Avatars: Yay or Nay?

About This Message Board
141

[QUOTE=elmwood]
Does that mean avatars cause discussions to be dumbed down? Tell that to the users of my board, Unaboard, Bad Astronomy and Universe Today, or any of the hundreds of other more intellectual-oriented messages boards out there where avatars are permitted.

Also, I’ve seen plenty of minimalistic message boards where there’s not much in the way of intellectual content, not to mention many Usenet groups.
[/QUOTE]

I am not aware of another intellectually-oriented general-interest message board, like the SDMB is. Let me know if one exists. I don’t think you can draw parallels between special-topic (i.e. astronomy) message boards and this one.

I’m not saying that avatars will turn everyone into drooling idiots - but they’ll push us slightly, perhaps imperceptibly, in the wrong direction. And I don’t see anything positive about them to make a trade worthwhile. What advantages do they provide, other than to give people something vapid to play with?

I don’t buy this “They make it easier for visually-oriented people to recognize who’s posting!” argument. Now, I’m definitely a visually-oriented person, but come on - I can still fucking read. I’ve never been scrolling through a thread, and said “Oh my god, I don’t know who posted this because THERE ARE NO PICTURES!”

142

[QUOTE=Frank]
Nonsense. It’s the free market in action.
[/QUOTE]
Ooooo… that one may come back to bite.

(Is it okay to have forbidden thoughts in here?)

143

[QUOTE=elmwood]
And, FWIW, an excellent post during a similar debate on another message board:

Yeah, I think the avatar size eventually permitted on that site is too large. Still …
[/QUOTE]

That’s pretty much how I feel about it - let people have avatars - those that don’t want to see them can turn them off, those that don’t want to use them, won’t. Mine will be a picture of a teacup, with a storm in it.

144

[QUOTE=elmwood]
Besides, the design-oriented message boards like Typophile do a much better job at pulling off the minimalist look than the SDMB. Even then, they have avatars.
[/QUOTE]
I would expect as much at a design-oriented group. I like to think they might be artistic to some extent, for their own sake, and it might tend to reflect in a more or less tasteful appearance of their page. I wouldn’t expect to see cats with big eyes there too much. But the avatars don’t help their look, and are distracting. I had to look really close to decipher elizabeth_355’s T-shirt. Oh … she’s a “Computer Genius.” I see. And she’s proud of her big breasts, I notice. I’m happy for her.

I’m glad we don’t have to put up with that here.

145

[QUOTE=AskNott]
Nobody has yet shown any good reason to have them.
[/QUOTE]

I like having a visual representation of the member. I cannot for the life of me remember anything about a member from their username. People tell me I’m a visual learner. For this reason I have no problem with reasonable sized non-animated avatars – as long as they’re used for identification – because they’re helpful to me.

My problem with avatars is that if they are changeable on the whims of the user, then I’m against them because in that case they’re an obstacle to identification rather than and aid. Avatars should not only be moderated for non-objectionable content, but also be restricted to be changed infrequently. Say, once a year only.

And I disagree that allowing avatars automatically lowers the intelligence of the dialogue. I’m a member of a photography message board that allows avatars and the experience is as informative and mature as here on the SDMB. In my opinion the bigger problem with that message board is that they allow animated smileys. Now THAT is a distraction. Motionless avatars are benign, but animation in any form is detestable (even Smashie was annoying, for those who remember our Winter of Missed Content).

146

So far the anti-avatar group leads in absolute numbers, in passion of argument, and in the reasons for their side. But they haven’t scored a knockout punch.

You know what that means.

The Superdelegates will have to decide!

147

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
So far the anti-avatar group leads in absolute numbers, in passion of argument, and in the reasons for their side. But they haven’t scored a knockout punch.

You know what that means.

The Superdelegates will have to decide!
[/QUOTE]

I know you’re joking around, but as I reminded earlier, this is a business - not a democratic village. Many consumers like having a picture to associate with other posters and other consumers enjoy having the little creative freedom to choose a picture for themselves (just like I’m sure you enjoyed coming up with your username). What the Powers That Be have to decide is whether annoying a few of the consumers is worth attracting the others and whether any of the annoyed ones will actually leave.

The only thing that gets voted on around here is new smiley adoption.

148

[QUOTE=Absolute]
I am not aware of another intellectually-oriented general-interest message board, like the SDMB is. Let me know if one exists.
[/QUOTE]

There is a fair degree of membership overlap between that forum and this one. It is general interest and seems to keep up the “intellectual” orientation found here at the Dope while using avatars.

