No more banner ads for subscribers

About This Message Board
181

My contention is that the horse is already galloping merrily through the fields, so it’s too late to shut the barn door. How much of the Board is Comments on Cecil’s Column and Staff Reports + GQ, and how much is “something else?” In line with fighting ignorance, we should also close down IMHO, MPSIMS, Cafe Society, Great Debates, and probably the Pit as well, since it’s mostly rants of the personal/Livejournal-type and the Giant Liberal Anger o’ the Day.

So, to those out there who feel we should return to fighting ignorance, which forums go to make the Board more along the lines of fighting ignorance?

There’s a lot of support behind a sports forum, as you may have seen. Will that be “fighting ignorance”, or just fleshing out an online community - which is what forums like IMHO and MPSIMS do?

The SDMB can’t be both a dry “fighting ignorance” site and a social “hip and happening” community at the same time. At some time in the past, very long ago, it became a community. If you propose that it return more to a core mission of factual ignorance fighting, well, there’s nothing wrong with that. I post on boards like that, and have no problems with “dry” (except in champagne). One thing I note about those sites, in general, is that they’re not growing, and not thriving. That’s not to say that avatars are responsible, but more that “dryness” and lack of a modern look and feel might be a contributing factor.

But I contend that the majority of the SDMB members are here for much more than that, and along the lines of that is the evolution to features and functions that are more akin to other message boards.

What about people with stupid, inane, and absolutely dumb-ass signatures? IIRC there used to be numerous debates over whether or not we should even allow sigs back in the 2000 time frame. And the subject of “how to sigs fight ignorance?” came up then as well. The debate was resolved based on the fact that people who don’t want to see the sigs can simply turn them off with a single click of a button.

If someone really thought that avatars were a show-stopper for Guests, and at the same time really thought that avatars were a good perk for people who want to have a modern-looking message board, then it would be trivial to write a code mod to turn off avatars for any Guests. Of course, we’re opposed to modifications in general, but I’m certain that if a business case presents itself, then it could be done. It’s possible the current version of vBulletin already allows the option from the Admin control panel.

I’m not pushing for avatars, despite how my arguments may sound. I don’t really want to have an avatar here, although if they are enabled I would likely use one. But I want to make sure that folks consider how the avatar decision may impact the overall community of the SDMB, the look-and-feel of the board, and the palatability to potential new members and new revenue.

182

You make a good point. How do smileys “fight ignorance?” Has anyone against avatars ever used smileys? Sure, they can be used to convey “emotion” or “tone”, but then, so can writing completely and intelligently as well.

Smileys are part of the “rich” media of web boards, and that is one reason they exist as a standard part of vBulletin.

Again, I’m not pushing for avatars, even though it may sound like it. I’m pushing for making sure that the SDMB is popular and viable for years to come. My ideas may be off-base, but my motivation is on-target. And I repeat, if the Board is to try to keep up with the times for the sake of revenue generation, then avatars may be necessary in some incarnation.

183

Another excellent analogue for avatars. I didn’t think of it because I turned off sigs three years ago. They are every bit as low-brow as avatars and smileys.

I’d like to see sigs turned off as well. So I’m probably in a population of one around here, since my votes for board-wide options would be:

Avatars: Yes
Sigs: No
Smileys: No

The biggest problem with smileys is that I can’t turn the fuckers off.

184

Ah my friend, but you can! By using Adblock, you can right-click on each smiley in a post, and select “block image.” Since the smileys are statically-served, you can with a few clicks on people’s posts block ALL smileys from your browser. I just tried it in this thread, and it works.

185

I don’t like avatars very much. But if you consider them a sort of self-rating system, they could be useful. As Alex_Dubinsky pointed out in the non-confrontational part of his post, they give us a way to recognize one another. (Oddly enough, I think **Alex_ **and **Una **are pretty much in agreement, although I am not certain that either of them recognizes it – as a visual medium, we need all the cues we can get.)

