Avatars

Compare the registration dates of those in favor of avatars to those who are opposed.

And again, I’d like to know how exactly the “tone of the board” will change if avatars are enabled, AND THOSE WHO DON’T WANT TO SEE THEM WON’T HAVE TO SEE THEM. Let’s assume the board is closed to new members, eliminating the baseless “it’ll bring in the riff-raff” argument, and the membership of the board is exactly the same as it was in the pre-avatar days. What will change? Do you really think avatar wars and trolling, and duplicate avatars, the things that don’t even happen on other message boards, will happen on such an “intellectual” site? Do you think otherwise intelligent people will be reduced to blithering idiots if they have a 64x64 or 80x80 avatar of Charles Darwin or Frodo next to their name, an image that **YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IF YOU DON’T HAVE AVATAR DISPLAY ENABLED?
** Seriously, how will the Dope change with avatars and the same membership?

And, I swear, if anyone answers “They’ll be distracting when I’m typing a response” or something else that implies that they can see them, even though it’s been stated close to a hundred in this thread that THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE IF THEY DON’T HAVE AVATAR DISPLAY ENABLED, I think any claims of this being “the smartest message board on the Internet” can be safely tossed out the window.

Heh.

Numbers are pretensious .

Sneering condescension, eh? :wink:

I keep saying – why not a trial period of a month or so, just to see how things work out? Again, they’ll be TURNED OFF BY DEFAULT, and if you want to see them, you’ll have to go in and turn that feature on.

Does anyone object to even a fucking trial period?

(Bolded because everyone seems to be ignoring that.

So is pretending that there is any actual reason, in real, quantifiable terms, that you believe you should have some say about whether or not others use a feature of the board that you don’t need to use if you don’t want to, and would never see unless you chose to. Unless you actually have one. Do you?

what’s with the eyerolling? can’t tolerate views opposed to yours? having the pictures missing is exactly what i was saying. what i was not saying is that the avatar opt-in program would for some reason blackout entire posts. how did you even get that? i don’t see how being dismissive helps your cause any.

i like that the board has a muted use of signatures. no multi-lined, coloured ones in odd fonts with pictures to distract you from the topic at hand.
i like that the board has a muted use of colour and fonts. no varying fonts from one post to next. no comic sans.
i like that the board has a muted use of smilies. no animated ones.
i would like it if the board had a muted use of images. small, non-flashy pictures relevant to the topic at hand.
i would like it if the board had a muted use of avatars. small, non-flashy pictures that doesn’t change everyday.

all the above doesn’t mean i would actually want to turn these features off. occasionally, i like to see what people endorse in their signatures. grapes and crispy fonts can be fun in moderation. if people identify themselves with an avatar, it would be rude to white it out. if there were to be an avatar war, whatever that is, i would like to bring popcorn. if an ignored poster were to shoot eyerollies at me, i would want to be aware.

a message board is a shared experience. suggesting two versions of the board, one where avatars* frolic with pictures of nekkid people over a billboard of flashing signatures while the other carry on obliviously, that just doesn’t sound very necessary.

  • exaggerated for dramatic effect

On the one hand, this is a fairly specious argument. I was (what I thought was) a long-time lurker before joining, so a recent join date can be meaningless. On the other hand, I don’t get why someone who just “found” us (assuming no socks) a month or two ago is arguing somewhat vociferously that the Board should be set up in line with their preferences and ostensibly denigrating ‘old school’ members that like the ketchup-free nature of the joint. I guess I don’t get the mentality of trying to change something relatively trivial (as opposed to, say, arguing for rational thought on a conspiracy board) instead of just moving on because this particular corner isn’t what you like on the Internet. That’s not the be-all and end-all of it, and of course there is a lot of nuance and nothing Pit or even mini-rant worthy, just a perspective I don’t quite get.

As for Avatars, I’ve modified my thinking quite a bit.

[ul]
[li]Off-by-default means I won’t see them when I check the Boards but am not logged in. [/li][li]Available only to members (or guests who pay for just the avatar?) means an additional/increased income stream, which will bolster the long-term viability of the Board.[/li][li]Combining* availability only to members *with *off-by-default *means that the proverbial riff-raff (as opposed to the actual Riff-Raff) won’t storm the battlements or even notice avatars exist—only by sticking around long enough to get a feel for Board culture/mores and looking into the perks of membership will it be apparent. [/li][li]I’ve posted sparingly (mostly lurked) on the Giraffe Boards, and tried to remember a situation/thread where avatars made a difference. They’re on-by-default there, so it is obnoxious to read when I’m not logged in, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s being asked for here. I do notice them being mentioned from time to time, but mostly in an “oh, I didn’t recognize you; when did you change your avatar” or “can you make me one like yours?” kind of way. I could be misremembering. There are a lot of hits for ‘avatar’, but I’m not going to wade through a jillion posts to weed out those referring to avatars that would be annoying, threads I wouldn’t have opened up in the first place, and mentions of the movie. [/li][li]As I understand it, off-Board hosting means that there will be absolutely zero impact on Board performance or additional drain on its resources (other than the bits of the referring URL). [/li][li]Allowing those who choose to see and/or display avatars won’t affect the layout at all (i.e., no spaceholders or changes to post sizes).[/li][/ul]