149

[QUOTE=Mark Ryle]
I don’t frequent other message boards so I sampled links to ‘tasteful’ avatar-laden examples provided in this thread. My gut instinct is confirmed. I can’t imagine having those pages up at work.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I wouldn’t have any of those up on the screen at work, either. As I said above, if we get avatars I’ll probably turn them on, but I’ll make sure they’re disabled at work–the avatars make the board look incredibly unprofessional.

150

[QUOTE=Troy McClure SF]
I think it would be nice, as I can never remember who’s who (though I also don’t really care). However, some douche will post a swastika or aborted fetus or something and reprimanded and then play dumb and get yelled at more and they’ll yell back and be defended by some other douches and some giant board drama will explode all over the place and there’ll be two 9-page pit threads and 4 more in ATMB and some ever bigger douche will threaten to sue and then we’ll lose avatars forever, so why not save the energy and skip it altogether?

[The above is slightly exaggerated.]

[/quote]

Um…where?

151

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Yeah, I wouldn’t have any of those up on the screen at work, either. As I said above, if we get avatars I’ll probably turn them on, but I’ll make sure they’re disabled at work–the avatars make the board look incredibly unprofessional.
[/QUOTE]

Well, this is just a general interest discussion forum, I’m not sure “professional” is a standard we should be shooting for. Out of curiosity, what other websites do you currently frequent that you are not afraid to have up on your work computer?

152

This whole thing is just… bizarre. It’s like a group from the 50s discussing whether they should allow rock music.

153

[QUOTE=Liberal]
This whole thing is just… bizarre. It’s like a group from the 50s discussing whether they should allow rock music.
[/QUOTE]

I think it’s more like a group from 1955 discussing whether color television should be allowed. After all, the pretty colors may distract the viewer from the content of the programming, and even if the option remains to watch in black-and-white, the fact that programming is being broadcast in color may change its oh-so-intellectual nature in some indescribable way. While those people insist that classical concerts, educational programming and intelligent Sunday morning panel shows dominate the airwaves, they don’t see the wrestling, campy westerns, and bad variety shows sponsored by cigarette companies that make up the majority of programming.

Then again, rock may be a good analogy. Just as critics of the time saw rock as a corrupting cultural force, many opposed to avatars think it will corrupt the SDMB community, inciting us all to upload swastikas, portraits of Hitler, images of open eyeball surgery or turds, and massive glittery unicorns; and inspire the inner pre-teen in us to burst forth with an uninterrupted flood of one-line posts in textspeak. They must have a rather low opinion of Dopers if they expect the worst to happen from a trademark “intelligent” userbase when the use of a lousy 2K image as a symbolic representation of their presence is permitted.

This may shed some light on the debate:

154

[QUOTE=elmwood]
I think it’s more like a group from 1955 discussing whether color television should be allowed. After all, the pretty colors may distract the viewer from the content of the programming, and even if the option remains to watch in black-and-white, the fact that programming is being broadcast in color may change its oh-so-intellectual nature in some indescribable way.
[/QUOTE]
That is a weak analogy. The color TV is a change to what we watch to make it more real. Avatars are extra to what we come to the boards for - we come to read the text. An avatar does not enhance the text in any way.

A better TV analogy is that avatars are like having the TV channel logo showing on the screen - superfluous to the need of the program, mildly distracting, and the only purpose is to show clearly who (i.e. which TV channel) is providing the content.

155

[QUOTE=Absolute]

My point is that the minimalism promotes the semi-intellectual content. Regardless of what their other characteristics may be, avatars and embedded images certainly don’t.
[/QUOTE]

No images promote intellectual content? Ever?

[QUOTE=Absolute]
I am not aware of another intellectually-oriented general-interest message board, like the SDMB is. Let me know if one exists. I don’t think you can draw parallels between special-topic (i.e. astronomy) message boards and this one.
[/QUOTE]

Why not?

[QUOTE=Absolute]
I’m not saying that avatars will turn everyone into drooling idiots - but they’ll push us slightly, perhaps imperceptibly, in the wrong direction.
[/QUOTE]

How so?

[QUOTE=Absolute]
And I don’t see anything positive about them to make a trade worthwhile. What advantages do they provide, other than to give people something vapid to play with?
[/QUOTE]

Are all avatars vapid? Why?

