What's the ETA on those avatars?

[vynsane]

FYI, i read the entire thread before posting. this ain't my first time at the rodeo. i just don't understand the nearly tyrannical anti-avatar stance.

in response to this:

this will NEVER happen. i'd rather have no avatars than have a bunch of crappy looking ones of hand drawn images, photos, or animated gifs of varying sizes that are painful to look at. even when we had rules and guidelines on the previous boards and let people use their own avatars, people just conveniently ignored them.

i can only say, as the administrator of my own PHPBB 3.x board, i know for a fact that you can set minimum and maximum dimensions for avatars - set them at the same value and it HAS to conform to that value. it also has file size limits - make it 5kb and it would reduce the amount of animation you could put in a gif file, if any. when members ignore guidelines as to content/decency THEN is the time to dole out punishments, not to blanket punish everyone preemptively. innocent before proven guilty and all that. i guess it's your forum and you can run it how you like, but it will seriously impact the enjoyment users garner from their time here. avatars have become a sort of staple of forum/community interaction. the above comes off as rather childish and anal-retentive.

...why don't you allow users to design avatars for consideration as additions to the avatar gallery? they could be vetted by staff and let the gallery grow organically. but that's just my $.02.

Allow them?

to answer your sort-of question, maybe 'allow' isn't the proper term. more like 'invite' - so invite members of the site to submit avatars they've designed to a specified email address or via PM and the moderators/admins of the site can then approve or deny their addition to the avatar gallery. you won't rely on one person who may or may not be able to fulfill their promise, as has apparently happened, and you can still have power over which avatars are available. it will also give a little more sense of community and ownership to the members of the board. we're not all mindless peons who use MSPaint to create a barely legible scrawl of a classic space logo, or slap together the most hideously seizure-inducing animated gif... some of us happen to be highly trained graphic designers/web designers, or autoCAD programmers or artists: utilize the strengths of your community.

that said, the rather abhorrent and gruff attitude shown toward discussing something as innocuous as forum avatar settings really kinda turns me off. as a relative newcomer to the site i represent a few more impressions on the ads than you used to receive. FWIW, this kind of attitude, however, will seriously affect those impressions in the future as i go to other sites for my news and online interactions in regards to LEGO products.

[Solo]

Turk: you're not helping anything with comments like that.

i just don't understand the nearly tyrannical anti-avatar stance.

It's very simple case of personal preference. Ace doesn't want them, Ace owns the site, so the site doesn't have them. This has been answered already in the thread - but you asked again - so Draykov highlighted where it had been answered. He was neither abhorrent nor gruff in his response. You're making an issue out of nothing, and essentially threatening to badmouth the site elsewhere because of a disagreement over the lack of avatars.

[Draykov]

FYI, i read the entire thread before posting. this ain't my first time at the rodeo.

That's good to know...because it didn't seem that way. I'm not seeing anything tyrannical and I don't really see anything that's particularly difficult to understand. The owner of the site wants it handled a particular way. So far, the stars have not aligned to accommodate that. Simple as that.

that said, the rather abhorrent and gruff attitude shown toward discussing something as innocuous as forum avatar settings really kinda turns me off.

Again, I'm not really seeing what you're seeing. The general populous has been interested in avatars for a long time. Some of them have been particularly annoying about it and seem to have quite the sense of entitlement on the issue. Combine this with frustrating behind the scenes situations, and I can see why the default answer has become "you'll get 'em when you get 'em."

as a relative newcomer to the site i represent a few more impressions on the ads than you used to receive. FWIW, this kind of attitude, however, will seriously affect those impressions in the future as i go to other sites for my news and online interactions in regards to LEGO products.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Maybe my perspective is skewed, but the tone is kind of threatening. If you're genuinely disappointed in the way the site is run, well, I guess that saddens me on some level. However, I don't think something as "innocuous as forum avatar settings" is going to tear the community apart one way or the other.

[Joedward]

Perhaps an odd observation, who knows, but just wondering if anyone else shares my view.

Is it just me, or does anyone else just completely forget about the issue until some clot drags this thread back again? Sure, it'd be nice to have them, but it doesn't really detract from the forum, not having them.

