# Avatars **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 28, 2011, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594 "2011-07-28T05:25:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/301 "2011-08-04T00:21:12Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > Okay, folks. Here’s a **serious** proposal to implement avatars on the Straight Dope, based on Guin’s suggestion for a trial period. I would add to this that if a mod deemed an avatar was unacceptable for basically whatever reason, they would be able to delete it on the spot without a big fiasco erupting in ATMB. It would be a probationary period agreed to by the participants and all mod decisions would be final. I’m so confident that the vast majority of avatars would be tasteful, visually appealing and non-disruptive I would be willing to sign away my rights to complain about any mod decisions regarding avatars. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/302 "2011-08-04T00:22:28Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > This is a good idea. One reason for my (mild) dislike of avatars is that I find it hard to take someone who has a cute/silly/whatever avatar seriously in a serious discussion. Does anyone else feel like this, or am I just being odd? Even though I’m one of the pro-avatar people, I agree with you there. There might be some self-selection; those users who tend to post to the less serious forums are those that are more likely to have an avatar depicting something cutsey or glurgey. Still, GQ, GD, CoCC and the like are the forums that, at least in my opinion, I think the anti-avatar Dopers consider the most “sacred”, and most representative of what they feel is the zeitgeist of the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/303 "2011-08-04T00:24:55Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > Even though I’m one of the pro-avatar people, I agree with you there. There might be some self-selection; those users who tend to post to the less serious forums are those that are more likely to have an avatar depicting something cutsey or glurgey. Still, GQ, GD, CoCC and the like are the forums that, at least in my opinion, I think the anti-avatar Dopers consider the most “sacred”, and most representative of what they feel is the zeitgeist of the SDMB. We could also have ONE sticky thread in MPSIMS for “Make me an Avatar”, where we could discuss them. Because I’d be more than happy to make them for people, and I’m sure there are others who feel the same way. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/304 "2011-08-04T00:33:46Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > I’ve still seen plenty of intellectual, adult, mature conversation. Likewise, I’ve seen “juvenile, inane babble” here. (Pan-fried semen, post your cat pictures, links to stupid youtube videos). That’s all. Thus, the suggested restriction of avatar display (for those who have opted in and chosen to see them, yadda yadda yadda) to the forums where most such discussions take place; MPSIMS, IMHO, and the like. There tends to be few [multi-page threads on atheism](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=551630) in MPSIMS or IMHO, nor [comparing how each others’ typical bowel movements are classified on the Bristol Stool Chart](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=525760) in GD. > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > I would add to this that if a mod deemed an avatar was unacceptable for basically whatever reason, they would be able to delete it on the spot without a big fiasco erupting in ATMB. This is normally how it happens on most message boards. Dopers are _far_ more vocal about moderator actions here than what I’ve seen on other message boards, but like so many things, it’s just a part of “board culture”. One of the potential shortcomings of avatars here that you won’t see on other boards, I’ll admit. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/305 "2011-08-04T00:34:13Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > **elmwood** – good ideas, the only thing I disagree with is the idea that you have to pay to use one. Since a lot of people who are paid members disagree, and those who aren’t paid members want them. Just a tip. Other than that, cool idea. It would be better if anything to charge a flat fee for \*changing \*avatars, member or guest, because each change would theoretically require a mod vetting (even though it probably would just occur naturally as a result of using the board, and not per a mod schedule for vetting changed avatars per se). It should be a significant enough fee that it discourages changing avatars every 2 days but not so steep that it prices out guests completely. ---
**Author:** ![Wakinyan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wakinyan/32/352_2.png) [@Wakinyan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wakinyan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/306 "2011-08-04T00:43:33Z")
**Crazyhorse** , your reply is so weird to me (though I’m sure you are a great guy) that for the first time in my SDMB carreer (as far as I remember) I feel the need to chop