Well, it would make the whole thing just so, so lowbrow.
Because, you know, the one thing the dope is? Highbrow. The highest. We need extension ladders to pluck these fuckers, they’re so high.
Those aren’t my eyebrows, and get out of that ditch.
Sorry. Um, need some crazy glue?
I just copy/pasted this from the other thread.
Will I use avatars? No.
Do I think they should be an option? Yes.
The “will bring down the tone of the board” argument is so dumb. We’re not somehow “better” than the rest of the internet. Sure, we enforce spelling and grammar and all that. If we are the shining beacons of intelligence and reason and wit like gets trotted out every time any change is proposed, the optional display of avatars isn’t going to suddenly turn us into /b/.
I don’t really care; I wouldn’t turn them on generally because it’s harder to stealth-surf the internet at work when there’s big pics of kitties and puppies, but that’s why it’s called an option.
As long as they’re not animated blinky things, I’m ok with it. I’ll most likely have them switched off because I resist change and like things boring, but I see no reason why others can’t have them, if they want them. My main worry is about board performance. As long as things don’t slow down, we’re good.
Wombats.
I voted that I’d prefer avatars be off for everyone, although I supose the less agressive response above it is arguably true®.
I’m of the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mindset, and on this message board, the norm is text only and I like it that way. I am also a frequent poster on a message board with avatars, and I like that one that way.
I’d prefer that they stay off because with the history of this board, there would be a performance hit.
Performance, sherformance. The assumption for the poll is that is no reduction in performance.
I, too, don’t understand the naysayers. Hell, if the Dope were in charge, women would still not be able to vote.
Some avatars are really obnoxious, like the animated ones [though I have a really cute avie that someone made for me based on a picture of me that i have =)]
The ONLY caution I would give to people is don’t be too quick to associate the avatar with the name, as a lot of people (myself included) like to change their’s from time to time.
But I say, go avatars go.
So what would be the point?
Some people like them? They’re fun?
I’m all for it.
:rolleyes:
Because I like using avatars? Because they’re fun? Because a lot of times people will use really interesting ones, and it’s fun to check them out?
Hey – why use signatures?
I don’t see much value in sigs as a rule. I do like avatars as gestalt identifiers, and I could imagine some fun ones round here–fun because of their identification with particular personalities, not just because they’re random cute images.
OMG we’re gonna’ get sued by Fox! No. Using a copyright-protected image or character in an avatar should be considered fair use under US copyright law. Has a message board ever been sued or gotten a cease-and-desist notice because some member has a Peter Griffin avatar? Let’s see a cite that a message board has been taken to court over an avatar.
OMG all the avatars will be animated! Think of the epileptics! No. You can configure vBulletin to permit only static avatars.
OMG slippery slope! Slippery slope! If we permit avatars, we’ll end up like /b/ and Offtopic! Blarrrrrgh! Over the cliff we go! No. Some seem to believe that if avatars are permitted, the site will gain instant appeal among the lulz or immature teen crowd. Again, see my site, or Giraffe Boards. Besides, give 4chan credit; /b/tards create memorable memes on a weekly basis, while Dopers have been milking “Hi Opal!” and “Once, in 1960, for 20 minutes” for the past decade.
OMG everybody will change their avatars every day, confusing everybody and defeating their purpose! No. Maybe a few will, but my experience is that most people hold on to the same avatars for months, or even years. They may change for a holiday or special occasion, and return back to their traditional avatar.
OMG people will use inappropriate avatars, like Goatse, Tubgirl, turds, penises, autopsy and accident scene photos, and other NSFW images! No. In my experience, I haven’t seen that. People seem to have pretty good judgment with the avatars they use. Nobody wants to make a site they regularly visit NSFW for themselves or others. If someone should use an inappropriate avatar, the mods could just DELETE IT and warn/suspend the user. Besides, if staff thinks a good chunk of Dopers are going to have NSFW avatars, they must not think that highly of their users to begin with.
OMG I want a minimal look because my Stanford-Binet IQ is 165 and avatars are so beneath me and my superior intellect. Turn avatars off in your user preferences. That’s it. You don’t have to see them if you don’t want to.
OMG people will talk about others’ avatars all the time, and that discussion will crowd out our intellectual discussions on the reconciliation of quantum mechanics with the precepts of Tibetan Buddhism. No. On my avatar-enabled message board, there’s the rare comment here and there; maybe one in every 5,000 to 10,000 posts.
This is all pointless, anyhow. Many have argued for avatars in the past, and gotten nowhere. The people that don’t want them don’t want them for everybody, perhaps in the Aspie spirit of there only being one correct way to do something, or they can’t seem to get it through their heads that you can disable their display in the user control panel.
If the Dope came online in 1950, there would still be separate forums for whites and “Coloreds”, and the hottest meme would still be “I picking up your dog by the ears.”
An assumption that is at direct odds with Board history (and wasn’t in the OP, which was all I read before voting). If I can be reasonably assured that storing and serving however many image files doesn’t make the Board have *any *performance loss, I don’t mind others having them on. But right now, I don’t think that’d be the case, and that’s how I voted.
We don’t need avatars for that. Anybody here can put a photo in their profile which is available to anyone who clicks on their name. It’s sort of a “two-click rule” that allows you to see someone’s mug, but keeps our fora uncluttered.
But it’s disappointing how few people have their picture in their profile. I would guess that a lot more people would include avatars than currently put their picture in their profile. Why? I don’t know, but I suppose it might be because people don’t mind tossing up a picture of Godzilla stomping on Bambi, but balk at uploading their own face.
To me, that represents part of the problem with making avatars available. Yes, just like many other people here, I’m curious about attaching a face with a name. But I don’t need to see the Gozilla/Bambi pix. Often, I click on a Doper’s name in order to see their picture in their profile (I might also check Arnold Winkelried’s SDMB Portrait Gallery, but I’d rather the pic be available on the SDMB). Unfortunately, not many Dopers have a picture in their profile,
I’d like to see widespread encouragement of Dopers to add a photo to their profile. I think that would give many “avatar supporters” what they are looking for, without adding a lot of unnecessary nonsense.
Okay, you’ve convinced me. Too bad I can’t change my vote. I’d leave avatars off, but had voted that I wouldn’t care about other people’s use.
Still there are ways to mitigate the issue. We have rules about not suggesting that people are trolls, and we we have rules about not discussng who’s on our killfile (or whatever we call it here, you know, hiding people’s posts, like I hide all moderators’ posts, so I can’t see when they warn me [just kidding mods, ironic use is okay, right?]). So, we ban the discussion of avatars, except, maybe in a new MPAIMS subforum (the S becomes A for avatar). And while we’re at it, maybe we only allow JPG so we can avoid all of the animated GIF silliness.