A silly little request re: avatars...

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:30 am

Could we have the ability to post avatars underneath our names?

Is that even an option with this software (I think it is)?

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:32 am

It is an option, and I think it'd be neat. I don't know what the space/bandwidth requirements are, however.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:43 am

Space/Bandwidth is not an issue.

We avoided that at gonegold, and the reason was we were very much into the "substance over form" thing. It was a small thing, when we made that decision early in GG's lifestyle. But it was one thing we felt helped differentiate us, and we felt like the decision to do that reflected the tone we wanted in the forums. Not stuffy and adult, quite. But we definately didn't want to be your typically game developer forums.

So, like everthing else, this is something we're willing to discuss. Gromit, you might want to note in your thread title what specifically you are bringing up - and everyone can weigh in.

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:47 am

Updated, Peacedog.

BTW, it's 3-2 Count from the GGOOTP.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:53 am

If you guys want, we'd be happy to host the GGOOTP league again. Though I think you guys should change your name, FWIW.

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:56 am

That was actually my thought too...that league name should die with Gone Gold, but others think otherwise. I guess we'll see.

NoxiousDog has provided forum space along-side his other OOTP league, so that's covered for now. I'll post on that forum about this place, and see what they think.

Thanks!

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:00 am

Well, you should be aware that the Gonegold name belongs to Rich. I know he gave you permission to use it, but then his pulling the plug sort of makes things weird. Anyway, whatever you guys decide is fine.

freelunch · Post by **freelunch** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:02 am

if bandwidth isn't a problem I'm in favor of avatars.

Tareeq · Post by **Tareeq** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:19 am

I doubt BSOOTP will go over that well with the baseball crowd. But who knows? Different strokes for different folks.

warning · Post by **warning** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:31 am

I get the first bizarro-hentai anime avatar! Dibs!

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:46 am

Peace--

Until about four months ago I agreed with you about avatars.

....but seeing freely allowed avatars on a board I frequent based around Cardinals baseball, all I can say is "I'm converted".

It's fun.

It lets you get to know people you thought you knew well...better.

It's a great outlet for creativity (we're some of the biggest lunkheads in the world over there, but I've seen some brilliant avatars that have made me laugh for a long time; I can't imagine what kind of goofy brilliance we'd see here...) Some folks keep the same avatar all the time, others change avatars the way they change their underwear. (and yes, the mods over there have had to ask folks to drop some of their more...outrageous...avatars....)

Obviously not a make or break issue for me, but consider this another person in favor.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:55 am

If we're taking a weigh-in, I prefer the kind that end up on left hand side of the screen and aren't too big. I hate browsing forums for whatever purpose and seeing two lines of content and the equivalent of 200 lines of the same pictures again and again down the page.

I'll probably be in the minority, but it's still how I feel.

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:01 am

Trig, that's sort of become my stance on avatars as well as other things. Take member rankings for example: I don't like promoting snobbery. But they can be fun too, and we may well do them here.

I think one of the keys will be making every one know it's a bout having fun and nothing more. I don't know how the rest of staff are going to feel about Avatars, you understand. But I'm willing to think strongly about allowing them since it's another outlet for the community to be the community (and that's a good thing).

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:02 am

triggercut wrote:Peace--

Until about four months ago I agreed with you about avatars.

....but seeing freely allowed avatars on a board I frequent based around Cardinals baseball, all I can say is "I'm converted".

It's fun.

It lets you get to know people you thought you knew well...better.

It's a great outlet for creativity (we're some of the biggest lunkheads in the world over there, but I've seen some brilliant avatars that have made me laugh for a long time; I can't imagine what kind of goofy brilliance we'd see here...) Some folks keep the same avatar all the time, others change avatars the way they change their underwear. (and yes, the mods over there have had to ask folks to drop some of their more...outrageous...avatars....)

Obviously not a make or break issue for me, but consider this another person in favor.

I'm a flip-flopper myself. After checking out other forums that allow them (just tiny ones on the left), I'm okay with them. I don't think I'll ever come around to liking images in signatures (Tals and hitbyambulance, I'm looking at you!), but tiny avatars under names are okay by me. I'd stipulate out animated gifs and would elevate avatars as "highly moderatable" (a la nicknames, signatures, post titles, etc.) meaning they'd get cracked down on for questionable content moreso than just post images, but I'd be okay with them in general.

I'm fine without them, too, however.

~Neal

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:03 am

I prefer the kind that end up on left hand side of the screen and aren't too big

That's exactly what I'm requesting. I also prefer not to have 200 lines of sig material accompanied by 45 .gif files after each message. Just a simple pic under my name...

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:15 am

Small user-icons beneath a user's name can be valuable. It helps to make individuals distinctive and memorable, adds a bit of their personality. It isn't too much different than doing custom tags on Gone Gold.

As others have said, I am completely against images in sigs, though. It feels like I am driving into Vegas.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:25 am

Blackhawk wrote:Small user-icons beneath a user's name can be valuable. It helps to make individuals distinctive and memorable, adds a bit of their personality. It isn't too much different than doing custom tags on Gone Gold.

As others have said, I am completely against images in sigs, though. It feels like I am driving into Vegas.

Ditto that. I find that it helps me recognize who a particular post belongs to without moving my eyes over to the left and actually, you know, reading the poster's name. In this world of information overload and supreme laziness, small aids like this are big.

Plus, then I can show my true colors and post my Powerpuff Girls icon.

