The first sentence I buy, and I think it’s worth having a totally separate thread about “Would avatars help users’ overall comprehension of threads?” I think there’s enough complexity in there that isn’t getting sufficiently aired in this thread because this thread is about too much. The second sentence, though… I just don’t buy it. It really just sounds like, “if the kids aren’t reading Dickens, let’s just put some graphics in there!” Sometimes, part of the appeal is the lack of whiz-bang stuff. Anyway, I should probably be done with that analogy now…
I have no civil right to an avatar?!? What?!?
It must be a bad analogy, because you’ve utterly missed the point of it.
It’s nothing to do with civil rights, it was a point about the burden of proof.
If it were necessary to allay any concern anyone ever had, no matter how little justification for the concern, or how minor the consequences (I’m speaking in a more general sense than the analogy now), human beings would never have done anything.
However I said “eventually”.
The fact that there is gay marriage in the world, but no apocalypse, does not rule out that they might cause an eventual apocalypse.
In case my position is unclear: I understand concerns about changes to the SD community post-avatars.
But you have not made a testable claim, and until you do it is wrong to say that we must prove your concern false.
It’s also a bad analogy because it compares something trivial like avatars to one of the great civil rights questions of our day. It’s an emotionally charged issue, and provides an unnecessary distraction. It’s gaydwinizing the thread, as it were.
Fortunately, I’ve never actually asked you to prove anything in this thread. I’ve done two things: mocked requests that have asked me for proof of my claim, and observed that when a group of people are asking for something to be different, and have responded to other objections by caricaturing their arguments and dismissing their concerns outright, it doesn’t tend to go too well. If you interpreted either of those as a serious request for proof that avatars won’t eventually cause the apocalypse, then you’ve misunderstood.
It’s a good analogy because the reasoning is analogous, not the two situations. Indeed, analogies always involve two different situations, just some correspondance of concepts.
You notice that I copied your post and just substituted a concern to show how your reasoning was faulty.
I’m not even going to entertain the nonsense about it being a heated topic.
You’ve certainly implied hypocrisy and weasling on the part of the pro-avatar crowd. When in fact they are quite right to say that your concerns, as they stand, cannot be proven wrong (without enabling avatars on the SD).
As you’ve confused the two analogies here, I suggest the misunderstanding is yours.
This is approximately 1/4 right. I agree with the charge of hypocrisy, but not weaseling, for the subset of the pro-avatar crowd that asked me to prove my belief that avatars could have negative side effects without ponying up any proof of any kind for anything of their own. And even then, it’s more friendly, nudging in the ribs, hey what are you trying to get away with here, than actually feeling put out about it.
But, to be clear, it’s not hypocrisy because I think they actually have anything to prove, but because they asked for “proof” when these conditions were all met: a) proving the claim, while theoretically possible, represents an absurd amount of work for a message board conversation in IMHO, b) proving the opposite claim is exactly the same amount of work, and c) exactly no attempt was made to do b. In fact, the very idea that pro-avatar types would have to demonstrate anything is taken to be laughable.
Look, you can either take this thread as a poll, where we all get to state our opinions and talk about it and have a discussion, and no one gets to yell, “Cite!” or “Prove it!”, which is really the forum-appropriate way to do it. Or, you can look at it as a debate, where the point-of-contention is “Resolved: avatars will cause the dumbing-down of SDMB culture.” In the former case, if you ask for proof, you’re just in the wrong place. In the latter, it’s absurd to pretend that one position is somehow immune from needing to provide evidence. I maintain that the former is the correct way to view this thread, given the forum, but at the same time, observe that, hey, if you guys are really interested in changing minds, you might try addressing these issues instead of pretending they’re invalid. I recognize that some of the avatar advocates are doing this, but some, sadly are not.
If you think that hasn’t happened already, I’ve got quite a few bridges here in Pittsburgh I think you’d be interested in.
Please. The SDMB is no more “serious” or “intellectual” than many boards out there. Some have posted to some serious physics or history boards that DO use avatars. Except for GD and GQ, most of this place is fluff. There’s nothing wrong with that, but I’m tired of the old, “but this place is DIFFERENT!!! We’re more SERIOUS!!!” (And I know I’m not the only one)
There are a lot of LJ communities devoted to serious topics.
You can keep on telling us that avatars will “dumb this place down”, but unless you can show proof, you’re NOT going to convince anyone. And THAT’S why people are telling you your claims are invalid. Because all you do is stamp your feet and say, “They’ll ruin this place!!! I just know they will!” Well, how do you know that? “I just do!” I don’t care if this is just a poll, or if this isn’t a “debate”. No one is going to take you seriously if you can’t put up a decent argument other than, “well, that’s just how I feel.” You haven’t GIVEN any reasons for your arguments.
