I vote yes assuming we can get agreement on what the avatar will look like. I favour a white square.
Actually, you do make a good argument for school uniforms. No teacher would want to have to deal with the potential that someone might wear an inappropriate tee shirt.
I think you’ve stumbled on the cure! Let’s just make everybody mods. That way, no one will want avatars.
I would agree with this. Conversely, if they do not adopt avatars, we can conclude it is because they have evidence that doing so would negatively impact revenue. Insisting that avatars will improve board traffic is unproven speculation.
Step 1 = avatars
Step 3 = profit!
I think I’m against the avatar idea. With no avatars, everyone is pretty much of equal stature, visually speaking. With avatars, those with better graphics manipulation skills or a better source of avatar worthy material will stand out better than those who lack those things. I like having avatars on other boards but I think it would detract from the charm of the SDMB. 2¢
No avatars. I cherish this board for its uncluttered format, and that doesn’t make me a Luddite or anything like one.
As for “Turn them off if you don’t like it!”, sorry, wrong. They take up bandwidth whether I see them or not.
It’s also helpful to me because I never remember who annoyed me or pissed me off, making it impossible to hold those little microgrudges that eventually add up to a negative impression of a board. 
Really though, I didn’t mention it because I thought I was alone on the board in this sentiment, but I don’t give a damn who it is doing the posting, either. Contributes more to cliquishness and posters masturbating each other than anything helpful to the post, to me. It’s a good point; If I make a friend anyway, that’s great, but I’m really not here to socially network.
How? If you’re not seeing them, and they’re not being downloaded to your computer, how are they taking up bandwidth for you?
I think a lot of the hate towards avatars and the bad mojo they bring might be based on myopia. This is everyone’s favorite forum, it doesn’t have avatars, therefore not having avatars is good. Does anyone have examples of other modern message boards that don’t have avatars that stand out as superior? Or is the SDMB the only example of no avatars=smarter?
foreboding thoughts: So do you guys think that “modernizing the look of the SD website” won’t include the implementation of avatars? Do you think a company called “Creative Loafing” intends to create a professional looking site that doesn’t want to encourage those “interested in social networking”? Does the fact that MPSIMS is more popular than either GD or GQ phase anyone as to the “intellectual” intent of this board and it’s members?
Well, in that case, you could do what the boards over at TheForce.Net does, and have pre-loaded avatars, that users can choose from.
As for visual representation, feh. Why not just say, “I’d like avatars because they’re fun”. That’s all. I like avatars and I think it’d be cool if we did add them.
And I will say, that this is the only board I visit that doesn’t have them.
However, in the end, if we don’t get them, I’m not going to throw a fit.
Would you love the board to run even slower than it does now?
For that reason alone I vote “nay”.
Two things: (1) your post took more bandwidth than some avatars would; and (2) avatars are stored in cache, but posts are not.
Because your avatar (and everyone else who has one) takes up bandwidth that is shared by all. You get the benefit, and I take the performance hit.
I say allow avatars, but charge for them. $15/ yr for a simple photo of yourself, $25/ yr for a jpg other than your photo, $100/ yr for a flashing or moving jpg, $500,000 for one that flashes, moves, and talks.
Oh, that was probably me. Sorry. 
My goodness. I’ve used two smilies in one thread. This is unprecedented.
This would defeat the purpose in most avatar-lovers’ eyes, wouldn’t it? Does an avatar help you to remember who’s who if 38 people all have the same avatar?
Where did I come up with 38? The front page says we have 76,673 members. Assume 90% of them are inactive or don’t qualify. That’s about 7,600 members. If someone builds 200 standard avatars we can pick from, then on the average each avatar will be used 38 times.
Personally, I don’t care one way or the other. While I don’t see avatars doing any harm, I also see no benefit.
I think avatars would be nice, but they would need to be small. 75x75 or smaller. Text only is still good, though.
I think this OP assumes that avatars wouldn’t be added until after much needed server upgrades. The server can’t handle searching now, so I really doubt anyone would be thinking of adding avatars in its current sad state.
You load a page, and avatars are turned off, and you’ll be using less bandwidth than someone who has them turned on. Your page wouldn’t be loading slower because I’ve got avatars turned on, because it’s bandwidth I’m using, not you. That is, unless you’ve got some wireless connection that you’re sharing with 30 other SDMB members in your apartment building.
Likewise, do you complain about those that lurk for hours, and those with 10K+ posts, who also use more bandwidth than a typical SDMB member because they’re hitting ore pages?
No, no, no.
I don’t understand the idea that allowing avatars will somehow attract new members. If people are showing up for the content, what do avatars have to do one way or another with whether or not they join up? And to be honest, if allowing avatars or not is the deciding factor for guest X, I’m not sure they would be happy at this board or add much to the content anyway.
This is all wrong. There is only one bandwidth budget for everybody. If you and the other avatar users use more than the rest of us, our performance will suffer. There is no “your” bandwidth and “my” bandwidth, only “our” bandwidth.