Little Raven · Post by **Little Raven** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:47 am

I don't mind little left-hand side avatars, though I'm perfectly content if they're not allowed. No animated .gifs, though. That moves from 'distinct' to 'distracting.' And pictures in .sigs should never even be considered.

It would be a big change from the GG forums, but then, I guess we're not GG anymore.

triggercut · Post by **triggercut** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:00 am

Little Raven wrote:I don't mind little left-hand side avatars, though I'm perfectly content if they're not allowed. No animated .gifs, though. That moves from 'distinct' to 'distracting.' And pictures in .sigs should never even be considered.

It would be a big change from the GG forums, but then, I guess we're not GG anymore.

You clearly haven't seen the animated .gifs of Mike Martz doing his happy dance (he really *does* look like Mrs. Doubtfire) or the one of Dodger pitcher Jose Lima's wife and her, um, assets, um, "moving".

Pure demented genius.

Exodor · Post by **Exodor** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:10 am

I vote in favor of small, unanimated avatars.

Note that my vote means a whole lot.

Kratz · Post by **Kratz** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:35 am

As long as they aren't animated... god those are annoying... the problem is enforcing non-animation w/o it being a hassle for the mods... or maybe it won't be a big deal.

I visit a board where everyone has animated ones and it makes my eyes bleed.

MHS · Post by **MHS** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:37 am

Yeah, Kayla is an admin on one of those sites and it's just ridiculous.... 17 lines of blinking crap and a one line post, mostly made up of smilies and "lolz".

Egads.

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:41 am

If we're adult enough to handle an R&P forum as everyone says, then I believe that enforcement of a non-animated avatar rule would not be difficult. 90-95% of us would comply without a second thought.

The rest can be fed to the octopi overlords.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:44 am

FWIW I like avatars. Even animated ones. I don't like images in sigs, though.

rrmorton · Post by **rrmorton** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:31 pm

I've never tried avatars but my wife has fun with them on her Mommy forum.

I change my windows wallpaper as often as I change my underwear (every third day) and I imagine avatars would be similarly fun to mess around with.

I'd even be up for animated because this cracks me up:

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:37 pm

Tareeq wrote:I doubt BSOOTP will go over that well with the baseball crowd. But who knows? Different strokes for different folks.

What about OOOOTP? Who doesn't like that?

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:29 pm

I don't mind avatars and pics in sigs so long as they are small and non-animated.

Let me re-iterate: SMALL.

Once you reach the point where you have more sig than content, things have gone too far.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:31 pm

My vote would be for NO avatars. I mostly check boards when I'm at work. It's one thing for my boss to see me on a clean bulletin board, it could be work related. It's another for him to be walking by and seeing a whole bunch of cartoons/pictures/gifs being used as avatars on my computer, it definitely shows him that it's a frivolous thing.

But, if you do guys do allow them, could you please impose a limit on it's size? Thanks.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:33 pm

I've seen the limits in both dimensions *and* in kB. I think it'd be wise for us to limit both of those.

~Neal

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:43 pm

The Meal wrote:I've seen the limits in both dimensions *and* in kB. I think it'd be wise for us to limit both of those.

~Neal

Yea, I think there also may be a way to allow user to chose not to see, or download them. For the poor dialup users.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:45 pm

Rip wrote:
The Meal wrote:I've seen the limits in both dimensions *and* in kB. I think it'd be wise for us to limit both of those.

~Neal
Yea, I think there also may be a way to allow user to chose not to see, or download them. For the poor dialup users.

Yes, please.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:50 pm

Rip wrote:
The Meal wrote:I've seen the limits in both dimensions *and* in kB. I think it'd be wise for us to limit both of those.

~Neal
Yea, I think there also may be a way to allow user to chose not to see, or download them. For the poor dialup users.

Oh, that's *perfect*, assuming it doesn't break anything else.

~Neal

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:15 pm

Yea, I think there also may be a way to allow user to chose not to see, or download them. For the poor dialup users.

If that's not an inconvenience, I would appreciate that as well. Though my work doesn't care, as I get paid to do a job and not by the hour. They still don't appreciate me advertising my habbits.

Koz · Post by **Koz** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:24 pm

The less noise the better for me. I have to say I really don't like avatars but if they're allowed, I'd say as small and unanimated as possible. An option to just turn them off would be ideal (best of both worlds).

Odin · Post by **Odin** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:27 pm

It sounds like I'm in the minority, but I hate forum avatars. I ESPECIALLY hate them when they're huge, or when they're in people's sigs, but I pretty much hate them all the time.

If everybody else feels strongly that we need them, then I could live with the small, somewhat-unobtrusive ones. But I'd prefer it without FWIW.

Sith

Peacedog · Post by **Peacedog** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:38 pm

Well, we're definately going to explore the "can we let people opt out?" option fully. And I highly doubt there will be sig based ones in any form.

ChrisGrenard · Post by **ChrisGrenard** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:49 pm

Put me in for loving avatars beneath the user name. But like others, definitally a NO on the sig thing.

Hell, I'm in favor of an ammendment that limits sigs to 4 lines or less!!!

But again... avatars beneath sigs = A+ in my book.

hitbyambulance · Post by **hitbyambulance** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:21 pm

i hate images in sigs too, whatchu talkin bout!
(the xfire status was just an experiment on the temporary board)

Gromit · Post by **Gromit** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:26 pm

Uh-huh.

knob · Post by **knob** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:58 pm

I don't mind avatars as long as they don't distort the size of the column or whatever you want to call it.

Animated or not animated, I don't care.

But I do have to say I liked the simple look of GG. So continuing the "No Sig" thing sounds good to me.