I really don’t think that’s true. If you really are worried about porn or copyright infringement they could easily be taken on a case by case basis just like sigs or even posts. No need to pretend it’ll be some enormous workload.
As to the OP, there’s a grease monkey script floating around that lets you customize the display here to add all sorts of tags to posters. Someone else was floating around a script to put pics to users as well.
The majority of the staff has historically been opposed to change. How many years was it before we were able to make edits, again?
CarnalK covered this pretty well above, but this is hardly the case. If someone were to have an offensive avatar (just as if they were to have an offensive sig, or to post an inappropriate link), they would either be reported or you would find it through your natural moderating duty.
Apparently we visit vastly different forums, because this has been anything but the case where I post. Most stick with them for the long haul. But even if they don’t, I find it still helps with the initial name recognition–changing an avatar is more like getting a haircut.
I agree moving images *can *be annoying. A rule could be setup to not allow them, or again, they can be disabled on a personal basis.
The thing is, allowing avatars appeals to a lot of people who would be happy if you allowed them…do you really consider this an argument? Seriously? Plus, again, they’d be optional.
I think it’s pretty clear that is someone isn’t willing to “dig around” (and there is hardly that much 'digging involved) for the option, then the issue simply isn’t that important for them. And boo hoo if someone is inconvenienced by a 15-second option–I didn’t complain when I had to disabled sigs, which took all of 10 seconds.
And what evidence do you have to support this? And why do you think that a group who favors avatars is necessarily less desirable than that doesn’t?
The SDMB, for being a forum about dispelling ignorance, sure does seem awfully close-minded at times.
Why is it automatically “close-minded” for many people to vastly prefer uncluttered boards?
Also, the tone of your last reply does you no favours.
It is optional. Why, pray tell, are you so opposed to something which you’ll never have to deal with? It’s “close-minded” because of, primarily, the administration who pretty much deploys the Appeal to Tradition fallacy. “It’s always been that way here, so why change it?” is basically the crux of the argument. This is hardly a fundamental change, particularly as you have the option to never experience it.
And I’m not looking for favors, thanks for the insight though.
ETA: And the argument that enabling avatars would somehow magically draw the unsavory type strikes me as elitist.
But we ARE elitist! In the good sense of the word. We want to attract the best and the brightest (although we don’t always succeed); people who want to be known for their thoughts rather than their ability to dress up their posts.
And that comes through in the content of the posts and the responses to thereof, instead of setting arbitrary options that apparently attract them like flies. Avatars are not why people join forums.
(You mis-attributed the quote, btw.)
You’re right. My bad.
Thanks for the link, Czarcasm, although I note a key option was missing from that one, i.e. does anyone have a problem with avatars being allowed but off by default. I went ahead and made a new poll asking that very question.
I support having avatars here, as long as they can be off by default; I am aware that a lot of stodgy old folks don’t want any of those newfangled sparkly things cluttering up their spartan website. 
(Hell, they’re probably against the flashy colours here, and would prefer shades of black, grey, and white.)
I hate to shatter your illusions, but there are only about a half-dozen actual posters here. Everyone else is a random jumble of electrons or an Ed Zotti alter ego. It’s a scheme to get money out of advertisers.
Black, grey and white?
My dear, I still miss the soothing green shade that text should be.
I also like the lack of “socialness” on the site. I also do not form an idea of the “identity” of a user perhaps not until reading hundreds of posts that have distinctive content. That’s fine with me.
But you wouldn’t be–the avatar would merely (imo) help you keep track of who has posted what, enabling you to better form that same “identity,” just quicker and easier.
And again, you could disable it…
I should also say that I am also against this site becoming more like a social site like Facebook, too - I cancelled my Facebook account for a reason. I don’t think allowing avatars will make us all Facebook-y, though.
Would avatars typically be fixed, or would people be changing them all the time?
Why do people automatically assume that message boards with avatars are cluttered? Do you guys get out much, virtually speaking? Yes, there’s teen boards out there where people go over the top with animated avatars, huge sig images, and the like. Then there’s boards like Giraffe Boards. Mellophant and the one I run, which have a clean appearance, yet permit small, static avatars.
