars” and “I am unaware they can be hidden”, either. > [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > You see no reason to do something that would make a lot of people happy while causing no harm to everyone else? Man, and people think \*I’m \*an asshole. You do realize that every time you pretend I haven’t made an argument for (minor) potential harm from turning on avatars, you further verify the fact that you are, indeed, an idiot _and_ an asshole. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/357 "2010-10-08T22:25:09Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Really, I think those whole debate is kind of like same-sex marriage: not in terms of scale, but of the general structure of the arguments. If you make them legal, nobody who doesn’t want one is going to be forced into one. And yet, you still have all of these people screaming that no, \*they \*don’t want to marry any one else of the same sex, so _by God_, no one \*else \*should be allowed to, either! Their “arguments” for how it’s going to ruin society and “traditional” marriage carry about the same amount of weight and logic, too (i.e.: none). All they have is fear and hysteria. I was thinking a similar thing. The discussion reminds me of same-sex marriage because a lot of the posts seem to express disgust / revulsion, and there is a sense that this is the _real_ reason that they consider it wrong. The actual arguments offered seem like an afterthought – “oh, some people might discuss avatars and I wouldn’t know what they were talking about”. wtf? > [@begbert2](#): > > Then I’ll try to say this slower: by your own statement you apparently don’t need to recognize everyone, and the ones that are notable, you’ll note anyway. It’s not “everyone needs to be instantly distinguished” or “nobody does”. I can’t speak for **Shot From Guns** , but for me the answer is that not everyone is notable, but I would like to recognise everyone _within the context of a given thread_. So in a thread about hunting, say, I want to be able to say “That’s the OP”, “That’s the hunter who claims to hunt for religious reasons”, “That’s the guy who gave a really good argument for why hunting is not immoral”, “That guy seems like he’s trolling to me” and so on. I find it a chore to keep all these plates spinning in any non-trivial thread. Avatars would help. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/358 "2010-10-08T22:46:01Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > > [@begbert2](#): > > > > Then I’ll try to say this slower: by your own statement you apparently don’t need to recognize everyone, and the ones that are notable, you’ll note anyway. It’s not “everyone needs to be instantly distinguished” or “nobody does”. > > I can’t speak for **Shot From Guns** , but for me the answer is that not everyone is notable, but I would like to recognise everyone _within the context of a given thread_. So in a thread about hunting, say, I want to be able to say “That’s the OP”, “That’s the hunter who claims to hunt for religious reasons”, “That’s the guy who gave a really good argument for why hunting is not immoral”, “That guy seems like he’s trolling to me” and so on. > > I find it a chore to keep all these plates spinning in any non-trivial thread. Avatars would help. You’re clearly not speaking for **Shot From Guns** , since they asserted that they _could_ recognize notable people by name, by virtue of their notable behavior. If you seriously have that hard of a time tracking notable posters, then you have a valid complaint, as opposed to **Shot From Guns** , who basically shot their own _foot_, prompting my confused response. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/359 "2010-10-08T22:46:30Z")
In the interest of unbiased problem solving, let’s try to throw some actual data behind the opinions. Opinion #1 “Sites with Avatars tend to have people discussing Avatars often enough to be disruptive” Proposed Data Gathering Method How about a sampling of sites/forums/threads and the Avatar Post to Total Post ratio found in those sampled threads? Post the results of your investigation. Opinion #2 “People who do not want Avatars are morons” Proposed Data Gathering Method We could try self-reporting on this one, anyone? ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161/360 "2010-10-08T22:52:20Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > In the interest of unbiased problem solving, let’s try to throw some actual data behind the opinions. > > Opinion #1 > “Sites with Avatars tend to have people discussing Avatars often enough to be disruptive” > > Proposed Data Gathering Method > How about a sampling of sites/forums/threads and the Avatar Post to Total Post ratio found in those sampled threads? Post the results of your investigation. Better not include the “Dumbing of Age” webcomic comment section, then. It deviate from the expected results. > [@RaftPeople](#): > > Opinion #2 > “People who do not want Avatars are morons” > > Proposed Data Gathering Method > We could try self-reporting on this one, anyone? Self-reporting? Wouldn’t that be subject to bias? Clearly we should just defer to **Shot From Guns** ’s opinion, as they’re the sovereign authority on who’s a moron or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatards/556161.md?page=19)