Originally Posted by
Punki
IMHO, Jenbel, all decisions we make should be based on how they affect the community, not on how they affect us personally.
Decisions that affect one's ability to moderate effectively are not reducible to mere personal preference. Effective moderation requires time -- loads of it, actually. Decisions that affect what a moderator must attend to must also take in account that a moderator's time is not a bottomless well. Additional work -- or community enhancements, if you like -- means that either some things we'll have to let slide or additional moderators will be needed. Training new mods also takes time. The bottom line is that a cost will be incurred no matter how incidental a proposed change seems on the face of it.
Originally Posted by
Punki
If having pictures of community members would enhance the community, then we should [...]
Let's make sure the antecedent notion is a truly desirable before fussing so much over the consequent. The burden now to show is how (even optional) mug shots under posters' handles are an enhancement to our community.
Originally Posted by
Punki
-Visual clutter can be overcome with an on/off switch.
As long as
all members are entitled to exercise this option at their discretion ...
Originally Posted by
Punki
-Those members intent on mischief, will always find a way to create it. That is why we have moderators.
I hope there's no failure to appreciate the adversarial position that sometimes puts mods in.
Originally Posted by
Punki
-It is the responsibility of all of us who wish to serve the community to do so freely, not to balk because we don't like a certain aspect of our job. If there is a moderator who can't bear looking at smilies, avatars, or flags, if we should decide to use them, it would probably be in the best interest of FT if that person resigned and was replaced by a another who had no such reservations.
What precisely is the proposal about smilies (and avs and flags) options then? Are they discretionary viewing for general members but not for mods?
Originally Posted by
Punki
-A head shot photo, is a head shot photo. We all have them on our driver's license and passports.
Then is the suggestion that, to avoid problems of subjectivity, head shots posted on FT are restricted to those issued on ones DLs and passports, or as close to that standard as possible? Somehow, I don't think there'll be universal agreement about what an acceptable head is, even among reasonable people (who, as we all know, can have reasonable disagreements).
Originally Posted by
Punki
All to the good of FlyerTalk.
An ideal standard, but often vaguely rendered in reality.
Originally Posted by
uncertaintraveler
Isn't there already a place on FT where people can post pictures of themselves---if they would like to do so---so that others can put a face with a (user)name? How would adding avatars add to what already exists?
Yes, there is! The Flyertalk Gallery was instituted precisely for the purpose of setting face to handle in an unobtrusive way. Let's bring it back! Excellent project for the right person(s).
Originally Posted by
Punki
If, for instance, it was decided that all TalkBoard members were required to show a photo avatar, and I decided that I didn't want to do that, then my best choice would be to resign and give way to someone who had no such reservation.
Big if. Why don't we wait until the TB passes such a motion before applying the analogy to the moderation team?
Originally Posted by
Punki
You are correct that there is a FlyerTalk photo gallery, but it is very poorly organized and does not serve the purpose of identifying individual members. We did have such a photo gallery way back in the very beginning of FlyerTalk and it may even have been alphabetical, but if those photos still exist I can't find them.
The Photo Gallery is under the Extras menu located at the top of every FT page. Here's the link:
http://gallery.flyertalk.com/gallery/
It includes the "old picture gallery" you are looking for, as evidenced by the 4th item down on Page One,
... which displays a photo thusly captioned: "Wingless, Gisela, and Rudi at the Halekulani during the PIP 1999 (Viewed: 47 times.)" Also, the old Members Gallery was rolled into that. A simple search on "Punki" or "essxjay" will reveal the mugs shots each posted back in 1998. IIRC, the explicit purpose for the Member's Gallery was because "it would be great to have [a] photo gallery where each member had the option of posting a photo of him or herself for purposes identification purposes." If now you want it alphabetized or better organized, that's simple enough to achieve.
And rather than let this near-decade old gem languish, why not resurrect and polish it up a bit? If the standard is to be "All to the good of Flyertalk," then would such a project not be a contribution to that end? Asking technical questions about how to achieve this is certainly allowed (in the Techincal Issues forum).
If you really want to show FTers what you look like, you can put the link to the photo gallery in your sig or profile, can't you?
Yes, you can.
Originally Posted by
alanw
You guys understand that avatars aren't mandatory, right? Because all the arguments against them seem to assume that you have to put one on your profile.
It isn't required.
Understood,
alan.
So far, avs, sigs and smilies are not mandatory to use or view, and vB indeed has separate viewing options built in for each item. But a TB member has implied that for certain members, the built in options should not be optional!