But hey, knock yourself out.
Look, perhaps we could do a trial period – have avatars for say, maybe a month or two, and see how things work out?
A lot of people think the way you do. That their opinions are somehow exempt from being tested. But, get this, I form my opinions out of facts. And there is no body of evidence supporting the idea that avatars destroy internet communities. So if you asked me, “Inner Stickler, do you believe there is a correlation between avatars and internet communities becoming defunct?” I would reply, “I have no evidence at hand showing that such a correlation exists and so cannot take a position one way or the other.” And I am asking you as someone who alleges such a correlation to produce said data or else I will regard your opinion as informed as the opinions of creationists on geology or flat-earthers on geography. I do not see why you are having such difficulty with this.
You know, maybe it’s better that the SDMB doesn’t have avatars. If we had them here, I’m willing to bet the implementation will be botched in some way. For example:
- The maximum size will be too small (32x32 or less) or large (128x128 or more).
- You can’t upload an avatar, but rather you can choose from a couple hundred abstract avatars in a gallery.
- The mods and admins will delete anything they believe violates copyright law, regardless of the fair use doctrine.
- A standard avatar scheme will be used, like an automatically generated QR code or identicon.
- There will be far too many arcane rules.
I still support avatars, but I’d rather have no avatars than stupid identicons or tiny 16x16 images.
Good point, and I have similar concerns. I would also be willing to bet that there would be at least one wtf rule.
I would still vote for avatars though, because even a 15x60 256-colour shared palette file may be useful to someone, and I can always turn them off if they’re not useful for me 
How?
Most avatars tend to be 80x80 to 100x100. I like to make them. IF we get them (and quite frankly, I see it as inevitable), we could have a thread for people who want one made?
So I’m going to suggest a trial period of a few months – see what happens.
Think so? Has the administration stated their opinion in any way regarding this? Look how long it took us to make edits…
A while back, Ed said “no way!”, but didn’t give a reason. I suspect he’s in the “It’ll dumb down the board and attract the riff-raff” camp. I wonder if his opinion would change if you had to pay a nominal fee for them, like $10 a year?
I’ve always been curious about why so many on the SDMB have always been opposed to change – avatars, editing messages, additional subforums, software upgrades, member-created usergroups, and the like – compared to other message boards, where people eagerly welcome and embrace new features? For a message board with such “progressive” members, the culture is surprisingly conservative. Maybe this should be the theme song of the SDMB.
We probably only have to wait another 20 or 30 years to get avatars here - once all the old fuddy-duddies are dead, maybe we can join the 21st century.
Now hold on, if they’re implemented, I’d like to see the widest possible use–or they won’t be any use to me. If there are to be any avatars (but those who wish can make them all invisible), I want them readily available.
It’s not the case that it has happened or it hasn’t. It’s a continuum.
Well, admittedly, GQ and GD (and the new 2010 Elections forum) are definitely my favorite fora. Perhaps you and I just get different things out of this place. But if SDMB isn’t “DIFFERENT” to you, why are you here, instead of GiraffeBoards, with a lot of the same people, and avatars?
Once again, you are making the mistake of believing that I am attempting to prove something or convince someone. I am not. I am not asking for a change, and don’t feel like I have any burden to do so. I am attempting to answer the question of why I voted the way I did, and give some sense of why I feel the way I do. Since you’re one of the people who presented the anti-avatar argument as the strawman belief of, “I believe that avatars will bring complete ruin upon SDMB”, consider yourself the target of this mission. I don’t want you to agree with me; I want you to actually understand my position. If you decide you agree with me, that’s just gravy, but I’m not going out of my way to convince you (or anyone else.)
You keep getting confused. I am not alleging that such a correlation exists. I am expressing my fear that such a correlation could exist. In fact, you agree with this much: it follows from having no position on whether it does it exist, that you must believe it could exist.
Since we both agree this far, the difference seems to be that I am of the opinion it’s not worth messing with a good thing, and you are of the opinion that the perceived concrete improvements that avatars bring (improved recognizability being the one that’s been identified) is worth the risk. I don’t have a problem with this being a difference of opinion. It’s a value-judgment thing.
I realize this part could be unclear. What I mean is: you can’t say that we’ve already moved towards being a more juvenile board, therefore we might as well have avatars. Even if we accept that we have become more juvenile over time, it could still be worth prevent avatars to prevent further movement in that direction.
It’s a metaphor. To some of us, avatars, especially the cartoonish and/or silly avatars that are oft chosen, given the board a more déclassé feel.
(Note: this is not a point-of-fact. It is a point-of-opinion.)