Of course, there are some mighty big ‘ifs’ there, but if I got the gist of things right, that’s mostly what people are asking for. If that’s how it’s implemented, then as a community member I’d withdraw my objection. **Please correct me if any of the above are wrong. **

None of that, though, overcomes the remaining objection from the admin-side—an uptick in labour and overall hassle. Even in a thread discussing the issue there have been a lot of the snide, snappish, vitriolic, and hyperbolic posts. In addition to fodder supplied by the loose group of so-called ‘Usual Suspects’, there are a constant flow of ATMB threads filled with anger at trivial issues—even mod direction, let alone warnings, unreasonably get people’s dander up. Now there would be objections to mod actions revolving around something people * paid *for?

This place is modded tighter than most (from a non-set viewpoint perspective). Expecting that there won’t be an increased workload checking out reports, discussing it in the back-channel, then dealing with the fallout in the inevitable ATMB thread is either intentionally obtuse or a display of ignorance of the Board’s man-we-love-to-argue culture. Heck, we’ve had mini shitstorms over what does and doesn’t qualify for the two-click rule, what was and was not a zombie, and whether it’s okay to post open spoilers for age-old movies. Heck, look at the fiasco that was the re-implementation of nested quotes.

Of course, it’s the mod/admin choice if it is a burden and if so, whether to take it on.

So—from a user’s perspective, have at it if it can be done as easily and unimpactful as people have claimed. If the mods/admins don’t think the hassle is all that much or want to take it on, great. My mind has been changed.

It’s very, very elitist, to even suggest something like that. I have spoken twice now and hinted at how long I’ve been online and been on message boards. I know that Straight Dope originally said it would slow their servers down even though I knew that with vBulletin you can force users to use their own host, which won’t slow down the Dope servers. And there are free hosts to use for avatars. You can limit the size of them. I own a vBulletin. This whole argument just baffles me.

And okay I’ll say it. I have been here longer than my date says. I spent some time away and when I came back I felt I was a different person so registered again. I never posted twice with both names. If it will appease the oldsters here I will email TubaDiva and let her know my original name and she can ban this one and I will start again with the old one. I was a charter member and paid for this. Thera was my name.

OK, then another example. How about if a poster decided to post an avatar making a parody of someone’s username. They then posted after them continually. The poster may not be aware of it happening, but other people will be. If other people commented on it because it became obvious, should it be modded?

Since the poster being parodied didn’t see it, was he harmed at all?

That would be thread stalking under the current rules even without using an avatar. If it was apparent to a mod that it occurred I would imagine they would treat it the same as if the same situation occurred using text based sarcasm or inside-joke innuendo that went over the head of the OP but was obvious to other posters.

:heart:[COLOR=“YellowGreen”]:smiling_face::heart::smiling_face::heart:** OMG I do too!!! I h8 Comic Sans!!! **:heart::smiling_face::heart::smiling_face::heart:[/COLOR]

Do you visit any other message boards? The what-if hypotheticals people are mentioning just don’t happen. Even if they did, how is that any different than the trolling that now takes place?

This has already happened with sigs.

This can already happen with sigs.

Really? I just tried enabling sigs and I don’t see anything.

On the other hand, the avatars I’m using now completely avoid any possibility for such scenarios.

I meant in creating a dual-board experience. That was your point, yes?

I’m asking if there is a dual-board experience with sigs. Can anyone see them, in posts? Without going to profiles?

ETA: Ah, wait. I see them now. Carry on.

(removed since you figured it out =)

Dual board experience? How will the content of posts change for those who have avatars enabled versus those who don’t?

Again, I’ll ask “Exactly what change do you see in the tone of the board’s posts if avatars are turned on?” Nobody wants to answer this.

I could also argue that, just as with a “dual board experience” with some seeing avatars and some not, there’s also a dual board experience for:

  • Those viewing the SDMB full-screen versus in a window.
  • Those viewing the SDMB in a traditional Web browser versus Tapatalk on a Smartphone.
  • Those viewing the SDMB in a Windows-based OS versus Mac, and Linux.
  • Those viewing the SDMB in a traditional browser versus a text-based browser such as Lynx.
  • Paid members who don’t see ads, versus guests who do.
  • Those who have smilies turned off, versus those who leave them on.
  • Those who ignore some users, while others ignore others or none.

Really, what difference does the “dual board experience” make? Does it matter that some would see avatars and others wouldn’t? I thought the content of the posts are what really mattered, and that won’t change.

Actually we’ll merge up all the action under both names. You get to keep the name you want, whatever that is.

Just send me an email, please, with all your information and we’ll take care of it.

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.

Since we’re now prohibited from saying just about anything but a “yes” or "no " response in the poll Giraffe posted, my response to a post by I Love Me goes here. I doubt they’ll see it, but mod notices are mod notices.

Once again, I want to know what those “barely discernible effects” might be. Why wold those “barely discernible effects” necessary be bad?

IMHO, whatever effects avatars might have on the course of a thread be would almost homeopathic in nature. 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.