Colibri, it’s unusual for me to take up an argument with you, as I’m usually in agreement with you on most issues, but it appears that the assigned moderator of this very forum disagrees with you:
Ruminating further on this general topic, I wish we had more moderators like Bone, which in a way is a strange thing for me to say, since we politically disagree on almost everything – to the point of being almost polar opposites. But Bone has worked hard since becoming a mod both to ensure fair and reasonable moderation and discussions and to clarify many of the rules and try to ensure consistency without being either heavy-handed or condescending. It’s appreciated. By “condescending” I mean recognizing that most posters here are mature adults and don’t need to be addressed like a class of fifth-graders (without resorting to repetitive invectives like “I hope that’s clear”). That latter point about JC has been brought up before, I’m not the first one to note it.
Are you seriously saying that you know more about this matter than I do on the basis of that post? :dubious: What engineer posted does not contradict what I said. He was explaining why moderators who were posting as posters might not take action in another forum. He didn’t say that it’s against the rules for moderators to act in a different forum.
Thanks. We each bring our unique skill sets to try and make the board better for everyone.
I would say unless it is specifically and unequivocally stated, there are not general rule changes. We are pretty circumspect in doing so and if we do it’s generally discussed privately and then communicated clearly.
Not that this applies in this case, but it does happen from time to time that a rule interpretation leads people to infer a more broad rule change rather than an application of an existing rule or a one off scenario. So by way of clarification, that basically doesn’t happen ( I acknowledge that it sorta has in the past many years ago, when the west was wild).
I think this a good thing that’s happened. It helps my comprehension greatly by having other posters having a “face.”
That said, would it be too much to ask if .svg (vectorized/vectorised) image files could be implemented? You can still restrict images to a 50x50 grid and it’d greatly reduce memory size.
Woot, test. I think this is wasting my 5000th post, but now just after my 20th SDiversary I finally get to live openly as the capybara that I feel inside.
Back to lurking.
Well, you’ve got me there. It’s my old snopes strawberry; which fits because most years I grow them (among other things). Maybe I’ll find a thorny locust pic in suitable form one of these days.
I accidentally discovered the avatars on when I visited the site on a borrowed computer. Then this thread came out. I have turned on avatars, and at 50 x 50, they are not a problem.
I was mildly against them before, but since I don’t post from work anymore, it isn’t an issue for me any more.
And yes, they do mildly help with quick poster identification.
I don’t know what the whiny crybabies did but I certainly agree with you that adding avatars has improved the board experience by letting every poster express a little bit of character and adding a touch of color, and making posters easier to ID at a glance. I have never been able to understand the logic that forcing the board to be drab black-and-white text-only somehow makes it more refined or sophisticated.
I’m not in favor of increasing the avatar size, though, because I think it would be needlessly distracting without adding more value. But I do think displaying avatars should be the default. There are probably new users who don’t even know the capability is there.
The thing is, no one wanted large or moving avatars and to placate the whiners, people were fine with having them off by default. One guy, and I am not exaggerating, said that he didn’t want to have to see the very occasional avatar discussion thread or comment about how someone’s avatar matches their post or something.
