Just bumping this offer in case it was missed.
Should I ever post a picture in my profile, I request that nobody uses it as an avatar. If I want to share an avatar I will post it in my bio section. However I do not want to share an avatar at present. Or a profile pic.
Should be good for another 27 pages of drama. Oh yeah, and if hajaro admits he was wrong and TubaDiva was right on this issue, I’ll donate $50 in his name to NPR, if he can locate a plausible method of doing that in a verifiable manner.
Okay, well I think the thing that ought to be stickied, and ought to have been mentioned to the board during the heated discussion of avatars, and the introduction of the script, is that if you have a ‘profile’ picture on your user profile page, that anyone using the script will see that picture as an ‘avatar’ beside your posts.
Even if you hate avatars, even if you don’t care for the photo, and even if no one bothered to tell you!
I think people have a right to know that little detail. I think it should be stickied because when people posted those pictures I don’t think they were foreseeing this application and they deserve to be informed.
That is all, a small detail, I know, but an important one regardless.
Arnold Winklerieds’s photo gallery is Stickied. Is there a fundamental difference?
At the least, it might save ATMB from constantly being bombarded by avatar threads. No?
This is a red herring.
Semantics about terminology aside, if someone has uploaded a “user profile picture” they are using an avatar, whether or not they are willing to realize or admit it. The motivation one might have to select an image as a representation of themselves or their interests to viewers of their profile is exactly the same motivation anyone else might have for displaying the same with each of their posts and wanting to see them in the posts of others.
If you publish a picture to a public website, be it the SDMB Portrait Gallery, your SDMB user profile, or a link for the SDMB Avatar script, you have made that image available to the public. In doing so you have given the entire internet the right to view that image in any way they want and have no control over it. Without an avatar script someone could, if they chose, open a separate browser window and keep your “profile picture” open while they read your posts, or to save time they could just make it into their desktop picture.
The problem is that, bizarrely, some people have explicitly stated that they are freaked by people using SDMB pics they’ve uploaded as inline avatars. I am honestly baffled, but at least one guy said “Woah! I posted that pic to Arnold’s picture page so people could see what I look like NOT so they could see it next to my post! Please take it down!”
The reactions to avatars/profile pics here are beyond bizarre. It feels like the same logic as the “war on christmas.”
That’s why I say, it all boils down to an inexplicable and irrational reaction to the word Avatar, even by people who have actually taken the time to upload an image of themselves so that others on the internet can place a face with the name. When dealing with something inexplicable and irrational I find myself at a loss to offer any solution.
With regard to Arnold’s portrait gallery, in one of the big avatar debates in the past he agreed that it would be fine if individuals wanted to link to portrait gallery images in their own scripts to use however they see fit. I chose not to include a list of portrait gallery links in the SDMB Avatar script deliberately though, to avoid any such issues from cropping back up.
If the SDMB had an “official” implementation of avatars through vBulletin, we wouldn’t have this thread, nor the concerns about images from profiles, member directories, or other sources used as avatars, despite the wishes of some that they not be used.
Under vBulletin, for those who chose not to have avatars, they can just leave leave the avatar field blank. Under Greasemonkey, a user can decide what avatar is most fitting for someone; the user it represents has no choice in the matter.
This is a classic example of unintended drawbacks. An armchair economist would have a field day with what’s going on here.
I think that’s just silly. I just happen to think people should be aware of this. So they are informed. That’s all.
It’s not about ‘what else could’ve already happened to your picture’, either. There was a lengthy public, often heated debate. The issue was contentious. Recognize that. And that people posted those pictures, often ages ago, and may have entirely forgotten about them by now.
Where, exactly is the great harm in making them aware? I’m not seeing it. Simply making them aware, so it’s their choice, on an issue you know is contentious, seems self evident wisdom to me.
But maybe that’s just me.
Then it sounds like we are in agreement. Remember that was the point of this thread. I want people to be aware that additional functionality exists by adding another line to the existing sticky along the lines of “Hey, it’s now possible for members to use method x-y-z to see the avatar you’ve uploaded to your profile as an image next to your posts.”
That way everybody gets informed.
I’m on the fence about avatars personally but I don’t understand why people who don’t like them are lobbying so hard to keep the wanters from having them.
One irony here is that the thread in question was opened in MPSIMS and was moved here. Now that the thread has been asked to be sticky-e the PTB are washing their hands of it. Typical of this place I suppose.
I say sticky the darn thing just to cut down on these types of threads.
elbows, I would say it’s fair to let everybody know that some people are using profile pics as inline avatars. But, Patty O’Furniture just said, that goes part and parcel with announcing the SDMB Avatar script. It would be quite conspicuous to not link to the thread where it was collaborated on. So you can’t really have your wish without Patty getting her’s.
You’ve done it now. They don’t want to be associated with the script, so let’s not pin the organization’s name on it.
It’s almost like you can’t see my avatar…
I didn’t mean your comment specifically was particularly irrational but rather just all the various tacts that anti-avatar posters seem to take when making these arguments. They are total non-issues. It seems generally they are trying to create an appearance of controversy when really there is none.
I agree that people should be aware of this, in the same way they should be aware that if they have a signature in their profile, others might see that signature even if they choose not to check the box to display it after their posts. They should be aware that if they post to a thread on the SDMB their words will be visible to others on Google, the internet time machine, various blogs and message board archives, and may even wind up printed and hanging on someone’s office wall.
“Note: Uploading an avatar image to your profile may allow others to see that image.” It seems a bit obvious to me, but everyone is now informed.
Also, please be aware that posting comments may allow others to read them, and even to quote them elsewhere.
And cape does not enable user to fly.
Ah, fuck me.
Is this TRUE?!
How would you know?
Bizarre? Really? You can’t see why somebody might not want their snout plastered everywhere on this board, or at least everywhere they’ve made a post? There’s a big difference between posting an FYI image at an obscure corner of the board and placing it front and center next to every missive. *
I’m seeing a lot of defensiveness among the pro-avatar crowd.**
That’s not bizarre. What’s bizarre is having an administrator at an anonymous flame forum whine about routine communications among this board’s staff. That’s pretty weird behavior.
More seriously, if a sticky was made about this ersatz feature, it better include a big disclaimer. There are legitimate security concerns about loading scripts on to your system. The programers may be honest, but I don’t know about the competence of their web administrators. There’s a risk of having their server hacked and errant code substituted into the script. After all, this board has an active and enthusiastic troll-base for reasons I can’t quite grep. In another thread, Crazyhorse assured me that the code was pretty easy to read. Maybe so. But speaking for myself I’m brushing against small unknown unknowns here. Admittedly that didn’t stop me from loading it on my system twice, though I also uninstalled it after it didn’t function for a couple of weeks.
- Not that I’m bothered by this of course. I’m just concerned about unnamed hypothetical posters. Why doesn’t anyone ever think of them?
** …though stated more accurately, I’m not.