Would it bother you if avatars were allowed, but off by default?

[Czarcasm]

@Red_Barchetta

Perhaps not that specific example, but there are already several usernames who are similar enough that it confuses me, such as the Quasimodem and some other username that’s quite close (which I can’t recall offhand).
And there’s still the “problem” of identical sigs…

1. Let me know when you can come up with name that you constant confuse with Quasimodem’s
2. Nobody here is identified by their sig, because it is at the bottom of the post.

[MeanOldLady]

@VinylTurnip

I just personally find them kind of tacky and distracting, and think enabling them would cheapen the board in a small way—by removing one of the few characteristics that distinguishes it from thousands of other sites in the non-stop garish freakshow that the Web has come to represent.

Not only in the posed question would you have the capability of turning avatars off, they would be off by default. That means nothing would change at all for you and your brethren, and people who prefer them would have to go into their settings to turn them on. And you would be opposed to this because you don’t think people should have the option of turning on something for themselves only that *you *think looks tacky?

Yeah, you can turn them off. And if my neighborhood were littered with scattered trash, rusted car-hulks perched on blocks bleeding oil across cracked driveways, shattered crackpipes and used condoms, waist-high crabgrass, and defeated armies of pink plastic flamingos, I could “solve” the problem by wearing a grocery bag on my head.

This is a perfect analogy.

[Red_Barchetta]

@Czarcasm

1. Let me know when you can come up with name that you constant confuse with Quasimodem’s
2. Nobody here is identified by their sig, because it is at the bottom of the post.

I don’t see why you’d fail to properly address point 1, as the point stands whether I can recall the name or not (arguably, it reinforces it). Anyway, it was Quasimodal, as Runner Pat pointed out (thanks!).

As for point 2. It seems like those opposed would be immune to this as they would either A) Disable avatars or B) Stick to using usernames for reference, which avatars are also below. As for those who keep them enabled–A) What’s it matter to you? B) This is such an unlikely scenario that vetoing the idea based on it alone is ridiculous.

[wonky]

But what if someone has an avatar and I see it and fall in love with them and stalk them and get arrested and sue the dope?

Or what if someone offers me a million dollars but then changes their avatar and I can’t figure out who they are and I die of starvation?

[Czarcasm]

@jsgoddess

But what if someone has an avatar and I see it and fall in love with them and stalk them and get arrested and sue the dope?

Or what if someone offers me a million dollars but then changes their avatar and I can’t figure out who they are and I die of starvation?

Or what if we stick to the items actually addressed by people who don’t like avatars and skip the strawman jousting?

[wonky]

@Czarcasm

@jsgoddess

But what if someone has an avatar and I see it and fall in love with them and stalk them and get arrested and sue the dope?

Or what if someone offers me a million dollars but then changes their avatar and I can’t figure out who they are and I die of starvation?

Or what if we stick to the items actually addressed by people who don’t like avatars and skip the strawman jousting?

You mean the people who are claiming it will cause confusion and mayhem and despair and possibly ruin but they don’t quite know how all of these things will come about, especially when they don’t plan to turn on avatars at all? Those people?

You know the old line about not being able to reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into? This thread should be enshrined in the cliche hall of fame as the perfect illustration.

[Inner_Stickler]

Because their arguments are really all the same. “I don’t like avatars because I didn’t have my coffee this morning and therefore no one should be allowed to have fun with them” This thread serves no purpose but to make a segment of the board look really really silly.

[wonky]

@runner pat

@Red_Barchetta

Perhaps not that specific example, but there are already several usernames who are similar enough that it confuses me, such as the Quasimodem and some other username that’s quite close (which I can’t recall offhand).

And there’s still the “problem” of identical sigs…

**
Quasimodal**

Do you know how long it took before I realized they were different people?

[Giraffe]

@Inner_Stickler

Because their arguments are really all the same. “I don’t like avatars because I didn’t have my coffee this morning and therefore no one should be allowed to have fun with them” This thread serves no purpose but to make a segment of the board look really really silly.

You’re going to be awfully embarrassed when you read this Pit thread. It really puts you in your place.

[Inner_Stickler]

Oh dear. I am suitably chastened.

