Seriously.
I dislike avatars. I won’t use them and find them annoying. But as long as I don’t have to see them – and would, in fact, HAVE TO TAKE AN EXTRA STEP TO SEE THEM – I see no reason to care if anybody else does. And I’m a curmudgeonly misanthrope who hates everyone except
::checks list ::
Shot from Guns, Oy!, WhyNot, Angua, Oakminster, carniverousplant, and fourteen others who shall go unnamed at this time.
I can’t respect anyone that needs an entire alphabet to post…10010100100 1001010011111011101 101010101 11101 001111110 10101010 101011111010010001 101010011100110101 10101010111
**Your logic convinces us. Your typographical distinctiveness will be added to our own. Prepare for assimilation. **
You’d be missing out if you couldn’t see mine–I’ve introduced more than one person to NPWIL through them!
:fistpump: :chestbump: :shotgunabeer:
***I ***can’t respect anyone who doesn’t understand when to use “who” rather than “that.” (I *will *accept using who in place of whom, but I’ll not abide the hypercorrection of whom in place of who.)
First of all, we already do get by on something far better than a ‘list of attendees’. We already do wear nametags at this ‘conference’. We each have a distinct user name. No need to doodle silly pictures on these ‘nametags’. You really don’t see random artwork too often on nametags at most conferences (outside of maybe Cosplay and Lolzcats conventions).
Secondly, the problem is that when people can change avatars any time they want to the avatar is of less than no use as a means of visually identifying a poster (I say ‘less than no use’ because ever-changing avatars would actually confuse the issue, not help sort it out).
It would be like attendees at a conference wearing name tags… and then randomly switching their nametag to a different name every 15 minutes.
If you want to see someones pretty picture, click on their profile.
Psst! Check out post #78.
can’t wait until everyone can see her Tubgirl avatar!
No, but you do get a face above the nametag. All we get here is nametags.
People can change the cut, color, or style of their hair at any time, too, or wear different makeup. Just because someone *can *change their avatar every five minutes doesn’t mean they will. The fact that you think this will be horribly confusing zomgz says to me that you’ve somehow never posted on a forum that allows avatars.
Please explain how it hurts you in any way whatsoever to allow people to upload avatars if they choose to do so.
So, you just want to protect people who like avatars from this eternal, insurmountable confusion.
I think a better analogy is that the current situation is akin to everybody at a conference wore nametags … on their identical black burqas. With avatars, you can see their faces.
Only on sites with avatars, most users really don’t change them that often. Most stick with their trademark avatar for months or years. You’re thinking of a worst-case scenario again. I think a better analogy is more like changing hairstyles; it happens, but not that often.
Yes, at first, people might change avatars a bit, but then they’ll probably settle down as the novelty wears off. Cite: the addition of polls on the SDMB, also several years after the feature was implemented on most other message boards. Polls were everywhere for a few weeks, but now their frequency is no more common than on any other message board. Besides, if you have avatar display turned off, what difference does it make whether someone keeps an avatar for a week or a decade? You’re not going to notice, except for the rare “nice avatar!” comment that is apparently going to lead to the SDMB’s demise.
Has the ability to change avatars at will resulted in chaos at the 'Raffe? Not from what I’ve seen.
That’s what I thought, but some advocates in one of the other threads said no.
How about this hypothetical situation: a gifted coder creates a Mozilla plugin for the SDMB, which displays tasteful, small, static avatars other SDMB users have uploaded to a remotely-hosted database? The people with the plugin can see avatars by a user’s name, while those who don’t have the plug-in can’t. What does the “no avatars for anybody, even though I can turn them off” crowd feel about something like that?
No. With avatars you get to see a static picture of their face, expression frozen whether that person is happy, sad, angry or bored.
As opposed to no face at all?
Does talking on the telephone sans picture upset you? Do you avoid texting for the same reason?
Does talking to someone with a face bother you?
OOOOOOOO _______________________________________
O O [ ]
O [O] [O] O [ This Space Reserved for Advertisers ]
O O [ contact me at Avatar-Ad.com ]
O o O [_______________________________________]
O O
O [_____] O Shot From Guns - Your hypersensitivity to
O O wording is making this avatar sad :(
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO _______________________________________
O O [ ]
O [O] [O] O [ This Space Reserved for Advertisers ]
O O [ contact me at Avatar-Ad.com ]
O o O [_______________________________________]
O O
O [_____] O Touche MsWhatsit!
O O
OOOOOOOO
If it was just a never-changing picture of their face? Probably.
I thought that was a good idea myself.
If the OP gets this upset about avatars, I hope he never finds out about Darfur.