I have said nothing about avatars being more useful as poster trackers or anything else. I want avatars because I want avatars and I see no reason to not have them if posters who don’t wish for such things don’t have to do anything to have them. I have made no claims about what avatars will do or not do other than their existence here would make me happier. You are saying that they will negatively affect the board’s culture. I hope you understand how our respective positions differ in terms of the amount of proof needed. You complain that they will lower the level of the board. In that case, I say, turn them on and let’s see what happens. It’s not like once turned on they can never be turned off.
However, it is never ok to make a claim about something and then when called on it, wave your hands and say, “hey man it’s just an opinion.” That is a sorry thing to do and I am ashamed to see someone here attempting such a defense.
I, for one, like the simple asthetic of the board as it is. Avatars, like every other board on the internet has, make everythingl look like a 13-year-old girl’s Trapper-Keeper if you ask me. If I wanted shiny-sparkly, I’d hang out at Facebook.
But then again, like I said, it’s not anything that would keep me from posting here. I already put up with the friggin’ smilies every other post.
I would assume then that if avatars were enabled, you would not check the box in the user CP labeled Show Avatar? Assuming that, how would avatars make the board shiny-sparkly for you?
I just want to point out that many of the anti-avatar arguments are reminiscent of the reasons the Wall St. Journal gave for not even having photos in their newspaper when most other dailies were going full color.
It’s one thing to not follow every teeny-bopping trend but it’s something else entirely to drive your horse drawn buggy to the mall.
I’m sorry that came across as arrogant and condescending. I phrased it that way not to insult people on the other side of the issue but to highlight the contrast between this forum and virtually every other forum on the internet. We’re at the point now where not having avatars is enough of an anachronism that there should be good reasons for making that choice. Maybe those reasons do in fact exist. The idea that it creates a certain kind of ethos that members have come to expect is certainly one. The point is that the burden should now be on the anti-avatar group to justify the continued practice.
I know, right? Yet some people still don’t want them. It’s baffling.
[Les Nesman]Oooooooh![/LN]
I personally don’t care either. I’ve been on other boards where I’ve used the avatars to find a particular poster, but then there are boards which have animated avatars that are so annoying, it’s like staring at a psychedelic strobe light. Couple that with the fact that those boards have virtually no size limit, and it’s really annoying. However in those cases, I tend to ignore them to the best of my ability.
The long and the short of it is, in my opinion, have them or don’t have them. Avatars in and of themselves won’t attract me/deter me from a board. It’s the content of said board that will keep/repel me.
I would. Or maybe I wouldn’t. Maybe I’d get an avatar of Justin Beiber with little pink hearts all over it, either way the board would still look like Miley Cyrus put it together.
Regardless, I’ll still post … unless Turnip gets his way and we end up with the sproing - rim shot audio drops.
If you use Firefox, get the Adblock plugin. This will let you block any pic, including animated gif files, that annoy you. In fact you can even block the entire subdirectory where the avatars are stored (for sites that require avatars be uploaded as opposed to hot linked).
You’re welcome. The bill is in the mail. 
If no one is identifiable, you end up having 4chan. :smack:
I am sympathetic to a lot of the points you are making here, but not this one. You don’t seem to get that this forum is called In My Humble Opinion. This is the forum where people, get this, post their opinions on things.
It’s like we’re just completely talking past each other. You seem to think that we’re having a “debate”, and I made a “claim”, and now I need to back up that claim. I think we’re posting our perspectives on the question of whether or not avatars would make SDMB better, and I described why I have concerns about this, and I’m happy to elaborate on those concerns or clarify my perspective, but I’m not going to sign up for a multi-month research project to back up a “claim” in a “debate” that I’m not having. If you think that’s a “sorry thing to do”, then, well, I’m sorry. But also: tough. I’m not going to feel bad about posting my humble opinion here.
I guess this is a meme, something we like to say because it’s easy and comfortable and warm. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of eating a cheeseburger while wearing an old sweatshirt. Or maybe we like to provoke deep philosophical debates about the meaning of “proof” and how can man “know” anything, anyway?
But it’s not a true statement in any reasonable sense. You could do the exact some quantification of board cultures and run a regression analysis that I alluded to above, find there’s no correlation at all between avatars and board culture, and call it proof. But you won’t. For the same reason I won’t either. The reward:work ratio is too low.
You and the Stickler both seem to be harping on something that I consider to be basically nonsense. I want to clarify what I am and am not saying, but first, a little context. Some posters in this thread stated that they couldn’t understand why anyone would vote, “I would prefer to…have avatars off for everyone.” After all, if the default is off, what harm could there possibly be in having the option for others to use avatars? Why, we must all be jerks, deriving our happiness from knowing that no one is having fun with their avatars!
I didn’t think that was a very accurate summary of my point-of-view, so I posted to clarify. I voted the way I did, because… well, I already posted why. No point in rehashing all that. But I am not saying, categorically, that avatars will completely debase the SDMB culture. I am saying that I am concerned that enabling avatars could possibly, ever-so-slightly, nudge the SDMB in a direction away from intellectual vigor and linguistic cleverness towards being more of an ordinary, general-interest, social board, of which there are already millions. If I wanted to spend my time reading those boards, I would. I choose to come here. And I don’t see a real reason to mess with the formula that works.
