That’s the argument I find least compelling. Anyone who’s going to make the decisive factor by the absence really isn’t needed.
So? If an avatar is more important to them than the answers, debates, and discussions available here, are those posters worth gaining?
I agree with this.
I disagree with this. I think it would be foolishly short-sighted to continue to make this site unappealing to new blood. It’s not that avatars are so important, it’s more a case of us being out of step with everything else for no good reason.
Technically, that’s not possible in vBulletin. Different user groups (charter members, moderators, etc) can have a color scheme, italics, bold, or a combination, but there’s no built-in capability for users to choose their own username color.
We’ve always been out of step with everything else; we’ve never been a lowest common denominator board, and that is as good a reason to be out of step as I can think of.
Unsubstantiated hysterical nonsense. People who want to discuss will discuss nanyone who takes their brains and goes home because of the lack of avatars is a frivolous immature child. When they grow up and ready to discuss, they’ll come back. I mean good grief this is what will keep the next generation ofmboy geniuses away? Pfft. Frankly, it’s a damn good filter in my view.
I’m really surprised this isn’t blindingly obvious, but a lot of posters- including, I daresay, some pretty influential ones- don’t want an influx of “newbies”.
That’s not to say they don’t want new members at all; just not a sudden (or largely increased) number of people who may or may not “fit in”.
Think of it like a local pub- for as long as anyone can remember, it’s been a laidback place that attracts, if not quite “A better class of person”, but at least a fairly upmarket clientele.
Then, one day, the owner decides he wants to go for the uni student market and redecorates the place, encourages a new customer base (completely at odds with the existing one) and ends up making no-one happy.
Of course, such a concern may not be realistic, but I believe that’s how a lot of people feel about it.
Although I’m in favor of avatars, I have to admit that Mr. Enfield’s point is well taken.
Since there seems to be such a sharp division of opinion, it may not be worth offering a compromise, but here goes. BTW, the basic idea has been suggested a couple of times before in different ways but not necessarily in this particular thread - I’m too lazy to go look.
The board could permit certain types of avatars such as those done in ASCII art or even a very unrefined kind of pointillism. There would have to be some kind of automated conversion process which may or may not be a possibility, but if the anti-avatar supporters seemed to feel that this would be a sufficiently understated alternative, that could be investigated.
OOOOOOOO
O O
O [O] [O] O
O O
O o O
O O
O [_____] O
O O
OOOOOOOO
My new avatar.
Very cute. 
I should have specified but I didn’t want to have a long post that was going to be ignored anyway. The idea would be to have something more intricate. You would take an image of that and then resize it to the correct number of pixels for an avatar (usually 120-200 square depending on the forum). The result would look more like line art - which would also be an alternative.
OOOOOOOO
O O
O [O] [O] O
O O
O o O
O O
O [_____] O
O O
OOOOOOOO
Too late, this train already left the station - better hop aboard!
First off, I didn’t say it was more important.
Second off, take a tour of the SDMB sometime. How many people participate in GQ and GD, versus IMHO, MPSIMS, and the Pit? How many times do we listen to people say they never even bother to read Cecil’s column or the Staff Reports? This board is teeming with posters who don’t give a rat’s ass about the answers, debates, and serious discussions.
Third, everything on the web is an evolution in content richness. Anyone who has been on the web for more than 5 years has experienced this. I was on the net years before there was even a web. Listservers and USENET groups evolved into basic websites which evolved into web forums. There will come a time when the richness of the content and features offered by other forums will be so much greater than the SDMB that casual browsers who might contribute to the forum won’t even bother to look at it, thinking it’s a penny-ante operation run out of someone’s basement, rather than the great resource it is. I think that time is very soon, if not already here.
The thing is that lots of people either don’t care or actively prefer it like that.
I don’t think many people want an influx of newbies who can’t use proper English if they try or string two thoughts together, but standing still and getting left behind on the internet isn’t a good solution for a vibrant, thriving board. And that brings up another point - we are on the internet. The stodgiest of us here should go back to writing letters to their local newspaper if they don’t want to use any of the benefits that this medium offers.
OOOOOOOO
O O
O [O] [O] O
O O
O o O
O O
O [_____] O Hello - I am RaftPeople's Avatar!
O O
OOOOOOOO
That’s why I’m trying to fit in with that low-tech look and feel.
This is a very weird argument. This is a discussion board. We are using all the Benefits the Internet offers for a discussion board. There are other discussion boards that are something else in addition to bEing a discussion board and the use features that facilitate those other purposes, such as Avatars which are are entirely superfluous to discussion.
And those people who somehow find it inconceivable to have a discussion without avatars? They’re idiots. We don’t need them.
OOOOOOOO _______________________________________
O O [ ]
O [O] [O] O [ This Space Reserved for Advertisers ]
O O [ contact me at Avatar-Ad.com ]
O o O [_______________________________________]
O O
O [_____] O Hello - I am RaftPeople's Avatar!
O O
OOOOOOOO
Word. I know what you mean, dog!
Further to the “local pub” analogy I used earlier, try a “Member’s Club” analogy. You don’t got to Blades or Whites or the Colonial Club or somewhere like that and say “Hey, you know what? We should get rid of the oak panelling and the high-back leather chairs, and get a pumping sound system, play the hottest music, sell trendy cocktails, and see if we can get some celebrities to put in an appearance every now and then.” It’s not what they’re about.
If you want to do that sort of thing, there are heaps of places where you can. There aren’t as many places- especially on the internet- where you can metaphorically relax in your high-backed leather chair in the metaphorical oak-panelled study and have an intelligent conversation with other people who also value being able to do the same.
I’m not saying the introduction of avatars would be the same as turning an exclusive club into a uni bar, but there valid reasons for people here to not want change for the sake of change or because everyone else on the net is doing it.
I didn’t even mention the word avatar. Other people brought that up as a suggestion.
What thread have you been reading? Far from killed, it might even be slightly over the line in the other direction.
And by the way you talk about it ‘not needing to be more social’ I’m thinking you didn’t read the OP or you just didn’t get it. Perhaps you only read the title?
A sense of continuity of identity. A diminishment of the sense of abstract entities conversing in a void.
Cool idea. Thanks for thinking outside the box.
While I admire those of you who can see a username and immediately imprint on it and associate it with future posts, I just can’t do that. I need to see some kind of visual cue to make that kind of instantaneous imprinting on my internal address book. It’s possible I’m some kind of unique mutated freak, but I don’t get that impression.
I’m obviously open to other ideas (since I didn’t suggest or mention avatars in the OP, and since I asked for two types of suggestions, one of which did not involve changing the sdmb in any way but rather my own approach).
But for the record, I do like the suggest of avatars. I think if they were optional, default off, and perhaps even changeable only once a year, or limited to 3 or 4 permanent ones, there would be no downside whatsoever (other than arbitrary fear of change and non arbitrary effort by the admins) and an obvious upside.
I think the current situation is more like a masquerade party where everyone has the same costume and mask, except for a very small, single typeface sticky badge that says “hello my name is…” And having optional avatars would be like taking the mask off so we recognized the characters in our pub and felt familiar and maybe even slightly exclusionary. As of now, it’s not really apparent when newbies show up. Or when old standbys have gone missing.
OOOOOOOO _______________________________________
O O [ ]
O [O] [O] O [ This Space Reserved for Advertisers ]
O O [ contact me at Avatar-Ad.com ]
O o O [_______________________________________]
O _____ O
O \_/ O Hello Ladies - I am Tibbytoe's Good Time Click/Lick Avatar*
O O
OOOOOOOO
*$5 per click
How do I route my avatar through PayPal?