This is my concern, too. Would FTers be able to add avatars or photos or graphics to signatures or profiles that would be repeated every time they post?

Also, and I apologize that I didn't get to look in on the test forums, why is there a need for this? I see photos embedded in Trip Reports. Is this simply an expansion of that concept to other forums?

My feeling is that FT is a very clean and uncluttered IBB compared to most, and this is one of the reasons I like it so much. I would be wary of changing that on a large scale.

This motion does not extend to signatures or avatars on every post.

In the "test" hotel forums, posters have used photos (a picture is worth a thousand words) rather than describe the lobby, room, etc at a new or newly renovated hotel, etc. In airline forums, I see this useful for new seat discussions, lounge renovations, etc. See, for example, this thread where some people just aren't sure what the "table" is until a photo is posted. This motion would enable the photo to show-up in the thread rather than requiring you to click the link.

Yes, this is simply an expansion of that beta test, which took place (if I recall correctly) in Luxury Hotels, Starwood, CommunityBuzz and Trip Reports. Travel photography also allows imbeded static images.

This proposal allows all forums except the OMNI brothers to have the same ability.

It is drawn as broadly as possible to give moderators maximum discretion to enforce the TOS as it relates to images. But moderators from the beta test reported somewhere between few and zero problems with allowing images. Images were generally on-topic, met decency standards, added to the context of the post and allowed a poster to 'speak a thousand words' with a single image. So, to answer sccow's question, yeah the idea is FT-wide rollout in all forums and hopefully moderators will never need to exercise that discretion. But if they get a bunch or RBPs over images, there will be no limit on the tools available to address that (hopefully unlikely) situation.

I agree with you: I love the uncluttered look and feel of FT and so I hope the moderators DO use their broad discretion in keeping images in strict adherence with the TOS. In fact, the ONLY guidance we propose giving here is to keep the images static, and that was precisely to keep the distractions to a minimum.

I would recommend that you have:

• A maximum image-size parameter, to keep threads readable.
• A post-count threshold for posting images (even a low one like after 25 posts) to keep fly-by spammers, trolls, and sock-puppets from posting inappropriate or off-topic images.
• No ability whatsoever to put images in a signature.

Just my $0.02.

peace,
~Ben~

Dave, with all due respect (and I do usually agree with your opinions). The wording of the motion is allowed in ALL forums. This is basically the same as "required" to be allowed in ALL forums - no option to "opt out". Perhaps, GLBT is a bit unique in this respect - but there is a big temptation for "inappropriate pictures" to be posted whether or not intentionally. Even links to external sites do present a problem since many links are to sites which contain inappropriate images in them somewhere (sometimes buried). I estimate that we have to edit out 20% or so of links to external sites.

I fully support images for the "core forums" (airlines, hotels, car rentals - and please note that Hotel and Car Rental are my other 2 mod assignments). But there are potentially lots of problems in the "other" forums. Aside from GLBT - what about Trip Reports or a Regional forum which shows "native" people who are topless?

I hear and appreciate what you are saying, but my personal preference is to treat all forums equally out of the box. Trust everyone to use the new image embedding feature responsibly and take action only if that trust is broken.

I certainly am NOT comfortable singling out any particular group/forum as 'not responsible enough' (or whatever) to be given an opportunity to allow images...heck I'm not pleased to have to treat the OMNIs as redheaded step-kids, but do that just to appease the Omni-haters ;). Of course, if abuses run rampant in the forum you moderate (or any other particular forum) then the moderators of that forum would and could take action up to and including turning off images.

As noted several times, embedded photos have been allowed on 5 forums for many months. Moderators of those forums have reported few problems and users of those forums report excellent benefits.

And if the worst happens and widespread abuses and problems occur and moderators are overwhelmed with RBPs because of photos this decision can be reversed. Maybe I'm being naively optimistic, but based on the beta test I honestly don't see that happening.

Trip reports has had images enabled for a long time (pre-dating the current forum trial IIRC). Even though I have that option off in my settings, I am active in the TR forum and not aware of any such issues.

It is absurd to allow moderators to have any say whatever in whether static images appear in "their" Forum.

