If they require setting up a committee to approve them, they are too difficult to police. Doesn't matter whether moderators have to be involved or not.

If there are people who want avatar photos, and those same people are willing to do all of the work involved in policing them, then obviously it is not too much work in their opinions.

We are a big board that spans many coountries and generations. We should to our best to satisfy them all. If we can easily have different looks that make different groups happy, then that is what is in the best interest of FT.

Are you volunteering to organize the photos in the existing Gallery? I don't think any approvals or votes are required for that.

I would be happy to do that if that turns out to be what is needed and somebody teaches me how.

All of the ideas that people have presented so far are good. Now we just need to see which ones get through the pipeline.

Let's just put this into perspective. I have gone back through the thread and here is how the vote would look for avatars based on input here:

Against avatars:
Prospero
AJLondon
NickB
KiwiFlyer
Obscure2K
Jenbel
Mary2E
birdstrike (flags OK)
jfe
bhatnasx (flags OK)
squeakr
essxjay
ILeftMyHeartInTexas
redbeard911 (flags OK)
uncertaintraveler
lucky9876coins (flags OK)
Cholula (flags OK)
Abby
nsx
CameraGuy
Randy Petersen
BoyAreMyArmsTired
RichMSN
ClueByFour
Obscure2K

For photo avatars:
Punki
J-M

For any type of avatar
alanw
nroscoe


If I have you in the wrong group, please post and I will correct the list.


What you describe as a small group of folks actually turns out to be a very large majority and regardless of their reasons for being against the avatars, against them they are. As a new Talkboard member, I would hope you would recognize this fact. I wonder, if the numbers were reversed, would you still be referring to them as a small group.

In fairness, f4freeJnr (and apologies if his handle isn't quite right, I didn't go and check it so any error is mine ) was also in favour of avatars in the election thread.

But I tend to agree with your general point - that the vast majority of people chiming in on this one have been against pictorial avatars.

Please place me in the group that is FIRMLY against Avatars. This is a VERY bad idea.

Plant me also firmly against.

Yesterday I was browsing another board that allows avatars. Out of the corner of my eye I saw something moving under the username.

I looked more closely and it was a moving avatar. It started out as a normal picture and then changed to 2 people having sex.

And this was on a normal general interest board about reality programming with no threads/topics remotely related to sex.

We do not need something like this at all. And you can be sure someone on FT will figure out how to do it.

But was it for avatars in general, or did he just refer to an "I voted" avatar specifically during TB elections, with which I would have no qualms?

It was for avatars in general.

Let's clarify something: I am not in favor of "photo avatars". I don't want my photo under my username. I am in favor of putting whatever the hell I want under my username that lets me express myself. People who don't want to see avatars can turn them off. There is absolutely no justification for the hand-wringing and bizarre what-if worst cases being trotted out. None.

{Comment removed by Moderator, due to being personal and off topic}

I have corrected the list. I guess I should add a list for those in favor of only flag avatars, too.

The thing with allowing photo avatars or allowing any type of avatar is, even though you can allow the ability to turn them off, you will still need to police them, either by reviewing them before allowing them at all or by moderating them afterwards. As Jenbel has already pointed out, that would force all moderators into having to view them. I think it is unfair to suggest that any moderators that don't want this added to their already substantial duties should step down.

{Comment removed by Moderator, due to being personal and off topic}

I'd like a better selection of smilies but nothing animated.

I agree with alanw. I'm a moderator, and I would choose not to view avatars. There's no problem with this. If someone contacted me saying they thought an avatar was questionable, I'd look at it, then go back to not looking at them. Suggesting that moderators would have to look at all avatars all the time only works if we also suggest that all moderators have to read all posts in their forums.

ETA: and before I get added to a poll in which I haven't participated, I'm NOT in favour of avatars. Far from it. But I am in favour of members having the option to have an avatar, providing other users have the option of not viewing them. I would further suggest that the default setting is not to view avatars - so that they wouldn't be visible to lurkers or people viewing FT without logging in.

As for the smilies, I rather like the expanded set over at SlickDeals.net.

I do wonder about how a committee would actually work in practice within the bounds and restrictions of FT:

How would an observer know if an avatar had been approved or if the person had just uploaded it?
What if someone with a previously approved avatar decided to change it - would they have to get it approved?
What if someone with a previously approved avatar decided to photoshop it?
What if a mod sees something in an avatar that they consider a breach of the TOS, but which the committee has already approved?
How does anyone know that the avatar being submitted is of the person submitting? What's to stop member A submitting an avatar of member B if no-one on the approval committee knows either of them?