Not really. Because I had my coffe this morning and am therefore not grumpy. ♪Zip-a-dee-doo-ah, zip-a-dee-ay. My, oh my, what a wonderful day. Plenty of avatars heading my way. Zip-a-dee-doo-ah, zip-a-dee-ay♫

[Czarcasm]

@jsgoddess

@Czarcasm

Or what if we stick to the items actually addressed by people who don’t like avatars and skip the strawman jousting?

You mean the people who are claiming it will cause confusion and mayhem and despair and possibly ruin but they don’t quite know how all of these things will come about, especially when they don’t plan to turn on avatars at all? Those people?

“Mayhem”, “ruin” and “despair”?? I think you’ve gone from fighting that strawman to dating him. The only extreme hyperbole I’ve seen so far has come from the pro-avatar crowd.

[MsWhatsit]

Well, I have seen someone claiming that in order to avoid the terrible problem of similar avatars, the SDMB would have to maintain a huge, constantly-updated, publicly-available bank of everyone’s avatar images. I will grant you that this is perhaps not “extreme” hyperbole. Maybe only “upper-middle” hyperbole. I could go as low as “middling” hyperbole, if coerced.

[Inner_Stickler]

Well then why are you against avatars? If, by your own admission, there will be no mayhem, ruin or despair, what’s the problem? Remember, of course, that you can easily make your personal browsing experience avatar-free.

[Palooka]

It’s hard to attention whore without my 1 MB animated avatar and 800 x 480 Flash signature sparkling my username for the people who missed it at the top.*

But seriously, not once in the history of the Internet have avatars contributed to a healthy community. It turns into an arms race of ever more obnoxious images as people try to stand out.

*These don’t really exist.

[Czarcasm]

Something doesn’t have to bring about the downfall of the human race for me to be against it. I like the SDMB the way it is, full of words and uncluttered by pictures.The mods already have to be on the lookout for sigs that are inappropriate and/or advertise, and I think adding yet another layer for them to watch out for is unnecessary. Ruination and despair-not really. A slight lowering of standards and a little more work for the mods-probably.
That’s just my humble opinion.

[Inner_Stickler]

Can you point me to the scorched remains of these once vibrant communities laid low by avatr fueled violence? Please use 8 by 10 glossies to underscore your points.

[elmwood]

@Red_Barchetta

And there’s still the “problem” of identical sigs…

Since when has that been a problem?

Regards,
Shodan

[Inner_Stickler]

@Czarcasm

Something doesn’t have to bring about the downfall of the human race for me to be against it. I like the SDMB the way it is, full of words and uncluttered by pictures.The mods already have to be on the lookout for sigs that are inappropriate and/or advertise, and I think adding yet another layer for them to watch out for is unnecessary. Ruination and despair-not really. A slight lowering of standards and a little more work for the mods-probably.
That’s just my humble opinion.

But you can have it exactly the way it is. Sure, my dope will include a nifty picture or two but you’d never know.

[Czarcasm]

@Inner_Stickler

Can you point me to the scorched remains of these once vibrant communities laid low by avatr fueled violence? Please use 8 by 10 glossies to underscore your points.

@Czarcasm

Something doesn’t have to bring about the downfall of the human race for me to be against it. I like the SDMB the way it is, full of words and uncluttered by pictures.The mods already have to be on the lookout for sigs that are inappropriate and/or advertise, and I think adding yet another layer for them to watch out for is unnecessary. Ruination and despair-not really. A slight lowering of standards and a little more work for the mods-probably.
That’s just my humble opinion.

Read it again, this time for comprehension.

[Giraffe]

@Inner_Stickler

Well then why are you against avatars? If, by your own admission, there will be no mayhem, ruin or despair, what’s the problem? Remember, of course, that you can easily make your personal browsing experience avatar-free.

Actually, the hypothetical laid out in this thread supposes that everyone’s personal browsing experience starts avatar-free, and stays that way unless they go out of their way to change it. This also applies to the look of the site to outsiders – we’d look exactly the same to random passersby – so the analogy of a neighborhood “littered with scattered trash, rusted car-hulks perched on blocks bleeding oil across cracked driveways, shattered crackpipes and used condoms, waist-high crabgrass, and defeated armies of pink plastic flamingos” isn’t quite apt.

Again, I have no problem with people simply not being interested in having them enabled, and people have raised several interested moderation angles that I hadn’t considered, but at least stick to the situation presented in the OP.