OMG we’re gonna’ get sued by Fox! Probably not. Using a copyright-protected image or character in an avatar should be considered fair use under US copyright law. Has a message board ever been sued or gotten a cease-and-desist notice because some member has a Peter Griffin avatar?
OMG every avatar will be animated! Think of the epileptics! No. You can configure vBulletin to permit only static avatars.
OMG slippery slope! Slippery slope! If we permit avatars, we’ll end up like 4chan and Offtopic! Blarrrrrgh! No. Some seem to believe that if avatars are permitted, the site will gain instant appeal among the lulz or immature teen crowd. Again, see my site, or Giraffe Boards.
OMG people will change their avatars every day, confusing everybody and defeating their purpose! Maybe a few will, but my experience is that most people hold on to the same avatars for months, or even years. They may change for a holiday or special occasion, and return back to their traditional avatar.
OMG people will use inappropriate avatars, like Goatse, Tubgirl, turds, penises and other NSFW images! In my experience, I haven’t seen that. People seem to have pretty good judgment with the avatars they use. Nobody wants to make a site they regularly visit NSFW for themselves or others. If someone should use an inappropriate avatar, the mods could just DELETE IT and warn/suspend the user. Besides, if staff thinks a good chunk of Dopers are going to have NSFW avatars, they must not think that highly of their users to begin with.
OMG I want a minimal look because my Stanford-Binet IQ is 165 and avatars are so beneath me and my superior intellect! Turn avatars off in your user preferences. That’s it. You don’t have to see them if you don’t want to.
Also, Ed, think about this … avatars could be a source of revenue generation! Charge members to use them, as with a custom title.
This is all pointless, anyhow. Many have argued for avatars in the past, and gotten nowhere.
I appreciate that opinions on these issue are subjective, but yes, I’ve been to those boards and I’ve found the avatars messy, cluttering and distracting - not a clean look at all.
Short version:
Actually, they do add something to the experience. They add a lot. Too much, actually, because they add an entirely new level of powerful subtext which might not even be intended, and in any event, would be unavailable to anyone who opted to turn avatars off.
Even if a poster opts to have it turned off their overall Board experience would be affected—involuntarily—by the very presence of random images in threads. Because a poster who sees *all *of the various pictures in a thread and a poster who sees none of them are seeing two very different threads and thus, are not entirely talking about the same thing (see smilies example below). That’s OK if you’re on some message board devoted to frippery, but it really wouldn’t fly here.
Longer version:
Except for a banner, smilies, and a few small icons, all of the information on the SDMB is in text form. If multi-color image "information” (some of which would be very elaborate and distracting) was added to the mix then the overall message conveyed would be altered—often drastically. A smaller-scale example of this is the use of smilies.
Think how much a single “big grin” smilie can change the entire meaning of a post. Imagine if some posters saw the smilie, and some didn’t. Actually, I think that’s an available choice, but I’m not sure because I can’t even imagine trying to parse a thread without knowing, for example, whether** Longtime Poster X** was communicating…
or,
…in a post directed at Longtime Poster Y. I think the use of smilies can come across as a bit obnoxious if they’re overused or employed in a certain way, but I could never turn the feature off lest I miss important information. Dopers are too clever to merely use smilies as adornment—it’s our wont to convey meaningful information through them. Avatars would only raise the stakes.
If they were allowed then a much deeper, and at the same time, far more nuanced subtextual conversation (than smilies can convey) would probably be taking place inside every thread. If one wanted to even mostly understand and participate in any given thread, they’d feel compelled to set their avatar viewing to “on”. That’s a pretty distasteful decision to be “forced” to make if you don’t enjoy random pictures cluttering up every thread.
I meant to start off my post with this:
Everyone *would *have to “deal with” this—not just people who turned the avatar feature on. No one would “have the option to never experience it”. (See my above post for why i think this is so).