Mods change regualrly.

What if mod X allows them, moves on, and mod Y hates them and all threads are immediately sans images.

Ridicuous. Will ruin 100s of threads there in a keystoke

Either FT allows images or it does not.

Mods have no say. They remove offensive or animated ones is all.

Next we will have Mods or members saying "can the text colour GREEN be disabled in forum X as it hurts my eyes.

Or - "I do like the Verdana font .. I am turning it off in my forum"

Live with it.

Same with the photos if they are voted in.

TB decision not a mod one.

I was trying to be more diplomatic with my posts, but this is essentially what I was trying to get at, too. It's no more "their forum" than it is "my forum."

Rich - and I stress it is not a criticism of Moderation which of course is not allowed. ;)

It is a simple statement that Forum Mods should have no more control over any FT wide feature like photos, (if this is approved) than they do over fonts or ads or the search engine etc.

As Randy has posted 1000 times -- "mods are just regular FT members like y'all." ;)

Glen
.

I totally agree with Rich and Glen on this one as I indicated earlier...

However, I am concerned that two different Talkboard members have posted in this thread... one TB member saying there is no moderator discretion and another TB member saying moderators have full discretion. SO, which opinion is being voted on in this motion?

William unless the rules have changed from your days and my days there on TB, the motion makes no mention of Mod discretion, and is purely a vote as to whether TB feels images should be widespread (less OMNI) .. or not.



As TB has no control over Mod discretion or actions, I guess it is Randy's call if this motion passes, as to the fine tuning on the other issues.

If Peteropny says it will be a nightmare in the GLBT forum he moderates it may well be that Randy approves a Mod sticky there warning anyone abusing the new deal MAY see Admin - on the advice or Forum mods, remove it for all.

The Gay community is very savvy, and I BET the other members there would self police it faster than any Mod, if some jackass crossed any line?

I will point out to some posting earlier that .gif images do NOT mean they need to be animated. They are simply a static image saved as a gif and not a jpeg.

If the motion approves STATIC images .. anyone posting moving gifs does not comply with the TOS I'd guess.

This is a static GIF file:

http://www.glenstephens.com/crown3.gif

And this is a non static one that I like using a lot on the board I run, and sums up whether I feel images are a plus or a minus. ;)

http://www.glenstephens.com/postpics.gif

I imagine if the motion passes, GIF #1 will be fine here, and Gif #2 will not be. :)

Glen
.

I endorse Mr Glen Stephens as an expert witness to this TB motion.


;)

(I entirely agree with Glen and preceding Fters that the motion right now is for allowing images to be included in all non-OMNI forums. Aye or nay!)

I would say that the motion as written has no ability to provide discretion to moderators as to whether to allow images or not.

However, that discretion is granted to moderators in the TOS and the TOS tend to be the ultimate FT rules.

So while the TB motion may allow images in all forums, mods could use their TOS-granted discretion to request that images not be allowed within their forum - just as they can with any TB motion (this comes into the 'you can't make someone do what they really don't want to do' part of life - that's a statement of fact generally before anyone gets upset by it ;)), but they will likely need to make a case to justify it.

this is one motion I wish had been posted for public discussion before it was seconded - it's clear that it could have been improved by more input from both mods and members (I think peteropny makes a really strong case for why GLBT should have been excluded, and one which is pretty inarguable for example). Personally, and from my experience in Cbuzz trial, I'd have included a size restriction as well - it's a shame to have to delete otherwise perfectly acceptable images simply because they are too big and causing the page to render badly - and now to do that in the future, I'll have to use mod discretion. Similarly, we know that too many images in a thread can cause the loading of that thread to slow down (cf past discussions in which I timed thread loading with images on and off), so guidance as to acceptable numbers of images could have been beneficial - and now, again, must be left entirely up to mod discretion to work out.

Jenbel, would you mind quoting the specific provision of the TOS which allows moderators to decide what functions provided by FT may be used in their forums?

I do know that mods have discretion concerning the content of posts (or pix) but can find nothing which allows them to ban a tool. A mod, for example, can not say that someone who posts on his forum is forbidden to have any signature or may not use the profile function.