Red Hot Avatars! - TTLG Forums

mopgoblin on 27/11/2002 at 11:14

Quote:

Originally posted by sailoreagle
... allowing avatars for anybody would mean a lot of extra work for the admins, who would have to look at every single avatar (notice how many members this forum has) to see if it's acceptable or not, in addition to having to run around the forums and see if there's anything not acceptable in threads.

These are good points, but consider the following:
* Only a small proportion of the registered members are active at any one time.
* If an avatar is used that is clearly inappropriate, it is likely that at least one person will report it.
* In the worst case, the moderators of a forum can delete any recent posts by the antagonist.

Certainly not ideal, but worth consideration.

Quote:

So you need some sort of filtering system or requirement for having an avatar. Time spent here, even if it does disadvantage some people, is still the best requirement, as it can't be abused (like avatar by postcount would be) and it wouldn't be unfair towards too many people (like avatar by donation would be... think of all the people who can't afford to donate).

Agreed - this is the best of the systems proposed so far. However, the need for such a system may not be as great as it is perceived to be.

Quote:

Maybe not make it a year, make it five or six months, I dunno. Like Uncia said, it would give some buffer time to weed out the trolls.

Even a shorter time (two weeks/one month) would be quite effective. If someone does not accept the basic rules/guidelines within this time, it is unlikely that they ever will.

Quote:

It's not a question of "greater value", like it would have been with donations ("you donate, you're getting an avatar because you're better than people who don't donate"); it's simply a question of responsibility. Very few members who have registered one or two years ago are likely to abuse the option to have an avatar, or to be offensive with it, or to turn trollish, simply because they've been here longer, they know how the place works, and the simple fact that they're still here shows that they're not utter trollish morons. I know that not all newbies are utter trollish morons, and in fact, most newbies are decent people... but newbies are an unknown. You need a buffer period.

In terms of inappropriate content, the avatar function is similar to the posting of images, sounds, hyperlinks, and especially the location field (as this cannot be censored by a moderator). There is no buffer period or any other requirement to use these functions, and there are few incidents with any of them.

Now, suppose that the month is December of 2000, and the avatar issue has just been raised. It is decided that avatars will only be available to those who have been registered for one year or longer. By this time, you have been posting for about half a year, made friends, followed the rules. It is clear that you would not abuse the avatar feature. However: "We cannot trust anyone who has not been registered for 365 days".

Or, you discover the TTLG forums in December of 2000. By the start of 2001, you are reading every post in four forums, but you decide not to register immediately - "I have nothing to say right now". In time you begin to read more of the forums (buy another LGS game, become interested in one of the project forums etc.). You learn DromEd (by searching for the answers to your problems - back when the search function was still available to guests), attempt a few contest missions but miss the deadlines, climb to the roof of Angelwatch in the Thief 2 demo, whatever.

Now it is November of 2002. You need to use members-only functions of the forums (search, private messages, email another forum user etc.) so you register. You make a few posts, and decide that it is indeed more fun to be an active member of the community. Then, a few weeks later, a discussion on avatars begins, and it is decided that they will be available to those who have been registered for one year. Now, every time you read a thread, you are reminded that there are others who are considered more responsible than yourself, simply because they clicked on a few buttons a year or two before you did. Even if you turn "show avatars" off, they will still be mentioned within the posts of other members - and you have a whole year of this to look foward to.

On further consideration, a buffer period of a few weeks not be unreasonably long (similar to the new member/member status change at 30 posts), and should still be reasonably effective.

scumble on 27/11/2002 at 13:07

It really isn't worth the agro, is it? I certainly wouldn't want the tedious chore of checking avatars. Based on what I've seen on other forums with avatars, the shite far outweighs any good stuff. It will be a total waste of effort, and I can't see the Admins taking on the extra work.

rachel on 27/11/2002 at 15:30

I don't remember ever posting my opinion about avatars, so I'll post this and if it's not the first it'll be my last post on the subject:

I DO NOT WISH TO HAVE ANY AVATAR AND I AM PROUD OF IT.

I even deactivated my admin avatar to the default one at TriOp's forums. I don't like the idea of avatars, now I think about it. Don't ask me my reasons, I don't really have. I just don't like them, that's all.

I'd like TTLG not to be filled with avatars either. It has style right now, it's classy. It's good looking. In a nutshell it's TTLG.

Fill it with avatars and the world'll just never look the same.:p

Erm.

After expressing such a valuable opinion I'll just go back and play some more Shock/Thief/DX...

:) Do whatever you think is best suited for the community, Admins. But make sure there's an option to disable them if they're active.

See you on Rec!

sailoreagle on 27/11/2002 at 16:06

mopgoblin: Again, good points.

Quote:

Even a shorter time (two weeks/one month) would be quite effective. If someone does not accept the basic rules/guidelines within this time, it is unlikely that they ever will.

Yes, generally that's true, but:* Example 1: we had a 1999 reg date member turn troll and flame everybody, and he got banned.
* Example 2: we currently have several members who got banned because of trolling, constant flaming or whatever (not going to mention names, would not be fair), rejoined with another nick and now are active members of the community and make extremely valid contributions.
* You have to also count the amount of people who register, then disappear without posting because they forget about the forum or whatever, then reappear a couple months after and start posting. They did not have time to learn and accept the basic guidelines.
Nothing is an indication of maturity and of the ability to make good contributions except an user's actual posts. Not the reg date, not the postcount, not anything. If we wanted a really fair system of giving avatars out, only people who made good contributions to the community would have avatars - but even then, the system could be used unfairly, as who decides what is a good or not good contribution?

The one or two year buffer period was just an example of how I saw it done on other forums. :) A month or two would be enough, I reckon.