the reply in parts to answer it part by part. Hope you don’t mind (I kind of mind the technique myself). > [@Crazyhorse](#): > > Avatars aren’t part of one’s arguments in a thread. They aren’t a point of view in regard to any one post or thread or area of the board they are just an extension of a user name, signature, etc. I know. > [@](#): > > The argument that enabling one feature would lead to a massively exaggerated overuse of every possible media type known to the internet is ridiculous. It is not ridiculous. I am quite sure it would happen. Though I’m not saying you (or other pro-avatars) in this thread would do so. > [@](#): > > Opinions in opposition from a non mod or admin are honestly irrelevant to the discussion. I sincerely do not understand this; aren’t we discussing things, airing opinions about avatars? > [@](#): > > You are arguing that for your own reasons as a board user you don’t want others to have something that you don’t need to have, see, or participate in. That is not true, I would never want to rob you of anything, why on earth would I want to do that? But the point is that we are not on two different boards, one with at tree and the other without. If you put a tree here it is in the room we share and it is this common room we are discussing. How shall it look? And my point is that if there \*is \*a (invisible) christmas tree here I need to know about it, otherwise I’m not able to participate because there are “shit” here I don’t know about which others are discussing. Therefore the optional christmas tree is slightly intrusive even though I can’t see it. So I have opinions about the three, because I care about the room. > [@](#): > > It won’t change the outward appearance of the board to guests, it won’t change the inside appearance of the board to you, but you just don’t like it and so you don’t want anyone else to like it. That is not true, if I got to choose everyone would be happy. Believe me. However, this being a message board with very many posters, and when there are very many attendants, not everybody will be super happy with every decision. This being a thread for discussing “avatars yes or no” I argued for my opinion. That certainly doesn’t mean I want somebody to be unhappy. > [@](#): > > That isn’t an acceptable reason to get involved in someone else’s question to TPTB about something that quite frankly doesn’t concern you in any way. I simply don’t understand what you are saying here, any clarification or elaboration would be appreciated. > [@](#): > > Many, if not most, threads here wind up with links to external content, cites, videos, pictures, etc. That already is the case whether you like it or not, and it has absolutely nothing to do with user avatars which are a fixed size, non-animated, and exactly what they are without any hidden ramifications or future consequences. I agree. > [@](#): > > TPTB have already stated they don’t plan to grant the request. They do have to see them if they allow some users to have them so, right or wrong, that is their decision at least for now. Why continue to argue against it as an outsider to the issue, with absolutely no stake in the outcome? I’m not sure what you mean, but in the poll thread “Should we allow Avatars”, **Czarcasm** says in #53, > [@](#): > > the OP has asked(in post #3) and I have also asked that you take the debate about this subject to the ATMB thread. So after I voted, and actually read this whole thread (most of it yesterday), I took my “debate” here. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/307 "2011-08-04T00:43:52Z")
> [@Crazyhorse](#): > > It would be better if anything to charge a flat fee for \*changing \*avatars, member or guest, because each change would theoretically require a mod vetting (even though it probably would just occur naturally as a result of using the board, and not per a mod schedule for vetting changed avatars per se). It should be a significant enough fee that it discourages changing avatars every 2 days but not so steep that it prices out guests completely. I don’t think that’s possible without a hack. I run a vBulletin-based board with avatars, and users tend not to change them that often. When they do, it’s quite infrequent, and thus not that disorienting. FWIW, the avatar rules on my board: •  Only users with 25 posts or more can have an avatar. •  Avatar images must be non-animated, ≤80 pixels in any dimension, and ≤3 KB. •  Avatars must not be misleading, offensive or inflammatory. It’s worked so far for 11 years. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/308 "2011-08-04T00:45:23Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Seriously, there seems to be something psychologically deep going on here, where some people have a gut-level, skin-crawling aversion to the very idea of avatars, while others passionately lust after them, when it doesn’t seem like it ought to be a big deal either way, on the surface of it. > > I would love to hear the theories of armchair psychologists. Do those who want avatars have a desperate need to assert their identities, to express themselves in a way they find impossible using only words? Are those who are opposed, loath to have their own (and others’) identities summed up with a logo or silly image? Is this really a battle between the visual people and the verbal people? the attention whores vs. the wallflowers? style vs. substance? the sensation-seekers vs. the easily overstimulated? branding vs. … whatever the opposite of that is? I know, right? So much drama, vitriol and butt-hurt over avatars?!? I don’t get it. I’m personally mildly against it, but I really don’t care that much because, as has been noted \*ad nauseam, \*it would be optional. But if the images were uploaded and hosted on this site, my mild opposition would turn into strong opposition. The board is pretty slow during peak times as it is. The poor hamsters would probably keel over if they were forced to process avatars. But I suppose if there were a sufficient charge for avatars, that could fund the bandwidth/server/hamster upgrades necessary to offset any performance issues. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/309 "2011-08-04T01:05:29Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > I know, right? So much drama, vitriol and butt-hurt over avatars?!? I don’t get it. > > I’m personally mildly against it, but I really don’t care that much because, as has been noted \*ad nauseam, \*it would be optional. But if the images were uploaded and hosted on this site, my mild opposition would turn into strong opposition. > > The board is pretty slow during peak times as it is. The poor hamsters would probably keel over if they were forced to process avatars. But I suppose if there were a sufficient charge for avatars, that could fund the bandwidth/server/hamster upgrades necessary to offset any performance issues. Nope, you wouldn’t have to host them here. You’d upload them to a site like photobucket, or tinypic. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/310 "2011-08-04T01:42:14Z")
> [@ianzin](#): > > You may think they are fun, but that doesn’t mean they are. They are juvenile visual clutter for people who aren’t really ready for a board where grown-up people communicate in writing. More condescension from the pro-avatar crowd. Oh. Wait. > [@CannyDan](#): > > I really care little either way. I have come to like the clean - even perhaps bare - appearance of the SDMB. But I really can’t imagine my experience being impacted at all if avatars were an opt-in option. > > If that meant I might need to skip over an occasional thread because it was actually about avatars, I wouldn’t be put out. After all, I skip over \*most \*threads anyway because their subjects are of no interest to me. And if I missed some back-handed reference to an avatar in some thread I was reading, big deal, there are lots of inside jokes and subtle allusions that I don’t get but can’t be troubled to research as things stand right now. > > I would personally keep avatars turned off, since I find them unnecessarily distracting from my thoughts. But heck, the SDMB is my entertainment, not my vocation. So I might occasionally turn them on, for the grins and giggles of seeing how my mental pictures of posters match up with their self-image as expressed in their avatars. And then I’d turn them back off. > > But I am at a loss to understand how allowing other people to have/see something that brings them pleasure in any way diminishes the experience of those like me who do not wish to share that exact experience. As long as I/we can opt out, that is. > > Ed, it’s your Board and you can do as you like with it, and I appreciate the straight answer regardless of which way it goes. Still, I just don’t see the harm and it seems that quite a few people would see something good in it. Stop being so reasonable. Don’t you know only stupid people like pictures? Good thing that Creative Loafing is so financially healthy that they can ignore a potential revenue generator. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/311 "2011-08-04T02:04:42Z")
> [@Wakinyan](#): > > It is not ridiculous. I am quite sure it would happen. Though I’m not saying you (or other pro-avatars) in this thread would do so. If that were the case, then allowing avatars to a subset of the users who want to use them would neither encourage or discourage it. People are currently free to link to whatever media they want outside of the board if it is on topic and/or appropriate and you are saying that if a group of users were granted the ability to have fixed size, non-animated avatars next to their usernames it would immediately cause widespread abuse, links to videos, animations, etc. and more requests for even more avatar type things that you don’t like. But it wouldn’t - if it would, it would already be going on now with signatures, usernames, links to external sites, greasemonkey scripts, etc. > [@Wakinyan](#): > > I sincerely do not understand this; aren’t we discussing things, airing opinions about avatars? > > I’m not sure what you mean, but in the poll thread “Should we allow Avatars”, **Czarcasm** says in #53, So after I voted, and actually read this whole thread (most of it yesterday), I took my “debate” here. Yes and in fact I really have no