Sure. I don’t think it would make much difference though. Pro-avatar folks seem to be offering lots of compromises and solutions to fears and concerns, whereas anti-avatar people just, well, don’t want them in any possible form, because they bring with them the irredeemable stink of the lower intellectual classes, no matter what precautions are taken.
Not to mention avatars are more like signatures than they are usernames. It would be like locking the ability to change sigs.
I think a time lock is certainly an option. Set at 6 mo.s or even a year. That way people wouldn’t chose something for an avatar capriciously knowing they would have to live with it for a specified period. Also, if someone changed their avatar after the time out, you would at least know it would be there for the foreseeable future. I think that could definitely work as a compromise.
Sure.
However, I should point out that for me I’m just interested in visual markers within a thread. I’m not so interested in following people across different threads.
Something I’ve seen on other boards that sort of works depending on how it’s setup and enforced, is to prohibit new users from using certain features until they have made a certain number of posts and have been a member for a certain period. You could set the post count at maybe 1000 (to deter post whoring) and the time period at maybe 6 months to a year - or some sliding scale between the 2 requirements. That would certainly weed out people who are attracted to site by the pretty, shiny avatars.
I’d actually prefer that, or at least the time limit thing.
Great idea.
Horrible idea. “Let’s implement a new feature that supposedly can’t be any harm to anyone, and only allow existing and/or prolific board members to use it!”
I’m against avatars, but I’ll admit that I have a hard time explaining why. Do Not Taunt put out some very good arguments which I’m pretty much in agreement with. But for me, in addition, the main factor is that this board and one other are where I spend all of my time online, admittedly much more as a reader than a poster. Neither place allows avatars.
The boards that I’ve followed for a bit that did allow avatars, never managed to catch my attention long-term (this includes Giraffe’s, and if I’m not mistaken, the Unaboard). Now was that because of the avatars? I don’t know - small sample size and all that. But my gut feeling is why take the chance of messing with a good thing? I’ll admit this isn’t going to be a convincing argument to anyone else, but it’s where one person who voted no is coming from.
The one counter-argument that does nag at me is the one about helping people identify users, for those who are more visual than verbal. If that’s true - and at least one long-term, respected poster has said so - then perhaps what I would support is avatars that cannot be changed (or can only be changed with Admin intervention, like user names). But I doubt that the Admins would want to get involved with that…
As has been observed, there seems to be a lot of flexibility on the part of the pro-avatar people regarding how it would be implemented. Therefore I don’t think there is much point in critiquing individual scenarios. For example, in the proposal I floated, I did say that you could use the posts/age criteria on a sliding scale. So for example for a newcomer it might be 1000 posts but for someone who has been around you could credit them with say 500 posts for every year they’ve been a member. So even newbies would be eligible after 2 years. I know that sounds harsh, but isn’t the idea to appeal only to people who are here for the long term? And even then, the specifics are eminently negotiable.
I don’t think the analogy to name changes will work for the reason you pointed out. It would be too big a demand on the mods and admins. And you can’t expect someone to keep an avatar forever. But again, the length of time for which you would be locked in is also negotiable.
Right now what is important - from my humble newbie perspective - is finding out if there is ANY set of circumstances where the anti-avatar people would even consider the idea. For almost the length of this poll the results have been very nearly 2:1 in favor. I don’t know how many anti’s we would need to sway the opinion of the staff, but I’m sure they would want to see the vote be overwhelming before they would start tampering - if it ain’t broke, and all that.
All this thread and poll did for me was confirm that approximately 1/3 of the users on this board probably still use dial-up for their internet connection because change is bad!!!
I did until about a month ago.
Bad changes are still bad.
I think Czarcasm started the internet connection poll because one of his arguments in this thread depended on Dopers having dial-up or other slow connections. I was surprised at how few do use dial-up.
That’s just it–whether avatars are more like usernames or signatures.
I would support avatars that were implemented with the intention to be “like usernames,” that is, as identities.
I’m starting to see time outs again. If Avatars are added, how would that impact the board. I tried not to complain back when there were a lot of timeouts, but I have to admit, it has been nice without them and now that I’m seeing them again it is kinda annoying.
throws hands up in disgust
Good GOD, people, they’re AVATARS. Almost every other board I visit has them. I cannot get why people are getting so freaking butthurt over something so freaking stupid.
OOoooh noes, avatars are going to bring our precious board to RUIN!!!
Gah.
This is the second time that someone has brought up “proof”. Do you guys know what forum this is? I’ll give you a hint: not GD.
Shit, I don’t even know how I would prove it. Perhaps search for natural experiments where a set of boards differ on a few different criteria, some with avatars and some without, quantify different aspects of the culture, and perform a complex regression analysis over those metrics. But you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t have time for that.
So, yeah, I’m going with my gut feel that avatars cause a certain debasing of the culture of a board that I’m less than excited to see here. Your gut feeling that they won’t cause this change is not persuasive either.
But I’m not saying:
Because no one is saying that, except people who want avatars and seem to think creating strawman arguments for those of those who don’t is somehow helpful.
You took this out of context (or perhaps I was unclear): for me, and presumably others against avatars, there is no benefit. There is only the risk of the board becoming worse. I understand that you, and others, feel there would be some benefit to you. That’s why you voted yes, and I voted no.
I hadn’t, for the record. And I understand this perspective - I really do. But I doubt that if SDMB allow avatars, and you turned them on, and I had a really clever unique one that caught your eye, that it would change much. Sure, you might recall that I had hypothetically posted back on some earlier page, but if you’re like me, you might find that that’s all you’d be able to recall. I’ve read multi-page threads on boards with avatars - my understanding of the main ‘players’ in the thread is similar to here: I roughly know each of their positions. And my understanding of the minor players is similar, too: I rarely remember a thing about them, unless they’re someone I have pre-existing familiarity with.
But then again, maybe you’re not like me. (Generic you, not you Mijin.) That’s fine. Like I said earlier, I don’t think it’s necessary that SDMB be everything to everybody. If the lack of avatars makes a board too hard to follow, or too unpleasant, or even if there’s just better options out there, that’s ok: there’s a million boards that have avatars. I don’t want to sound like I’m encouraging anyone to leave here - my point is just that having some diversity in what different boards allow, particularly when those features could have some impact on board culture, is a good thing.
Why the fuck is RaftPeople’s schtick cracking me up so much? Haha. Good show.
So? I thought you liked intelligent discourse? I’m just helping maintain the high expectations of this board regarding poster discussions.
If you don’t have the time to do the research, don’t make the claim.
:smack:
No you aren’t - you’re demanding proof where you know none is reasonably possible, while offering nothing yourself.
I hope you aren’t being serious here. In case you are, remember that it’s the pro-avatar posters who are the ones asking for a change here. If you want the support of the anti-avatar community, pony up some proof that our concerns are unfounded. Your case is just as hard to prove as ours, but no more so. And if you don’t care about changing minds, well, that’s fine too.
You see, that’s the difference between IMHO and GD. Here it’s ok for us to state our opinions and gut feelings and not be under any obligation to take on multi-month research projects to prove our points-of-view. In GD, I might think I have a little more obligation to provide facts and citations. But, of course, so would you.
You can’t prove a negative. And even if there were some measurable way to determine a board having “changed,” what would the criteria be?