And again, it's not an issue of trust, and it's not a judgement of worth. It's just a buffer period, because, if avatars are given out to the general public, you need a filter system / requirement to weed out the people who are likely to abuse the avatar function.

---

Honestly, though, at this point, you have to wonder if avatars are really worth all this aggrivation. I think the combination of the location field + the picture in the user profile is more than enough for customization and individuality, myself.

Starrfall on 27/11/2002 at 17:41

Give it a second read next time Uncia. My point was nowhere near "we shouldn't talk abuot it any more" it was this, and it really shouldn't be so hard to figure out.

Quote:

Originally posted by Starrfall
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 serve a purpose, which has been noted before by others.

I underlined the important bit just for you. Which in fact both is a part of the discussion, by explaining my stance and giving my reasons for it, and also invites more, as if a way can be found to MAKE them worth it, I might change my mind.

Uncia on 27/11/2002 at 19:16

*snips own reply*
I'll just summarize. One can agree and disagree with something, that is the point of forums, but dismissing a topic that is obviously a hot issue with a lot of the population is not a GoodThing[tm]. No matter how complex an issue, if a large chunk of the populus thinks it's important, then it is important... Especially in this case where "complexity" boils down to "a flip of a switch to enable them, a flip of a switch for any individual user to disable them". So far, bandwidth is the only real problem I've heard stated so far. Moderation? Avatar abuse is just as much an issue as post abuse and signature abuse- haven't seen either of those in a while now, don't see why avatars would be much different.

And next time, when you see someone offering a peace pipe by criticizing their own post and admitting it was a bit head-strong, take it and not add fuel to the fire, hm?

MsLedd on 27/11/2002 at 23:37

Though I agree that if we were to do it, the "time been here" is by far the best criteria for allowing avatars, buut... the problem with that atm would be that we have no way to automatically apply those conditions. vB doesn't offer this option currently (though the upcoming v3.0 may well do, I haven't looked). The other option is a hack/mod to do it, which would be fine if such a thing exists.

There are still other major considerations, but I just thought I'd throw that in. :)

sailoreagle on 28/11/2002 at 00:26

The forum I've seen which does it is vB-based, so there should be a way to do it, if you really want to do it. :)

Gray on 28/11/2002 at 01:58

I'm still quite indecisive.

Nay, strike that. I'm quite decisive, only I change opinion with my mood, like every three minutes or so, about avatars and other things.

As of right now, I'm still quite against avatars. However, should they be enabled, I'm somewhat partial to a version of sailoreagle's proposition of its availability being based on registry date. I'd rather see it as being enabled after a month, or preferrably two; that would decrease the "we're better than you because we've been here longer" sentiment, and also (I believe) reduce the risk of trollish avatars, as I suspect few trolls have the patience to wait two months to post an offensive avatar.

That said, I'm currently quite happy with how things are now.

mopgoblin on 28/11/2002 at 03:27

Quote:

Originally posted by sailoreagle
Example 1: we had a 1999 reg date member turn troll and flame everybody, and he got banned.

If you are referring to Arcsim, then I was lurking at that time. I doubt that anyone could have predicted that incident. Also consider that this was one case among thousands of members, and would not have been caught by a one-year restriction in any case.

Quote:

Example 2: we currently have several members who got banned because of trolling, constant flaming or whatever (not going to mention names, would not be fair), rejoined with another nick and now are active members of the community and make extremely valid contributions.

I can recall two specific incidents (this will be difficult without mentioning names). The first (a banning resulting from repeatedly carrying IRC disputes over to the forums) was not entirely unforeseeable, as the member in question had been involved in a previous argument with an administrator (a dispute over a signature), and this argument did not end particularly well.

The second (resulting from an argument about avatars, I think) was less predictable (although there had been a previous argument in The Editors Guild, of which I cannot recall the details). Regardless, no time-based system would have prevented either of these incidents, and the bannings (plus the fact that they were not immediately banned upon re-registration several months later) appeared to have the desired effect.

Quote:

You have to also count the amount of people who register, then disappear without posting because they forget about the forum or whatever, then reappear a couple months after and start posting. They did not have time to learn and accept the basic guidelines.

True. However, they could well disappear for six months, a year or even longer.

Quote:

Nothing is an indication of maturity and of the ability to make good contributions except an user's actual posts. Not the reg date, not the postcount, not anything. If we wanted a really fair system of giving avatars out, only people who made good contributions to the community would have avatars - but even then, the system could be used unfairly, as who decides what is a good or not good contribution?

Agreed - the only perfectly fair system is avatars for everyone or no one. However, it is indeed necessary to balance fairness against potential for misuse. I guess 1-2 months is not unreasonable, but the opinions of a larger group of members are needed.

Quote:

And again, it's not an issue of trust, and it's not a judgement of worth. It's just a buffer period, because, if avatars are given out to the general public, you need a filter system / requirement to weed out the people who are likely to abuse the avatar function.

It is not an issue of trust or judgement of worth, but if the wrong time limit is chosen, it could be perceived as such.

A point to consider - if someone is likely to abuse the avatar feature, it is very likely that they will abuse other features anyway - there would probably be no significant increase in such behavior due to the avatar feature being enabled. By its very nature, this behavior draws attention to itself - hunting down inappropriate avatars would probably not be difficult in most cases (indeed, an inappropriate avatar may draw attention to other trollish posts which may otherwise go unnoticed by administrators/moderators).

Quote:

Honestly, though, at this point, you have to wonder if avatars are really worth all this aggrivation. I think the combination of the location field + the picture in the user profile is more than enough for customization and individuality, myself.

Indeed - a badly implemented or widely disputed system would be worse than no avatars at all.