I didn’t report it.
I can see it amusing a five-year-old.
Your are right, sir. Appallingly was too much.
Elmwood can say anything he wants, as often as he wants, speaking for myself. I’m touchy because of unexpected, so unavoidable, pop-ups.
I looked everywhere. Except for the old text-based relics (The Well, Noise Level Zero) of the pre-Internet era that are still holding on, and perhaps some ancient telnet-based bulletin boards that are considered “intelligent”. I found nothing. Well, at least nothing based on vBulletin, Invision Power Board, or other contemporary message board systems. Meanwhile, I did find examples of intelligent general-interest message boards with avatars: see this post.
It occurs to me that I can’t remember the last time I read a series of comments online that included avatars.
I don’t go to LiveJournal ever, so perhaps that biases my viewing. But I see comments and discussion all over the net. News sites, blogs, YouTube, Google Groups, columns, discussion areas of all sorts. None have avatars. People manage to talk for hundreds of comments. Some are inane, some are respectable, some are terrific, some are a good reason for nuking the human race.
The argument that allowing avatars would bring in people who see the Dope as old and fusty and out of it doesn’t seem to hold water. Most of the sites I’m taking about have emerged over the recent past, rather than being relics of an earlier age. It’s possible that many people don’t think about avatars at all when it comes to a site because avatars are themselves a faded fad from the days when being able to put any image up with your words was a novelty.
Shoe’s on the other foot now. How do you respond?
Firstly, I’d say you’re missing the avatar discussions because you have been staying away from LiveJournal. I see people say “nice avatar”, “avatar love!” and “may i swipe your icon?” once in a while when I pass through (I’m not a big fan of the place either). Also, one of it’s most used features is being able to have a staple of “user pics” that you can pick from for special posts instead of your default.
Seriously, keeping out avatars can definitely be described as old and fusty*, now it’s just a matter of deciding whether the true spirit of the SDMB is maintained that way or not.
I’ve asked a couple of times but no one seems to be getting back to me, do you have a link to one of these “fantastic” places that have no avatars?
eta:*or a cheap tack on, like the youtube and news article discussions that you mentioned.
No avatars, thank you. Sorry, elmwood.
Personally, I stay away from Live Journal, because all the links I’ve ever seen to it are in regard to petty people knifing other people in the back reputation wise. Some people may be comfortable with that level of snark on a regular basis, but it’s not my cup of tea.
And what X other operation does should not be the governing factor of what we do here. Especially if the appeal is to “do it because everyone else does”; most of us have graduated high school, some decades ago, and the few who haven’t tend to act more mature than that anyway.
What keeps you saying this when avatars don’t seem to be the new a la mode?
I didn’t use the word fantastic at all, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I did say *comments * range from horrifying to terrific, but that’s true for sites as far apart as here and Fark.
A cheap tack on? I’m not understanding this either. There’s been plenty of comments at how the anti-avatar crowd is backward-looking and conservative and out of touch with today’s youts,who are all itouchy-feely and 3-D-Wii. So how is my characterizing those comments as synonyms for fusty wrong?
I’d imagine it’s not impossible.
They’d probably be pretty neutral overall.
I’d say the same for this board.
See, I don’t see the “empty-headed masses” joining here avatars or no. I don’t think avatars (or any of the other possible features) will make this place suddenly attractive to them. Every other board has them, they won’t need to come here for them.
I guess. But in my experience, this sort of behavior on boards that have avatars isn’t all that common.
I’m referring more to sites like Flickr & Photobucket where poster can host their own avatars.
As politically liberal as this board is, it sure very conservative in everything else.
Oh. Pardon me. You said “terrific”.
Now if you just meant that scattered amongst all the youtube commentary you can find a couple of “fantastic” posts then I guess I’ll grant you that, but it isn’t really on point here. We are talking about whether the general level of commentary is improved by a lack of avatars. I think that looking at youtube and CNN discussion threads we wouldn’t come to that conclusion.
And while avatars may not the be the new “a la mode”, they are solidly a standard. It’s like a cell phone without a camera. Not a big deal anymore but weird when it ain’t there.
