Again, no, he’d have the option to ENABLE it, which he presumably wouldn’t care to take advantage of. Crimeny.
He, who? I’m a she.
100% of message boards have posts containing text. I say we become trendsetters and light that bandwagon on fire!
Trademarks do not have to be defended if the use is trivial, inconsequential, limited in scope, and not any threat to their marketability.[1] I know people in the SDMB post all the time that “all trademarks MUST be enforced without exception!” but it’s just not true. I found this out as a related issue while helping Cecil research the issue of copyrighted and trademarked images being used in tattoos.
And trademark law is intended to prohibit commercial use of another’s trademark – for example, it’s not illegal to wear a fake ROLEX, only to make or sell one.[1] Arguing use of an avatar as a trademark violation seems tough.
Any claims that copyrighted/trademarked avatars would in effect put the SDMB at peril are not backed up by the precedent of the tens of thousands of other message boards on the internet, all the way from major corporate intranets right down to tiny warez boards.
- Cotter, Thomas F. and Mirabole, Angela M. “Written on the Body: Intellectual Property Rights in Tattoos, Makeup, and Other Body Art” UCLA Entertainment Law Review 10 (2003): 123–131.
Even better.
The cite is appreciated but I can’t get to it online to answer the questions that it raises. The most direct one is whether that statement is the opinion of someone considering hypotheticals in a law journal or whether it gives actual case law as backup. The follow-up question is whether tattoos are a good precedent, since the human body doesn’t have a DMCA. I know that lawyers have filed takedown complaints for trademark infringements on websites. I know that many sites have complained themselves that ISPs simply obey without checking the facts. I don’t know the actual state of the law, and I’m betting that you don’t either. That’s not a slur: neither of us are lawyers. That’s what lawyers are for. We’re outside our spheres of competency and that’s always dangerous.
The next and most obvious question is, who is currently writing those columns under the name of Cecil? Pretend it’s Congress and do a quid pro quo. Fess up and I’ll give you my vote. 
Pro-avatars.
Carefully following a debate with more than, say, five people posting multiple times (whether their names are similar or not) is a strain, especially when moving between threads with some of the same posters. Plenty of times I’ve associated a point with the wrong person.
Honestly I think it brings down the standard of debate. e.g. someone contradicts themselves but no-one notices. Images are a great aid to our short-term memory.
But the fact that some are against avatars even if they were toggleable, and off by default, kinda shows what this debate is really about. It’s just about some members / mods “Ugh…avatars…yuck” reaction. There’s no logic beyond that.
Although I think you are correct, there has also been some smoke-blowing about copyright images and inappropriate images—oh, and bandwidth as well. Until that is solved, they will continue to use that excuse (and go back to the other ones as well once they think everyone has forgotten).
TPTB really don’t need a reason, you know. But if they did, the fact that in every poll ever taken on this board on the subject, the overwhelming wishes of the posters here is NO AVATARS! If you need pretty pictures when you read, go back to kindergarten.
I wasn’t aware of this. But even if such polls accurately represent opinion it still wouldn’t mean we shouldn’t have the feature.
Many apps contain features not used or desired by the majority of users. The logic of adding such features is that they are useful to some reasonable number of people and don’t screw up the workflow for everyone else.
OK, I’m off to donate my neuroscience textbooks to my local kindergarten :rolleyes:
I don’t agree that there would be NO change for people who don’t have avatars turned on. From your point of view, the change may be minimal as you point out when you note that there may be a thread in MPSIMS about them, but there still would be a change for people who don’t want to see them.
I think there would be more than a thread about avatars. On other message boards with avatars, I generally see several threads about them. People who don’t want avatars would still likely have to skim over several threads about who has the best avatar and people asking about which avatar to pick and questions in ATMB about which avatars are acceptable.
Of course, people skip over threads they’re not interested in all the time. But that would add another category of thread, so the change would not be completely neutral.
Here’s another thread that people who didn’t want avatars would have to skip over.
If we were voting, which we’re not, I’d vote for NO avatars here.
ETA: I like that the SDMB concentrates on content and not as much on the cosmetics.
Why not a trial period of say, a month or two? Then decide to keep them or not?
Putting a picture with a user name would help older minds. Putting them on if I want sounds reasonable.
If you can’t get to it online, then you may have to drive to a library, like I did.
I’m not going to address the rest of your questions because I’m guessing that unless I spend a few woman-days at a law library again to assemble this huge case, I’m not going to convince anyone, and besides the fact it’s a moot point since the decision not to have avatars is a personal one, so it would just be wasted time regardless of the outcome. And like you rightfully claim, I’m not a lawyer. So I appreciate your points, and I’m not ignoring them, I’m just thinking I shouldn’t continue arguing the point.
Cecil writes the columns, Ed is his editor, and I help out a lot with research and occasional experiments.
Oh dear. People would have to skip over threads. Some of us skip over entire sections of the board.
snipping mine
Unless something non-standard was going on like hosting images locally, that’s simply not possible. Maybe turning on images made the board wonky for some reason and someone had to physically reset it, but no way it would’ve taken up any more bandwidth on the site than posting a link does.
The bandwidth for images comes from the site hosting the image. Say the board allows images and I post an image hosted on imageshack. That uses imageshack’s bandwidth, not the SDMB’s bandwidth.
None of which is meant to imply I want images or avatars turned on.
Yeah, you don’t have to allow people to upload them to the Dope – there are TONS of image hosts out there. (Photobucket’s a very popular one)
I haven’t been here forever and I never had the problems you are describing. New people join and I don’t know who they are, I’m not sure how that is any different from not knowing who the “players” are. I read posts and sometimes I respond to them, knowing the person isn’t a prerequisite for that. I’m baffled that you liked the forum enough to join, yet you want it to be different than whatever attracted you to it. Social engineering in the form of rules, structure, and enabled options create the atmosphere of a forum, not having avatars is part what makes this forum the way it is.
I’m personally indifferent to avatars, they do make it a bit easier to keep track of back and forths in threads, but they can also be distracting and are a pain in the ass to moderate. The admin on my previous board was removing avatars every single week for violations and people struggled to create ones that fit the size criteria, so there had to be a separate subforum just for people to request photo-editing help.
The standard size is 100 by 100. Like I said, I’m sure there will be a number of people willing to make avatars – I’m one of them. You could have a sticky here: “Request an avatar”.
Really, some of you are making this out to be waaaaaaay more complicated than it really is.
Let’s everyone get one issue clear - there is a difference in the bandwidth requirements of showing images versus showing avatars. I’ve posted this several times before.
-
Images would not be hosted from the SDMB Server, and would not impact bandwidth other than the few bytes of the image tag itself.
-
Avatars are typically loaded into the vBulletin database and would be served from the SDMB server, and would take up bandwidth. I administer a vBulletin 3.8.7 site and I’m looking at the Admin panel in another window. There is an option I believe to dump the avatars out of the database to a local directory on the server, but again, the images would be served from the SDMB server, and would require bandwidth.
How much would that be depends on the image sizes, and how well your browser can cache the images. It could be trivial if there are only a couple paying members in the thread who opt for (or pay extra for) avatars. It could be substantial if every single person in a thread has avatars of maximum size and detail. Again, only those who turn on the option to see them will use this bandwidth, so the net effect would probably be much more trivial. Someone said making them an additional option for a fee, just like custom titles; I have no problem with that as long as the Staff are included.