Originally Posted by
wharvey
I would be against this motion. Why are the posters who frequent the "Special Interest Forums" being discriminated against in this motion? They are the same people who visit other forums... if they can be trusted (or expected to follow the TOS in other forums) why should the same expectation not be held in the Special Interest Forums? I could imagine where pictures could be valuable to enhance an experience in Travel with Pets or Religious Travelers or even GLBT travel.
I also do not favor any motion that encourages post padding... I can only imagine the first 20 posts of some members who want to post images.
While I tend to agree with you, WH, sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough. There were some concerns expressed about rolling out to ALL forums, and much talk about limiting the images to 'core' forums 'for now.'
This is a compromise.
And I do hope that everyone gets comfortable with the feature and it is used productively such that a full FT-wide implementation eventually happens.
Bobster: I actually wanted to create a specific maximum size, but the moderators asked for more wiggle room (I guess they didn't want to have to get their rulers out every time someone embedded an image
). Thus the language you see: encouraging small but allowing big up to the discretion of the forum moderator as to what he or she considers to be 'overbearing.'