[QUOTE=Absolute]
I don’t buy this “They make it easier for visually-oriented people to recognize who’s posting!” argument. Now, I’m definitely a visually-oriented person, but come on - I can still fucking read. I’ve never been scrolling through a thread, and said “Oh my god, I don’t know who posted this because THERE ARE NO PICTURES!”
[/QUOTE]

You think they’re lying?

[QUOTE=Absolute]
The day I see the “Oh RLY?” owl, or some inane crap like that in an SDMB thread, is the day I leave.
[/QUOTE]

I’m OK with that.

[QUOTE=amarone]
Avatars are extra to what we come to the boards for - we come to read the text.
[/QUOTE]

Speak for yourself. I come for the exchange of ideas, the personalties etc.

156

[QUOTE=amarone]
A better TV analogy is that avatars are like having the TV channel logo showing on the screen - superfluous to the need of the program, mildly distracting, and the only purpose is to show clearly who (i.e. which TV channel) is providing the content.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, because you can’t turn off a bug. You can turn off avatars. Also, bugs cover part of the screen. Avatars sit on the site, and don’t float over the content of posts.

157

[QUOTE=elmwood]
Nope, because you can’t turn off a bug. You can turn off avatars. Also, bugs cover part of the screen. Avatars sit on the site, and don’t float over the content of posts.
[/QUOTE]
I only said “better”, not perfect. And it is still a hell of a lot better than the color TV analogy.

158

My vote: No. Non. Nein. Nyet. I don’t see how it’ll fly. For goodness’ sake, just getting a couple of new smilies was an extremely hard sell. Wouldn’t getting a handful of STANDARD avatars be just as hard? Custom avatars seem out of the question.

Una expressed herself calmly, rationally and pragmatically, and I get the point she’s making.

As to others:

Liberal: “Stop scaring people with things like freedom and making choices.”

cmyk: “Aww, all you nay-sayers are just sticks in the mud.”

CarnalK: “If you want to attract new users you shouldn’t keep this site looking so backwards just to satisfy some hard core haters.”

elmwood: “Let’s face it: Dopers HATE change. They hated this color and font scheme when it was first implemented with the 2.X->3.0 update, they hated the idea of an edit window, and now they hate the thought of avatars. If the site is ever updated to vBulletin 3.7, Dopers will be marching on the headquarters of CL with pitchforks and Molotov cocktails.”

Pejorative comments like the above just make me less willing to accept avatars.

If that’s not objectivity, how would you describe your accusation of “hard core haters”?

I’ve added emphasis to make it easier for visual thinkers.

If they lost that ability by being permanently banned, I’d be all for it (if we went for custom avatars).

This thread, which is simply discussing avatars, is certainly descending. I mean, if someone repeats a sentence 8 times like Bart Simpson saying “are we there yet?”, that’s hardly an elevated discussion, is it?

This is an invalid argument, because membership there is by approval only. So the orientation is probably because of that selection. Perhaps visual thinking is holding you back.

In a way, avatars are a backward step. We looked at pictures before we learned to read. People communicated with pictures before written language was invented.

159

I vote nay. Don’t like them and don’t think they’ll add anything good to the board.

(What’s that you say? Did I know they could be disabled? Why, yes I did, thanks for asking!)

If we get Avatars before we get a decent Tshirt I personally will start a revolt, 'cause that just ain’t right.

T shirts would promote our board and spread the word and bring in people. Want to bet how long before one appears on the small or big screen?

Avatars will, apparently, appease a few and annoy many, case closed.

That I’d get used to it is the most disingenuous argument I’ve ever heard. I could get used to walking around with a big rock on my head, but I’m not going to. Slaves get used to slavery, doesn’t make it right or okay.

160

[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle]
I’ve added emphasis to make it easier for visual thinkers.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry that shows nothing. If there is a “bad” avatar it will be reported. A mod will have to look at the post and make a judgement. In other words exactly what they do now. No staff overhead or whatever you chose to call it.

[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle]

This thread, which is simply discussing avatars, is certainly descending. I mean, if someone repeats a sentence 8 times like Bart Simpson saying “are we there yet?”, that’s hardly an elevated discussion, is it?.
[/QUOTE]

He didn’t repeat a sentence 8 times, he replied to 8 different posts. The reply just happened to be the same because it was the correct answer.

[QUOTE=rowrrbazzle]

In a way, avatars are a backward step. We looked at pictures before we learned to read. People communicated with pictures before written language was invented.
[/QUOTE]

How does that make any sense? It is not like anyone will answer an argument with an avatar. They will still have to answer. It is more like recognizing someone by looking at their face rather than reading their nametag.