I usually tune avatars out when I see them. Although I do enjoy the currently uncluttered, fast-loading SDMB, I don’t really care much one way or the other, as long as they can be turned off.
But I have dialup, so if there’s no option to turn avatars off, they would definitely reduce the board’s utility for me. If fancy/animated ones are allowed, the reduction would be around 99%.
I didn’t read that as sincere. My bad.
I get that it’s an opinion. Is it really unfair to ask why they came to that opinion? Avatars are small images. They can picture anything. Claiming that every avatar is vapid is a pretty broad claim. I’m curious as to how they came to that opinion.
No. I’m OK if people just say they don’t like them. Or that they don’t like visual clutter. What I’m not buying are claims that it will eventually lead to a dumber board. And I think claims that images never add to intellectual contact are fairly ridiculous.
Why would I do that. All you need is one example otherwise to show not every board with the images is an intellectual wasteland.
I didn’t bring up the idea of “promoting intellectual content”.
I don’t see much evidence that “push us slightly, perhaps imperceptibly, in the wrong direction” is a well considered opinion. Especially given the “I see one picture I don’t like and I’m out of here” attitude displayed in the original post I responded to.
Don’t avatars get hosted elsewhere? I don’t see how that would slow down the board.
Other boards do have them. If it aids recognition on those boards, it stands to reason it will here. Unless you have a good reason they won’t? And no, the fact that this is a general interest board doesn’t seem relevant.
Sure. And those that disagree can turn them off. Everyone can get what they want.
I’ve seen one that borders on NSFW and the board it’s on is moderated.
If you’re referring to hotlinking, some sites discourage this by redirecting the hotlink to things like goatse.
Either/or. You can set the system to allow users to upload them, or host them somewhere else. There are lots of free picture hosting sites that work fine for that purpose.
The only argument I see for avatars is that people want to express their individuality with pictures. Are you telling me people are going to fit something intellectually stimulating into a 64x64 GIF? No. It’s just going to be meaningless clutter. Vapid.
So, what, your opinion is that avatars will push us towards greater intellectualism? I doubt it.
My original point in distinguishing between general-interest and special-interest boards was that it’s kind of hard for anything to push the intellectualism out of a board on quantum physics. But, in my opinion, it would be easy for a general-interest board with no specific purpose to slide into oblivion as features more attractive to the empty-headed masses are added.
My position, somewhat exaggerated, is that the board’s text-only nature attracts the sort of people I enjoy talking with, and turns off the sort of people I dislike talking with (in general - no slight intended against avatar lovers who have joined!). It makes the board unique, and clearly demonstrates that this place is focused on writing and content. Adding avatars, embedded images and the like would detract from that.
True, I might be wrong. But wouldn’t it suck if I’m right? I guess I just don’t think cat GIFs make it worth finding out.
I asked something similar earlier in the thread but I didn’t notice any answers: Do you have an example of another forum that also illustrates this phenomenon? I don’t think the SDMB is completely unique in that aspect because"The Well", one of the Web’s oldest so-called intellectual message boards, has a format reminiscent of usenet (at least, judging by the spots viewable by guests).
The Well seems to have many more unique attributes though, such as real names being used and specific posters hosting online “conferences”, that make me unsure that it is a fair example. Would anyone disagree or have different examples?
I vote Yes, because I haven’t seen a single reason against avatars that can’t be countered with the ability to turn them off.
If we had avatars, and I turned them off, I would still be subjected to elmwood’s Post# 238 above. The avatar people just can’t help themselves.
Don’t open the link, by the way. It’s not safe for work. And it is not labeled as such.
And avatars are univerally vapid. The only time they don’t qualify as vapid is when they’re offensive. And that line is real indistinct.
But if you host them elsewhere, then all control is lost. The moderators may approve my sophisticated and highly appropriate avatar, and then I just change the hosted picture to be an NSFW picture designed to insult another poster. Leave it up for a bit, change it back, no evidence. Obviously screenshots wouldn’t be acceptable evidence because they’re so easy to Photoshop.
What am I missing? It’s an animated GIF, yes, but I see nothing in it even remotely inappropriate.
It all of a sudden gets very large and is a picture of screaming man. Whether it screams or not I don’t know, I don’t have speakers.
Let elmwood explain it.
What if the Dope restricted avatars to be only a portrait of yourself?
Oil? Watercolor?
Acrylic.
I’m a black velvet man, myself.
If you’re being serious, there’s absolutely no way I’m having my ugly mug splattered over the SD.
I didn’t see anything wrong with elmwood’s GIF, except that the Avatars should be on the left side of the User names. Maybe Mark Ryle is upset because that kitten doesn’t look as vapid as he thought it would.
It doesn’t make any noise. It’s just an animated GIF.
You were just subjected to elmwood’s horribly offensive NSFW post even though avatars aren’t even enabled yet. It’s actually perfectly SFW, btw. No noise. Seems like you are ready to assume the worst.
Which brings me to ask: do you not understand the difference between animated avatars, non-animated avatars, inline images and pictures in signatures? The admins don’t have to allow everything just because they allow a simple small avatar. Regardless, you can switch off inline images in your user CP just like avatars, so no you wouldn’t be subjected to anything you don’t want to.