People who don’t want to see avatars don’t have to see them.
If you (the general you) hate reality TV and if I want to watch reality TV, where is your right to deny me the ability to watch reality TV? It’s not like you’re being forced to watch it with me.
If the person who owns the cable company decides not to carry your favorite reality network, is he denying any of your rights? Should he be forced to carry said reality network against his wishes?
The people that run this board have decided to turn on some options and not others, and no rights of yours have been violated by the decisions they have made.
Can you please explain why you think it’s not a “good” argument? You keep posting that it’s not but you don’t ever back it up with any reasoning.
I personally have been on forums that had partial avatar usage and it did increase the ability to identify posters, noticeably.
You’re right. The SDMB should get rid of unique usernames.
But if a significant proportion of the subscribers make it known they wish to receive that network, the cable company will almost invariably add it. If a less significant portion of subscribers makes it known that they wish to see it and that they will pay some additional charge the cable company will almost invariably add it.
The only time they wouldn’t is if it is a tiny outfit and one guy is calling the shots and putting his own interests / principles ahead of good business decisions. (sound familiar)
OR
If the interest is still so low that there is just no ROI. However unlike cable, the SDMB isn’t going to have to pay any additional licensing fee if they activate avatars.
No…once again, you have misrepresented my point.
I’ve never claimed that the only reason (for anyone) to be opposed to something is fear.
I did claim that your posts–Czarcasm–show pants-wettingly terror at any possible change, given how you overreact to such threads, posting idiotic rhetorical questions in the hopes of dissuading participation and given how you desperately try to have such threads closed.
Yeah, whatever.
Ever notice how there’s always one institution that might stand out amongst its peers for being oddly retrograde in some respect? The newspaper that still spells “today” as “to-day”, the state that maintains a top speed limit of 55 MPH, the country club that doesn’t admit women, the city that doesn’t have a dog park? Often times, those anachronisms remain not out of “tradition” or inertia, but because of a doom-and-gloom scenario painted by a vocal minority who are dogmatically opposed to any change.
Gezmo, as you’ve probably noticed by now, the Straight Dope is that kind of a message board. Things are very slow to change around here, and it’s reflected in a board culture that can be described as “pseudo-academic”. New features that would be rolled out without so much as an announcement on other message boards trigger long, impassioned debates here. Just as academia is slow to change, some members will become very vocal in their opposition to even the most minor of tweaks. Why is that, though? This may lend some insight: the Straight Dope Message Board Portrait Gallery. Have a look. Notice something? Yeah, there’s a lot of old dudes. An awful lot of old dudes. It’s practically like the cast of extras for a Game of Thrones episode. These guys aren’t always among the most technologically adept of folks, and many don’t venture too far from the SDMB on the Internet. (Check out previous avatar debates, and you’ll find there was far greater opposition to them from men than women.)
Anyhow, many Dopers have an inflated sense of the site’s intellectual character. They don’t see the Straight Dope as just another general-interest message board, but as a serious high-level panoptic symposium, regardless of the fact that the discussion away from GQ and GD resembles pretty much what one might find on any other well-moderated message board. Many see the site as the spiritual successor to The Well and the pre-Green Card Spam Usenet. Avatars? Well, even if there’s the choice not to see them, they believe it’ll cheapen the board, just like many believe printing in color led to the decline of the New York Times. Links to XTR33M GAM3R D00D boards with light-on-black Web 1.5-style templates didn’t exactly help the pro-avatar cause; it only reinforced the beliefs of the wall-of-text crowd.
The pseudo-academic culture of the site also explains why people are so passionate about the things that matter the least; the pedantry, the rules lawyering, and so on.
The owner of the SDMB, who isn’t here that often, is among the bearded old dudes in spirit, if not in hirsutude. He’s in his 60s now, I think. The board is catered towards the desires and preferences of his peers, the old dudes with beards. Not the likes of you or the Millennial/Generation Y/Generation X crowd. He doesn’t want to see avatars here, only because he doesn’t like them. Efforts to convince him otherwise have failed. This latest rally probably won’t result in any changes, either.
Get off my lawn, kid, before I hit you with my walker.
If you can throw it that far! Pbbft! 
The reply of one who knows the opposition is right. Ever since you stepped down as a mod you never really stopped posting like one in ATMB.
Why no…I don’t agree with that. What’s puzzling here, to me at least, is why you picked my fairly innocuous post out of all the ones in this thread to rant about. I’m fairly neutral about the whole issue…in fact, I’m slightly convinced by earlier posts that we should at least have a trial of the things, or maybe that it could/should be a paying members privilege. I don’t really see having pictures as being on par with ‘superfluous identifiers’, by which I presume you mean my signature at the bottom of my posts…something I’ve been doing since the old usenet days. 
Regards,
XT (;))
So I guess XT is proof of the “old guys” not wanting to change. 
This is exactly what I was going to say, thanks.
[QUOTE=Drunky Smurf]
So I guess XT is proof of the “old guys” not wanting to change.
[/QUOTE]
You best be careful…I might beat you over the head with my walker or throw my false teeth at you. Whippersnapper.
-XT
No-it’s the only possible reply to someone who resorts to personal attacks while knowing that I won’t respond in kind. In this forum at least the only logical response to such wild-eyed histrionics is to shake my head and walk away. If I were to respond in kind, it certainly wouldn’t be in this forum.
If we do get avatars, I want to be Scarecrow from WoO. Then, I can post a strawman argument in every thread.
I’m thankful that this board doesn’t have Avatars. I find them highly annoying. Especially the monkey, clown, Star Wars & celebrity Avatars. Imagine a serious conversation with those avatars.
Just my humble opinion.
If Avatars are made available then I sincerely hope there’s an option not to display them.
I don’t think there is, I’m pretty sure they’re either all or nothing.
Well, Jeff Atwood is working on forum software - maybe he can figure out some method to make it some sort of choice, maybe in the user profile, not sure, just spitballing here.