scumble on 26/11/2002 at 17:03
But could you really provide a valid reason? It really boils down to "Just because we can".
CyberFish on 26/11/2002 at 18:16
Actually, it's probably more that people want a way of quickly expressing their individuality, creativity, and 1337 MSpaint skillz :rolleyes:
The problem is that if we allow people to have avatars, they have to be monitored in some way. Having the admins or mods check over every single avatar before it can be used is unfeasable, firstly because it generates a lot of extra work, and secondly because trollish types would complain it was unfair.
The alternative is to allow all avatars unless someone complains, but that means that truly vile avatars would still get some page time before anyone got around to taking them down. This could be abused by irritating troll types.
Then there's the problem of where to put the damn things. If they're hosted off site, it's a nuisance for the viewers because they have to wait for images to load from a very slow host. I don't know if it's possible to install a timeout script which doesn't display the avatar if it's taking too long to load.
On the other hand, if they're put on TTLG webspace, bandwidth drain goes up. Which we really do not need.
I think eagle's idea of a delay period before people are allowed avatars is great. If every new member is allowed an avatar, it increases the troll hazard. Also, implementing this would reduce the workload on admins having to check every single avatar to see which are acceptable, and would decrease the bandwidth drain on TTLG should they be hosted here.
Of course, the problem with that is that people new to the forums would complain about it. But there's no way we can please everyone here.
Personally, I'm kind of neutral about this one. If the issues outlined above can be resolved satisfactorily, I think people should be allowed avatars. Assuming, that is, that support is sufficient to justify the time and effort of implementing them.
I kind of like the clean look that the forums have now, so I'd probably disable avatar viewing, depending on how interesting or, conversely, how lame people's avatars turn out to be.
Oh, and animated avatars would incite me to hunt down the perpetrator and eviscerate them.
Uncia on 26/11/2002 at 21:33
Heh, Cyber, I think you just repeated Daxim's post. *grin*
But yes, avatars are about individuality. And less annoying than 5-line sigs too. :erg:
Starrfall on 26/11/2002 at 22:30
"no you cant have them"
*avatar thread*
"no you cant have them"
*avatar thread*
"NO FS"
*avatar thread*
"no you cant have them"
*avatar thread*
ALRIGHT FUCKING HELL HAVE THEM
*thread about getting rid of avatars*
CyberFish on 26/11/2002 at 23:11
Starry, the reason this thread is here is because the previous threads about avatars weren't really organised debates. They were more like disorganised and frequently incoherent arguments.
Starrfall on 27/11/2002 at 00:29
Yes. And?
<font size=1>edit: ok ok ok ;)
There's a point hidden in that post, and that point is that no matter what happens with avatars, someone is not going to get what they want, whether its avatars or no avatars or animated avatars or an avatar that is nothing but a giant penis or avatars that aren't restricted or are more restricted and on and on and on. And so far, with the amount of work it would take to enable avatars in a way functional to TTLG, along with the fact that someone is going to complain about it anyways, I don't see them as worth it. Especially when only letting admins have them does sever a purpose, which has been noted before by others.
and one last edit: personally, I think the best way avatars can work would be to make them mandatory, but they have to be a scan of a really bad ID picture. Not only does it literally show your individuality, but it'd cut down on flame wars. How seriously deep into a bicker-fest could you get with a crappy picture right next to your post? Also I think everyone should always write in small font. Tune in next week for super bowl picks.
Uncia on 27/11/2002 at 01:25
Decisions on topics that won't make everyone happy are void? Boy, am I ever glad to live in a country where all political decisions are unanimously supported then. :cheeky:
Starrfall on 27/11/2002 at 01:37
I would be interested in the logic you used to infer "we shouldn't talk about it at all" from "somone isn't going to be happy no matter what conclusion is reached."
If you need my point explained further, you only need to ask. :)
ignatios on 27/11/2002 at 03:36
Actually, the primary reason for this thread was to help divert the avatar discussion away from the donations thread. Let's hope it doesn't turn into another argument, though I'm a cynic by nature.
Uncia on 27/11/2002 at 09:45
Quote:
Originally posted by Starrfall ...and that point is that no matter what happens with avatars, someone is not going to get what they want... along with the fact that someone is going to complain about it anyways, I don't see them as worth it.You stressed twice that you're against avatars because someone is going to complain about it. It's not a mathematical leap of logic, but it's pretty close. :p
...`Sides, "making a point with exaggerated example of logic" is fun. You can prove
anything with it. ;)