I’m not interested in the SDMB becoming a visual travesty like the Disboards, but I think not allowing embedded graphics and limiting the smileys will take care of most of that. If you want to put a small graphic next to your username that communicates something about you, I think that’s fine, as long as you (and all of us) realize that it can be easily disabled (like signatures) or that it can (and will) be used to remember and judge you.

ETA: There are just two smileys I would miss. :smiley: and :smack:

186

Really, there’s no reason to yell at me in big, bold caps. Here, let’s try atain.

I hate them and I think they make message boards that allow them look like shit. The link that Slacker provided in support of them is godawful, IMO. I don’t even care about the “external” bandwidth argument. I especially don’t give a hoot if they’re the “norm” around the net. In fact, that’s the perfect argument for keeping the SD clean of them! They’re childish, and they add nothing of value to the board.

187

They add nothing in your opinion. I’m no fan of them either, but I think it’s a good idea to bear in mind that each of us is presenting opinions, not fact, on the subject of avatars.

188

No. :mad: Because I like them for the same reason you like avatars - they’re really just online “faces”, which greatly increase recognition of the tone I’m expressing in my point.

No. :stuck_out_tongue: Because I like them for the same reason you like avatars - they’re really just online “faces”, which greatly increase recognition of the tone I’m expressing in my point.

No. :dubious: Because I like them for the same reason you like avatars - they’re really just online “faces”, which greatly increase recognition of the tone I’m expressing in my point.

See how differently all those come across? The first says “fuck you”, the second, “I’m teasing you” and the third “You must be joking.” Could I have typed those instead? Sure. But we’re using a visual medium here, and they happen to be shortcuts I like. I really don’t understand why a few people get so bent out of shape by them. To me, they’re punctuation; might as well be offended by the use of a question mark to indicate rising inflection.

Well, there are avatars and then there are avatars. I don’t mind tiny avatars, like they have over at fathom. I loathe animated avatars, large avatars, or obscene avatars, and think that they do speak to a low class of poster. 1 small 50X50 picture next to a username doesn’t bother me, and I do agree that I’d keep more posters straight if I had a visual clue as well as a name to trigger memories. Think about posters like DeepFried and upside down (sorry, I don’t know how to code either of their names correctly) - I never forgot who they were, because their names were, essentially, graphic in nature. Some people remember pictures better than words.

I don’t accept this contention at all. If you consider me a “low-class element” because I use smilies, then I think that says far more about your luddite prejudice than my ability as a writer. I know I’m a good writer, I have years of excellent grades, compliments and published work to prove that to myself. When I see people broad-brush such comments, it just makes me value their opinions less than I otherwise would have.

189

The thing with smileys is that I can stick them in a post on a very occational basis when I really feel its necessary to make a point. They are “emoticons” - and are useful for saying “this is supposed to be humor, don’t take it seriously” (or other things).

Avatars are not contextual. I decide I want to have a kitten as my avatar and it shows up on every post I make - trying to make a serious post in GD - I have a kitten. Letting loose in the Pit, kitten.

Most people on this board don’t use smileys much - and posters who load their thread with smileys are taken about as seriously as those who ROTFLMAO!!!

190

I don’t think I’m contradicting myself when I say that similes are utterly essential.

I’m a professional writer. I’m pretty good at expressing my thoughts in writing. And I can do a close reading of other peoples’ words like you wouldn’t believe.

And yet.

Emotions, sarcasm, tone of voice, asides, levity, and one gazillion other states which can be heard in conversation or inferred in context in lengthy pieces of writing are impossible to convey in short paragraphs on a message board. Emoticons and smilies were invented for precisely this reason. Without them, the conversation would descend into more bickering and accusations than it does now. They are useful shorthand. More importantly, they are variable and occasional. You use them as spice, just a bit at the right times, changing with each recipe. That’s the opposite of a permanently visible avatar.

And yet.