place to tell you that your opinion is irrelevant since it is being sought by TPTB and other board users. I am saying it \*shouldn’t \*be considered relevant even though it is, because in fact you have no stake in the outcome. If avatars are or are not allowed for a group of users who are interested in them, it will have no effect on you in any way. You believe that there would be one effect: as long as avatars were allowed anyway and some people were using the feature, then you would feel left out if you didn’t use it too, even though you oppose it. So it would be forcing you to use it, or be left out of something that you oppose anyway, but would feel you need to be a part of as long as others were doing it? That is a fundamentally flawed argument and it puts me back to saying that, thus far, no non-admin opposition to the idea has yet to establish one reasonable case of why they believe they would actually be impacted by the decision. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/312 "2011-08-04T02:46:40Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > Arguments like “avatars will change the tone of the board”, IMHO, are akin to saying that the tone of a conversation with a friend will change because they’re wearing boxers instead of briefs. Except you can’t tell just by standing there talking to them what type of underwear they’re wearing. A much better analogy would be one that asks: would the tone of a conversation with a friend change because they’re wearing a clown suit instead of jeans and a t-shirt? Yes. Of course it would. No question about it. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/313 "2011-08-04T02:48:03Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > Except you can’t tell just by standing there talking to them what type of underwear they’re wearing. > > A much better analogy would be one that asks: would the tone of a conversation with a friend change because they’re wearing a clown suit instead of jeans and a t-shirt? Yes. Of course it would. No question about it. But would it change if you were talking to them on the phone, and you didn’t know how they were dressed? ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/314 "2011-08-04T03:00:06Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > A much better analogy would be one that asks: would the tone of a conversation with a friend change because they’re wearing a clown suit instead of jeans and a t-shirt? Yes. Of course it would. No question about it. How? ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/315 "2011-08-04T03:04:02Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > But would it change if you were talking to them on the phone, and you didn’t know how they were dressed? They just \*know \*some big red shoes are propped up on the desk while little cars full of other clowns are parading around in the background, and it ruins all telephone use and communication in general forever after if it is allowed to hypothetically continue. Better safe than sorry. We could eliminate user names so everyone is just “user 1”, “user 2”, etc. and, if needed, issue paper cups and rolls of string to those still too wary of the internet to be 100% sure. (No decorations on the cups - plain white, don’t even start!) ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/316 "2011-08-04T03:07:34Z")
There are really only two things I want on the board: in-line images and avatars. I want (static) in-line images more because they open many more conversation options. Clicking on an image link (especially graphs and charts) breaks the flow of the thread when the poster refers back to it in a way video links don’t, but this isn’t the general image request thread so I won’t go into the hows and whys. However, because it does have a potential effect on the conversation and the threads you’ll see, I can also see more profound opposition to the idea (though I incredibly disagree, and feel it wasn’t that big of a deal in other boards that implemented images except for the first two weeks or so). To oppose optional, default off avatars so profusely though, seems odd. Avatars contribute zero to the discussion except maybe someone every six months going “oh, you have a new avatar.” Now, this may seem like a reason to not bother, but they also help more visual posters reference things. Humans are simply referential animals in general, and without faces I can see the desire and need to associate one with an image (though I’m not one of those who need it, despite being a rather visual learner in general). The “attracting the wrong crowd” argument though, is probably the worst one and I have to address it specifically. People don’t come and go SOLELY for avatars, it’s a standard feature on every site under the moon, you’re not attracting anyone with your shiny avatar function, that’s like saying you’ll attract someone to your new car because it has windows (_gasp_!). People will still be attracted primarily and solely by the CONTENT of the site. Nobody is going to go “this site, now this site has avatars, I’m going here no matter WHAT the people are like!” They’re going to say “wow, I like the cut of these people’s jib.” The only thing you’re doing by allowing avatars is allowing people who want them to be a little more comfortable, for whatever reason they may want them, anything from “it’s fun” to “I have a more visual memory.” You simply can’t attract the wrong crowd with it, if anything you’ll attract (and/or retain) even more people with the **exact** same mindset, habits, and mannerisms of the people here now, but that also happen to have a visual memory. This isn’t going to become Something Awful just because it has avatars, or any site you want to plug in. Because guess why? Those sites already have avatars, and if they like that community they’d already BE there. