…and wonder why it is not allowed here, read what is happening at the Gawker family of websites recently.
A new commenting system had a hole that allowed (or just allowed for unexplicable reasons) anonymous and untraceable comments that included images and 'gif’s, and the sites are flooded with replies embedded with violent rape images, all kinds of nasty porn, images of aborted fetuses, beheadings, racist images, and dead cats, among other things.
Would they do that here? Oh, hell yes. So fast that it would make your head spin. There are websites dedicated to trashing the SDMB (Why? No fucking idea.) and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is all they are talking about today.
This has nothing to do with why they’re not allowed here and I don’t think that anyone is interested in having gifs here anyway. Thanks for sharing though.
A thousand people using burner accounts to post pornographic gifs is a difficult problem. 10 people who have to make a named account with an associated email address is not.
That would be a salient point except for the fact that in every discussion of avatars that we’ve had here, everyone specifically said that they wouldn’t want animated ones. vBulletin has an option, which I believe is the default, to disallow animated avatars.
IANan IT guy, but isn’t this comparing apples to oranges? I don’t think the forum in question is vBulletin. Does vBulletin have any exploits that can easily be hacked by nonnies?
Edit - Never mind. I see my question was answered while I was posting.
In post pictures were allowed at one time but not gifs.
That’s not really the point though. Perhaps you can show us all a recent discussion, go back five years if you want, where there was any kind of support for gifs at the SDMB.
Again, not the point. Perhaps you can show us all a recent discussion, go back five years if you want, where there was any kind of support for NSFW avatars at the SDMB.
You started off with a warning about bad things embedded in gifs and now you’re all over the place.
If you read my post, you’ll clearly see that I referred to “images and .gifs”
And what do you expect? People posting questions like “I want to post a picture of a guy holding a freshly decapitated head!” or " Why can’t I embed a picture of a woman getting gang raped by a football team while she’s passed out drunk?"
Your parsing of my post to an inch of it’s life is failing spectacularly, but please continue on in true SDMB fashion.
There are many miles of distance between allowing anonymous image posting and allowing registered members to post images. I’m not sure why you think an example of the former has anything to do with the latter. If avatars and images were allowed here, you’d get the occasional guest joining and posting a dirty photo or using a gross avatar…for about ten seconds, as people reported it and they were banned like any other spammer. Heck, it’s not like there’s anything to stop people from joining now and posting a fake link to a news story that redirects to said gross images or videos, right? Yet how often does that actually happen?
And even in the unlikely event that said images/avatars became a frequent problem, you could easily create a Newbie usergroup that didn’t have image permissions until e.g. 100 posts or a month of membership or whatever. Problem solved.
Congratulations. This has to be the stupidest prediction of doom ever presented in the long-running avatar/inline-image debate on the SDMB so far. And that puts you at the top of a very tall list.
The SDMB is well-moderated, at least certainly in terms of not allowing NSFW images to be posted - even as links in posts without using spoilers and warnings and broken URLs. Do you really believe that if images were enabled that would be any different? One such post and it would mean insta-ban or at least final warning here, and we don’t have so many posters that it would become a big job for the mods to do.
As the curator of the SDMB Avatar script I can tell you as a matter of fact and not idiotic conjecture that out of over 500 regular script users, and possibly many more, there has only been one case ever of someone using an avatar that was intended to offend. And that was by a staunch anti-avatar poster who was trying to prove this same ridiculous assertion after no actual avatar users did. He was ‘moderated’ by the SDMB avatar admins and has been a model closet avatar script user ever since. The same would apply to inline-images and the SDMB moderator staff.
This. I’m on several forums that allow inline images. The problems with inappropriate images are very rare. And I find the idea that Dopers would abuse this pretty laughable. Sure, there’d be the isolated incident, but it would be easily managed.
There are threads here that would really benefit from allowing images, like the count to infinity in pictures thread. Forcing clicks to see each picture is absurd.