It is both a dry site and a community now. I don’t know what “hip and happening” is and I’m pretty sure that neither of us at our ages will ever drive such a site.

I’m not sure how much MPSIMS has hurt our overall image, although certain unnamed boards exist to mock postings there and hardly ever in GQ. I’m positive that you can’t MPSIPSize GQ without hurting GQ, though.

The parallel with sigs is perhaps more apt than you realize. People have grown to increasingly hate sigs over the years rather than come to accept them. We already have to have policies on the content of sigs, the length of sigs, and against reposting sigs multiple times in a thread.

What happens to the mods when the avatars come in? How much of their time will be sent deciding which are acceptable and which beyond the pale? How many Pit threads do you want with people whining that their Goatse avatar is not really gross but ironic? Mods should spend their time overseeing content, but that balance will swing after avatars intrude.

Can we attract more people to the Dope? Sure. Should we? Sure. But please do it by adding more content. A sports forum? If people want. Sports avatars? Go elsewhere please.

ETA: lots of posts have appeared while I was writing this. Just want to say that I am making an argument for one side. None of us are going to get to decide, but I want to be sure that both sides of the issue are as clearly and thoroughly established as possible.

191

:confused:

I disagree, and respectfully submit that when I say “avatar” and you say “avatar”, we’re talking about very different things conceptually. I don’t think avatars are by definition artifacts of “bad” boards – they are just artifacts of message boards in general.

Now then – not all avatars are created equal. If you to a site where most members sport cleavage-closeup avatars, or animated GIFs of pole-dancers, or things like that – then yes, you do know something about that board. If, on the other hand, another board’s members have avatar’s such as pictures of Eraserhead, a kiwi bird, or Albert Einstein sticking his tongue out … that tells you something else entirely different. To keep the “atmosphere” of the SDMB at a certain level, you do have to moderate avatars. But avatars themselves aren’t the issue.

192

I guess it was easy to miss the “I think” and “IMO” I made sure to include in my post, and just focus on the final sentence as if it stood alone, completely out of context.

193

All three read exactly the same to me:

No. <Pointless, borderline-childish graphic> Because I like them for the same reason you like avatars - they’re really just online “faces”, which greatly increase recognition of the tone I’m expressing in my point.

People have faces. Tones do not.

So, how many smileys in your published work?

And you’re basically arguing that you use smileys not because you’re low-class, but because you’re lazy. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Here is an example of my avatar, and here is a decent example of avatar use that I’m a fan of. I particularly like the animated one. (It fits that poster to a T.)

194

Agreed. This is the key, if avatars are to be implemented.

195

I agree. One has to hope that people will remember that, and not take arguments personally.

196

Clarification: although it is coincidental with Liberal making a Pit thread this morning, the term “Liberal” in the above sentence does not refer in any way to the poster.

197

Wow. This thread went from being a happy thread about the possibilities of the Dope to being a thread where someone like me who is okay with avatars and smileys being low-class, stupid, immature, worthless, and better off somewhere else.

I love you too.

198

Nope, but because I think my posts are already ridiculously long. I’m one of the more long-winded posters, because I like to make sure my intent is as clear as I can make it. Smilies are one tool in my toolbox, not the only one, and one that I try not to employ too often, just as I try not to write the same sentence too often.

Or, what he said:

Many published works have artwork in them, generally chosen by the editor to convey the tone of the piece at a glance. Can you imagine The Straight Dope with images from National Geographic? It would be jarring and out of place. Slug’s artwork, odd as it is, serves to communicate the whimsy and humor present in Cecil’s writing. Without it, Cecil just comes off like an asshole.

199

You’re not helping your case.

[sub]The above is meant in a joking sense. Imagine I am smiling.[/sub]

200

This at least is a reason I can get behind. I struggle to keep my posts short, much moreso in recent years. The posts from when I first joined would drone on and on.

heh.

Did you at least look at it? I’m not a fan of animated smileys in general, but I dig that little guy.