Your last paragraph I don’t get. I meant a “cheap tack on”, as in it isn’t really a message board with forums and people able to start their own threads. I didn’t complain about your use of fusty - I agreed with it.
ha. I used “fantastic” again. Well, I hope you were able to figure out I meant “terrific”.
I’m in favor of avatars, mainly because it would make it easier for me to identify posters when I’m scanning through a thread. I don’t do a lot of message boards on a regular basis; this is the only one I do that doesn’t have avatars and I haven’t noticed any evidence that the mere use of them automatically leads to a dumbing-down of board content.
Admittedly, there are some boards that I’ve come across where people go overboard with huge and/or animated avatars, but if size is limited here that would be a non-problem. My biggest complaint with some other boards has been signatures that take up half the screen, which isn’t permitted here already.
Is it true that posters here have the choice of turning off avatars just as they can do for signatures and smileys? 
This has been interesting. Usually only topics of politics, religion, or near-death-experiences generate this level of emotional polarization.
Obviously there is a split between those who like avatars and those who don’t. When you take into consideration that avatars can be avoided simply by turning off the option, the entire discussion seems to distill down to this:
For those who don’t want avatars, the arguments are:
a) it’ll noticeable slow down board response
b) it’ll attract the “wrong sort of person” to the SDMB
c) it’ll create more work for the mods, who don’t want to deal with the hassle
For those who want (or would tolerate) avatars, the arguments are:
d) it’ll be a visual aid for poster recognition
e) it’ll make the SDMB more progressive and might attract the “right sort of person”
Let’s take a look at these in turn:
a) if this is true, then this is a very valid argument; however I’m not sure we have a definitive answer
b) opinion only, but there is evidence against it (Unaboard, gDope, BadAstronomy)
c) I think we’ve only had one mod weigh in on this question, but if this is true then this is a valid argument
d) valid argument (for some at least)
e) opinion only with no evidence that I can find
So. In my opinion I think it’s pretty much a draw.
As far as a) goes, it’s pretty well accepted by the Yay side that the server needs to go through the announced upgrade before they can host avatars. Currently they barely handle day to day operations. Your point e) is all turned around, lack of avatars was thought to ‘attract the “right sort of person”’, so it was an “against” argument.
I think that your answer to b) and the fact that those who dislike them can turn them off makes this an easy decision to make come “modernizing the look” time.
Well, Algernon, it looks like you missed an argument against (it’s safe to click - it’s just a cartoon)
I think I should also point out that these comments are simply untrue. Google groups is definitely a relic from the past, blogs have avatars, and youtube allows you to reply with video - making avatars redundant. Comment threads on news sites and columns are meant to imitate “letters to the editor” rather than be a real message board and I have trouble describing them as having “emerged over the recent past” regardless.
Sorry. When I say violent I of course was exaggerating. I didn’t see any fists fly. I meant it as *vehement * . As far as I know there have been no violent anti-avatar demonstrations, but I don’t live near Dope HQ.
Look, you can pull out individual words and mince them to death. The rule in question is only two lines long, it isn’t that hard to understand. It was put in place to stop linking to jack in the box links and one in particular. Jack in the box links are a very specific type of internet animal. This is not one of them. The rule is not there in case someone gets annoyed at something. It is there to keep out jack in the box links. I don’t see any of them anymore, it is something that popped up a couple of years ago. Now it would be like if they made an anti-Rickroll rule. It would not be there to get out links to singers that happen to annoy you. It would be there to keep out a specific stupid occurance that is going around the internet now.
Heh, heh. Fair enough. Though I’m not sure embarrassment is much of an inhibitor around here.
Though I don’t dispute what you’re saying, I think your restatement that “lack of avatars would attract the right sort of person” is just a different flavor of point (b) from the anti-avatar crowd. I’m not going to go back and search but I think point (e) from the pro-avatar crowd as stated was claimed earlier in the thread – that a more modern look-n-feel would potentially attract an audience of new members.
Sheesh. Now I’m nit picking. Stop me! Someone please stop me before I become one of THEM!!! Aaaaahhhhhheeeeee!!
I’m not surprised she’s “embarassed” - she just fell flat on her Rs.
Avatars or no avatars, this is why I love the SDMB. Well played Colophon! 