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/317 "2011-08-04T03:35:48Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > But would it change if you were talking to them on the phone, and you didn’t know how they were dressed? No it wouldn’t. It would be like the SDMB is now. Discussions only, without dress-up goofiness. I don’t need to know, or WANT to know “how you are dressed”. I just want to hear what you have to say. Further, if there are a bunch of other folks involved in the conversation then I _definitely_ don’t want a situation where half of them can see that you are wearing a clown suit (and therefore judge you by it, comment on it, and be influenced by your odd choice of clothing) while the rest of us are participating “by telephone” and don’t know what the hell the you yuksters are getting on about. Re: **elmwood** ’s suggestions: I liked the part about avatars NEVER being allowed in the “serious forums”. I would take that just one tiny step further and create a new “non-serious” forum exclusively for playing with pictures. It’s a win-win. All the pro-avatar folks get their avatars and can talk about avatar-related, or non-avatar-related topics. Anything they want! We could call it \*“The Sandbox–A Forum for Fun!!” \*. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/318 "2011-08-04T03:55:30Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > No it wouldn’t. It would be like the SDMB is now. Discussions only, without dress-up goofiness. I don’t need to know, or WANT to know “how you are dressed”. I just want to hear what you have to say. > > Further, if there are a bunch of other folks involved in the conversation then I _definitely_ don’t want a situation where half of them can see that you are wearing a clown suit (and therefore judge you by it, comment on it, and be influenced by your odd choice of clothing) while the rest of us are participating “by telephone” and don’t know what the hell the you yuksters are getting on about. > > Re: **elmwood** ’s suggestions: I liked the part about avatars NEVER being allowed in the “serious forums”. I would take that just one tiny step further and create a new “non-serious” forum exclusively for playing with pictures. It’s a win-win. All the pro-avatar folks get their avatars and can talk about avatar-related, or non-avatar-related topics. Anything they want! We could call it \*“The Sandbox–A Forum for Fun!!” \*. Honest to god, people do not yuk it up over avatars. I mean, in a MMP-type of thread, someone might say “hey, love your new avatar!”, but I’ve never seen anyone stop in the middle of a serious thread or debate and start exchanging witty repartee over avatars. It just doesn’t happen. For me, they tend to just be a visual cue as to who it is I’m talking to. I find it helpful. Why that makes me juvenile, not a grown-up, or is an indication that I am unable to communicate in writing, I’m not sure. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Crazyhorse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazyhorse/32/31_2.png) [@Crazyhorse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazyhorse)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/319 "2011-08-04T04:05:56Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Honest to god, people do not yuk it up over avatars. I mean, in a MMP-type of thread, someone might say “hey, love your new avatar!”, but I’ve never seen anyone stop in the middle of a serious thread or debate and start exchanging witty repartee over avatars. It just doesn’t happen. For me, they tend to just be a visual cue as to who it is I’m talking to. I find it helpful. Why that makes me juvenile, not a grown-up, or is an indication that I am unable to communicate in writing, I’m not sure. Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, actually. I agree. That is no more likely than it is right now for widespread hijacking of threads with comments about usernames or locations. Any subject under the sun could be considered a potential topic for someone to post about inappropriately in a thread. It’s irrelevant to the question of avatars. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594/320 "2011-08-04T04:22:50Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > We see no great advantage to avatars and a number of downsides (among them, my skin will crawl), so have no plans to add them at present. Thank you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/avatars/590594.md?page=17)