Like no one has ever had an offensive sig, or user name?
We do try to change those soonest.
But Ed doesn’t hate sigs or usernames and usernames are not easily changeable.
Regards
JarJarBinks678
Don’t get me wrong, I think avatars are harmless fun and often useful, but your statement is insufficient to prove anything unless you’ve been moderating on those boards yourself. It could simply be that the boards you frequent have an active moderating team and safeguards in place so that the offensive avatars are dealt with behind the scenes quickly and quietly.
That having been said, the board I moderate on never has problems with avatars. I’ve only modded myself for a short time, but I’m privy to the longer history. Once a couple of years ago someone had an avatar that looked suggestively pro-Nazi; a quick PM to the member was all it took to resolve the problem. Other than that, there have been no problems for the past 2-3 years; I’m not sure how many active posters we’ve had during that period but a very conservative guess would be around 500 people - small, but a large enough sample to suggest that avatars aren’t really a headache for moderators.
Exactly. So wouldn’t that be the case with avatars? “Report post”, change avatar. Easy-peasy lemon-squeezy.
Sigs are. And once again, the whole argument, “oh, people will put up offensive ones!” doesn’t wash. I’ve rarely seen it, except with trolls, and troll posts are moderated anyways.
It’s funny that a lot of the arguments against anyone enjoying avatars here are things like “We’re way too sophisticated for that kid stuff. We are content based, and topic oriented, and our words are the way we express ourselves here as mature adults.”
But then when we talk about the perceived difficulty in having to mod avatars it’s “ARE YOU CRAZY?! Do you have any idea of the kind of obscene stunts that Dopers would pull if given any opportunity to do so?”
Anyway some mods have said it would be no more of a challenge than modding posts. If an image breaks a rule they note/warn/ban as per board rules now. This would eliminate the often cited prediction of users constantly changing avatars. The avatars may come and go, but the warnings would remain, and anyone who made themselves an avatar problem would quickly go the way of all those who are banned for disorderly conduct of any kind.
I know neither Ed nor Richard Pearse, but I value Ed’s judgment over Pearse’s lack of initiative.
I’ve posted on boards with avatars. I think they’re fine. I also think boards without avatars are fine. If the SDMB doesn’t deliver Total User Experience for me, I’m more likely to shamble off than whine. Probabilistically speaking. YMMV. That said, I’m open to non-whiny discussions on the issue. Avatars arguably assist in the fight against ignorance, though they are often stylistically dubious. I have rather less use for the self-absorbed allegations of oppression that I often read in these threads.
I would support avatars for paying members, provided they are all pre-approved by a 2/3 vote of a secret committee of 12. The criteria would be safety for work and capricious taste considerations. In keeping with SDMB traditions, none of the decisions would be final. Discussions of the cabal’s decisions would be relegated to a separate forum.
And once again. Ed doesn’t dislike sigs. He seems to have a significant dislike of avatars. Can you read or do you only communicate through avatars?
One of the arguments against polls was also some incredible increase in mod work load with a dash of “we’re above that sort of thing”. Personally, I feel it’s a bit of a guilt trip with no real basis in fact.
Don’t they already have a solution for this? Don’t be a jerk.
While I liked the rest of your post I don’t see (heh) this part. I’m not saying they certainly do NOT, but on the other hand to me its not obvious they argueable DO.
Random related story. I joined a board where you HAD to have an avatar. And it was supposed to be a picture of you. I wasn’t doing that. I put a picture of my dog spawled out on ice on a pond.
:rolleyes:
Perhaps some of us -gasp- dare to disagree with Ed. Shocking, I know.
I was countering YOUR arguments about sigs and usernames being easily changeble, and you know it.
Can. You. People. Not. Read. ?
It the fact that someone uses a fracking (I’m going make it clear here right now)
**A
V
A
T
A
R
**
to be a jerk. And Ed does not like A V A T A R S
It’s like your dad being a hard ass about getting up before 9 am (the being a jerk part). But he hates WoW with the heat of a thousand burning suns (the avatar part).
You sleep in late (the equivalent of being a jerk). He finds out you were sleeping in late because you stayed up to 4am playing WoW. Its gonna get more ugly for sure.
I don’t give a rat’s behind whether they are used or not. But I do think it’s funny so many that want them enough to bitch loudly about it can’t be bothered to actually implement the greasemonkey patch. But some jerk at some point is gonna use em to be a jerk and there will probably be a shitstorm about it. And it will play out here.
How’s this for a scenario? Let’s assume someone uses the Greasemonkey avatar system to show something offensive and provcative. Can you bitch about that here? Should there be any discusions of it here? Should people who bother to bitch about it here be the one’s told to shut up, suck it up or get banned? I mean the monkey patch has nothing to officially do with the board.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia;15193673I was countering YOUR arguments about sigs and usernames being easily changeble, and you know it.[/QUOTE]
Usernames aren’t and I never said sigs weren’t. I said Ed didn’t hate em.
Nothing anyone sees while using their own third party browser add to modify the appearance of a website would be within the scope of discussion at that website unless they just chose to talk about it (for the same reason as any thread is opened here). but you have to remember the script takes the url to an avatar from the SDMB profile, and that is already subject to all the same hypothetical abuses with or without avatars being involved.
Anyone, avatar or not, can put a link to something objectionable in their profile now, and any mod could be notified and asked delete it and note/warn/ban the offender. If someone puts an objectionable link to an avatar for the greasemonkeys out here they would also be posting the same objectionable link in their SDMB public profile and that would be subject to moderator action.
Using the greasemonkey script, or enabling avatars board wide, does not open up any new avenues for abuse. They all already exist in posts, usernames, signatures, and links to videos, images or other external content.
This has all already been argued to death in many threads over many years so there probably isn’t anything new anyone can add. At least now while using the SDMB Avatar greasemonkey script these same old arguments look like this now. 
(Warning: this link contains graphic depictions of message board avatars).
Well, the link to your avatar image must be put in your SDMB User Profile. So, yes, the moderators could ask you to change it if there were complaints.
So, taking these last two posts. Does or doesn’t an avatar have anything officially to do with the SDMB? And if somebody bitches about bad one what’s the official response to deal or not deal with it gonna be?
If they aren’t officially allowed, why should TPTB do anything about it?
If you think about it, its kinda like that other board but the greasemonkey fix is bringing it (a bad avatar) here so to speak. Yet it isn’t.
Just to add to this, I think the Giraffeboard has had one (1) avatar that was even vaguely questionable–not quite NSFW, but approaching the line and the poster was happy to change it.
It’s funny–I’ve been on several boards that allowed avatars and except for that one, I’ve never seen a problem, and even that one was resolved simply quietly. The crap about how “O noes! People will uploads the evil pictures!” is
A) condescending–do TPTB really think that little of Dopers? and
B) exactly the same crap that prevented us from having any post-editing abilities for like 8 years. And as far as I know, there’s been very few (if any?) problems with people editing their posts for mischief’s sake, despite the hue-and-cry of the powers that be that it would be Drama All The Time. It’s funny how much contempt certain mods, ex-mods and admins (not all of them!) have for the posters here.
Finally, the drivel about how hard it would be on the moderators is bullshit–it would be easier than modding custom titles and those haven’t caused any problems (or at least not any serious ones)
Crazyhorse already covered that.
They can also turn off your avatar-display ability in the mod control panel with two clicks of the mouse if it’s really egregious and needs to be turned off NOW or if you refuse to comply. 30 seconds work, tops.