[QUOTE=elmwood]
How about this?
[/QUOTE]
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%.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
No, I did not call you obnoxious. I said I thought you were being [intentionally] obnoxious*, and apologized.
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t read that as sincere. My bad.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
And yes. Every avatar is vapid. Again…that is my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
Okay, a few things.
- I think it still boils down to: you are not going to see any of the opinions that disagree with yours as reasonable because you view it as a group of people trying to stop you from doing something you want to do, while at the same time, refusing to acknowledge that you are trying to push a change that they do not want. Why should anyone validate your opinion while invalidating their own in the process?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
2. There isn’t any “proof” that allowing avatars and embedded pics won’t invite an element that will lower the general tone of the board, just one person’s opinion that their board hasn’t suffered. And I think that the anecdotal evidence of the number of people who’ve come out and said that every board they’ve been to that allows avis/embedded objects/pics etc. has pretty much been a waste is more than a little higher than those who’ve come out and said “it doesn’t lower the tone.” But you’re welcome to do a count if you’ve the time.
[/QUOTE]
Why would I do that. All you need is one example otherwise to show not every board with the images is an intellectual wasteland.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
3. “Anti-intellectualism” is the new red herring. Let’s not fall prey to it, hmm?
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t bring up the idea of “promoting intellectual content”.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
4. “Knee jerk reaction.” I don’t think it means what you think it means. If you can give a well considered answer that also takes the other person’s argument into consideration, it isn’t knee jerk. Whereas accusations and finger pointing seem over much like a temper tantrum because someone is not allowed their favorite toy.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
5. To all who go on about how they don’t experience slow downs: Horse apples. The board has been “down for maintenance” at least twice in the past four months. You didn’t “experience” slow downs? Then you didn’t sign on during those times, or the few days preceding each time it happened. Except I know for sure that two of you did, because two of you posted to the Pit thread to bitch about the slow downs. I get that you want avatars, but can you try to do it without stooping to deliberate falsehoods?
[/QUOTE]
Don’t avatars get hosted elsewhere? I don’t see how that would slow down the board.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
How do you know it aids in doper recognition? We’ve not had 'em.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
here are, indeed, many creative people here. But please bear in mind that you are essentially asking everyone to agree with you based on the simple premise that you want something and think it’s a good idea. That isn’t going to happen here. Pick a position and you are more or less guaranteed someone on this board will disagree.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. And those that disagree can turn them off. Everyone can get what they want.
[QUOTE=cmyk]
I visit a lot of other boards, and I’ve never seen a particularly offensive avatar.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
Don’t avatars get hosted elsewhere? I don’t see how that would slow down the board.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
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.
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=Absolute]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=CoG888]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
Don’t avatars get hosted elsewhere? I don’t see how that would slow down the board.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
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.
[/QUOTE]
What am I missing? It’s an animated GIF, yes, but I see nothing in it even remotely inappropriate.
[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
What am I missing? It’s an animated GIF, yes, but I see nothing in it even remotely inappropriate.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=cmyk]
What if the Dope restricted avatars to be only a portrait of yourself?
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
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.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t make any noise. It’s just an animated GIF.
[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.