First of all, we’re not a decision-making body here. Whether or not there are avatars on SDMB is pretty independent of what case anyone makes in this thread. Secondly, if we were a decision-making body, you’d be wrong. The burden of proof, which is really closer to preponderence of evidence, is on those seeking a change. And pointing out how we’re different is pretty uncompelling - after all, that’s kind of the point of this place.
It’s strange to me that people see avatars as some sort of technological advancement, like cars over driving your horse-and-buggy to the mall. It reminds me of Jeff Bezos, talking about the whole Kindle-vs-iPad thing, remarking, “You don’t improve Dickens with full-motion video” - is he also driving his horse-and-buggy to the mall?
My argument was neither deductive nor legal in nature. I used the word “anachronism” for a reason. A forum without avatars is as anachronistic as the Wall Street Journal not having photos when every other paper not only had them for decades before but were then moving to full color. So what is my argument here? Is it that we should follow the crowd for the sake of being cool or hip or whatever? Obviously not. My argument is that at some point following “the old ways” doesn’t make sense any more. It’s the same reason that you don’t wear a top hat and tails when going to the market. This isn’t 19th century London. If you want to dress as if it is, that’s cool. But if you want ME to dress that way, you’d better have a damn good reason.
You’re still framing this as an old-ways vs. new-ways question. I don’t see it that way. Is reading a book the “old-way” of consuming a story, and streaming the movie over Netflix the “new-way”? Or are they fundamentally different experiences where one doesn’t replace the other?
I don’t really enjoy arguing so my first impulse was to simply not respond. But since you framed it as a question, I suppose decorum suggests that I do.
I thought I had already answered this - at least indirectly via the examples I’ve given. Anachronisms aren’t good or bad per se. For example I luvs me some gothic architecture. But what the anti-avatar argument amounts to is saying what’s good for me is good for you and you’ll like it. Well, a lot of us don’t like it. I’m not all stiff about either outcome. I like avatars but I’m a visual person so that’s just my bias. However some good arguments have been presented for having them. But even if that were not the case, the mere fact that most people like them for whatever reason should be reason enough - UNLESS there are very good countervailing arguments. I’ve seen one or 2 so far but none that I think justifies continuing the present policy, or more appropriately, the present ban on avatars.
Thanks for responding. I appreciate it.
That’s the caricature of my argument that I’m trying to dispel. I’m not saying that because I dislike avatars, no one should be able to have them. You can have all the avatars you want on all the different boards you like. But if you want them enabled on SDMB, I think you should at least understand that the contrary point-of-view is that avatars nudge us away from being Dickens and towards being Con-Air. Now I like Dickens, and I like Con-Air (maybe I shouldn’t admit that), but I want the world to be big enough for both. And I think among the population of internet message boards, there’s a lot more Con-Airs than Dickenses. So if we start that journey, I fear having only Con-Air, and not Dickens.
Does that concern make sense? Do you see any validity in it, or are you still hearing that what’s good for me is good for you and you’ll like it?
Just for the record. Thanks for responding the way you did. I don’t intend to come across as a douche bag but it seems that I always somehow manage.
Also, I don’t mean to conflate your position with the amorphous “anti-avatar” position. Everyone has their own reasons for taking a position but in debating something you sometimes have to use a sort of shorthand.
I understand the concern about appealing to the lowest common denominator - which I think is part of what you’re getting at. I actually share that concern believe it or not. Where we differ is on assessing the probability that avatars would amount to such pandering. My experience, though admittedly limited, is that every forum has it’s own culture and attracts people more for what it offers than its appearance. However it is also my experience that appearance matters. And for convenience, under that rubric I would also include functionality. I’ve been on forums that are simply a pain in the ass to use. SDMB isn’t like that, but that’s only from my personal perspective. I can see how many people, being accustomed to having avatars as a mnemonic, might see things differently.
So, yes, I think there is some risk involved in allowing avatars, but I think that risk is outweighed by the functionality and ease of use that they afford many users. I also think that not having them is so far behind the curve vis-a-vis other forums that it could easily dissuade potential (and desirable) new users.
It’s clearly a judgment call for the SDMB staff. But it should be an ongoing call that is continually re-evaluated. Many considerations will go into making it. One such consideration is how the board appears to new users who are accustomed to a certain standard in visual presentation. Another should be improving usability for existing members.
Would it offend you if the anti-avatar people used “I want avatars and I don’t give a crap how it affects the board” as a shorthand for the different pro-avatar arguments?
I’ve got such a system in place on my board. 25 posts, and you can have an avatar (static, 80X80 pixels and 5K max). It works quite well.
By topping off the size at 80x80, considered an average avatar size 10 years ago but now on the small size, most avatars end up as a uniform size. This makes threads appear much less cluttered compared to boards permitting larger avatars, where avatar sizes are mote likely to be all over the map. I also use the old-school vBulletin layout, with usernames, titles, avatars, locations, post counts and join dates to the left. Thus, avatars don’t interrupt the flow of the thread.
Remember that it’s the pro-gay marriage citizens who are the ones asking for a change here. If you want the support of the anti-gay marriage community, pony up some proof that it won’t cause the apocalypse eventually.
Way to continue with the thread’s worst analogy. Do you get that a message board is not society-at-large, and that the standards for making rules are different? Specifically, do you understand that you have no civil right to an avatar?
Also, the pro-gay marriage camp has made the argument, quite successfully, that gay marriage won’t cause the apocalypse. If the pro-avatar camp could do the same, we wouldn’t be discussing this.