or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Avatars?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Just wondering, why are these disabed?
I think they are cool......
post #2 of 26
Initially we disabled it because we had concerns about inappropriate use of the feature and moderation concerns, as well as server space and page loading due to the heavier weight images add to a page. And some folks simply find them irritating.

However we are no reconsidering the issue and may introduce it for a small fee as a fundraising effort to help finance the boards.

post #3 of 26
I have personal issues with AV's and hope we never have them here.
post #4 of 26
I am hoping that the new version of vB includes a feature to turn them off if you prefer to not view them.
post #5 of 26
Not good enough!

AV's change the whole vibe. Seriously. Someone puts up a picture of who they wish they were, think of themselves as... whatever. Shows some affiliation. Other respond to that. "Oh! She likes ManU! Bitch!" Or the reverse of course. It is a people filing system that operates at the lowest common denominator. I really and truly hate it.
post #6 of 26
It would be moderated kama. We wouldn't simply open the door to any pic. While that does make it a decision headache for us (what walks and what doesn't) it would not be wise to allow anything and everything.

BUT, no firm decision yet. So I'll definitely put forth your opinion.
post #7 of 26
Thread Starter 
How does it show any more affiliation than a personal signature, or a senior member name?

How is it a people filing system if you upload you own individual avatar?
And if you truly don't like them, then dont use one....
Just mho.

Quote:
However we are no reconsidering the issue and may introduce it for a small fee as a fundraising effort to help finance the boards.
Good idea!
post #8 of 26
Wait, what are they? Can anyone post a link for me to see what y'all are talking about? I am so confused.....
post #9 of 26
check out cyberbabycafe.com or the discussion boards at amitymama.com. Members have a small graphic image beneath their username.

Before we place avatars we will upgrade to vB 3 which gives members the individual option to turn them off so you don't have to view them if you don't want to.
post #10 of 26
Thanks, CM, I checked cyberbabycafe.com and see what you mean. So why is Kama concerned? I don;t think I understand the detrement they can pose.

Quote:
Originally posted by kama'aina mama
AV's change the whole vibe. Seriously. Someone puts up a picture of who they wish they were, think of themselves as... whatever. Shows some affiliation. Other respond to that. "Oh! She likes ManU! Bitch!" Or the reverse of course. It is a people filing system that operates at the lowest common denominator. I really and truly hate it.
Kama...can you tell me more? I don't think I get the big picture.
Thanks.
post #11 of 26
Okay, my thesis against avatars:
In large part it is about first ompressions. You go into a discussion with someone you have never spoken with before. They have an AV. Perhaps it is a logo for the movie "Grease". As it happens you love Grease! So you feel an instant affinity for them. They have made a really positive first impression on you. As days and weeks pass it becomes clear that you disagree with this person on virtually every front. Maybe they even had Grease up that week because they lost a dare. Or the reverse... someones AV leads you to believe you would have little or nothing in common with them so you write them off and never know how much you do have in common. It just detracts from what I like best about the online medium, which is that it is based purely on what you have to say. It reduces it to a snapshot.

I also have concerns about it further polarizing some of the already existing 'factions' here at MDC. There are many people I quarrel with over in Spirituality or Activism (disagree, I mean... I would never quarrel here!) who I get on just fine with in Breastfeeding, Parenting Issues, etc... But if they choose as their AV the source of our disagreement I will be constantly reminded of it everytime I see them. "It will be moderated"... but for what?

I'm sorry if I sound peevish, but these things drive me nuts and I really hoped we would never have them here. And I haven't even gotten into the added work for the server to toss all those images around all the time... and that affects me whether I have them turned on or not. The change it can cause in the dynamic of the community will affect me whether I have them turned on or not also.
post #12 of 26
I see. That is much clearer to me. I suppose I won't be putting up a
Warning :: Spoiler Ahead! Highlight to read message!
"I LOVE JESUS"
AV or a "BUSH IS A HOTTIE" one.

disclaimer:
Warning :: Spoiler Ahead! Highlight to read message!
while I do love Jesus
, I probably would not ever put one such AV up seriously and NO, NO, NO, I do not think BUSH IS A HOTTIE. Everyone who has seen my husband knows that I go for the unibomber look. (And I do not support the unibombers actions although I did read and understand his manifesto.)
post #13 of 26
another site I'm a member of allows avatars ohly if it is a recent picture of yourself.
post #14 of 26
On the one hand I don't see how it is any different than your signatur line because I find some of those pretty offensive and I do tend to blow people off if there is something in thie sig that I find irritating, offensive or stupid. It also drives me crazy when someone signature doesn't comply with the length rules ( I have always been a rule follower and need to LET IT GO!!!) Anyway, I don't know how pictures would make it any worse. Although I can see how it would be a moderating nightmare!
post #15 of 26
Oh my god, if you check out the cybermamas.com site....it would drive me NUTS if it were like that here....the 'siggys' for one thing are huge and tacky, it's so hideous. And they were talking about their kids favourite kind of pop-tart....
Phew, that was a scary thirty seconds.... I agree that having a small photo of yourself or kids would be acceptable, but some random graphic of a cute baby mammal is memory intensive and pointless.
Anyway, the smilies really are quite enough.....

post #16 of 26
Holy cow. those are obnoxious!
post #17 of 26
lilyka... the difference, in my opinion, is that a picture has a far more immediate and viceral impact. It takes a moment to read a senior title, a sig, etc... a pic though... BAM! It's there... in your mind before you know it. It's worth a thousand words. Etc, etc....
post #18 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by hotmamacita
I see. That is much clearer to me. I suppose I won't be putting up a
Warning :: Spoiler Ahead! Highlight to read message!
"I LOVE JESUS"
AV or a "BUSH IS A HOTTIE" one.
Can someone please tell me why this "spoiler" tag is used? It's very annoying.

FTR, I think we should have avatars.
post #19 of 26
Sorry to be annoying, I was trying to be respectful, ironically.

There is a thread below this one about the black box. (right click on it with your mouse and select)
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally posted by hotmamacita
Sorry to be annoying, I was trying to be respectful, ironically.
No, I don't think you were annoying, I think they are because I'm lazy and hate having to select them to read it. :LOL I just don't understand why people use them. I mean they can be read anyway. A first I thought it was an error with the board code. LOL
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Site Help