And for what it's worth to all those who have a problem with not being able to make your own, just go and have a look through, not just the old forum, but any forum that allows user submitted avatars. For every one that was created brilliantly, and is nice to look at, there are countless more that just plain suck.
It just seems nicer when there's a more uniform feel around the place.

So for the time being, why does it really matter? We can't have our own. Period. And as for when we'll actually get them from whoever ios creating them (if at all)... They'll be done when they're done.


And lastly, @ RocketClone, honestly, what was the point of bringing this back after two months dead?

[Draykov]

And lastly, @ RocketClone, honestly, what was the point of bringing this back after two months dead?

We're cutting RC some slack. That was old RocketClone. He's since moved into the leaf-turning business.

[Robzula]

For every one that was created brilliantly, and is nice to look at, there are countless more that just plain suck.
It just seems nicer when there's a more uniform feel around the place.

Avatars aren't meant to be works of art for other people to look at and critic. They're a representation of the user. If they're all uniform, there's no individuality and no point to them. If they look bad, it's because that's what the user wants.

Honestly, I can see not wanting avatars because of the varying size, animations, and questionable material (although that's all easily fixed), not allowing them because you don't like someone else's representation of themself is, as vynsane said, pretty tyrannical.

[Turkguy19]

Avatars aren't meant to be works of art for other people to look at and critic. They're a representation of the user. If they're all uniform, there's no individuality and no point to them. If they look bad, it's because that's what the user wants.

There is also a thing called a signature that does the same thing. The staff doesn't put a control on the sigs (except for size), so your individuality can go there.

[theJudeAbides]

Thank you Robzula, I was about to post something to the same effect.

Avatars, by their very definition, are meant to be an expression of our individuality. It isn't really a coincidence that the people with obnoxious flashing avatars often make obnoxious posts, that people with sloppy looking avatars posts' are often riddled with spelling/grammitical errors, or that people with nice looking avatar's tend to be more articulate.

When I look at a forum with a wide variety of avatars, I see a community of unique people that, despite their obvious differences, have come together to share in a common interest. Variety and individuality is the spice of life. I can understand the desire to censor inappropriate or overly obnoxious avatars, but stifling peoples' creativity and/or forcing them to conform to some pre-set list of avatars doesn't really seem like the answer to me. I'm all for size and content limitations so long as you still allow for the freedom of expression of one's individuality.

There's a pretty obvious comparison that I'm intentionally avoiding here because it isn't the tone I wish to set. The intended tone is thus: while I would like avatars and certainly think they would be a boon to the community, it's not like I view them as something that is necessary or "a right."

[bigospedros]

i don't miss having avatars at all ...

[Solo]

Turk made a very valid point that completely negates the anti-individual angle on the avatar stance: the signature field does the job of avatars and does it better by allowing you to express your uniqueness by way of image, text, links, or any combination of them. Has this not occurred to anyone who desperately wants an avatar and is feeling particularly oppressed by the forum wide decision?

What is the real issue here? Is it about the placement of your personal image on the page? Does it absolutely need to be next to your comments and not below? Or maybe one image isn't enough for you to express yourself? It was a design choice, and like many others on the site (button style, emoticons, layout, fonts in the banners, background images...) it's not up to the members. We have plans for them as explained repeatedly but for now they will remain absent.

You don't have to like it but you have to understand that complaining about it over and over is fruitless. If this minor aspect of the interface is a deal-breaker for you, or you think that our exasperated responses to the same inane issue over and over are too off putting, you are free to log out and find a forum who's own brand of tyranny meshes better with your opinion of how one should be run.

[theJudeAbides]

I think I know how next year's April Fools Day is gonna go down:

Admin Announcement: Hey, guess what, you can now have whatever avatars you like!!
Us:

Mods: April Fools, suckas, gotcha!!
Others:
Me: Called It!

[Draykov]

Me: Called It!

That was actually my suggestion for this year.

[Jabba the Taff]

Turk made a very valid point that completely negates the anti-individual angle on the avatar stance: the signature field does the job of avatars and does it better by allowing you to express your uniqueness by way of image, text, links, or any combination of them. Has this not occurred to anyone who desperately wants an avatar and is feeling particularly oppressed by the forum wide decision?

I said this way back on pg 1 in the middle of last year! (Sorry, it's not often I make such a succinct and useful point. I need to bask!) But the dragging up of this thread does suggest some people NEED avatars to validate their existence. People get over yourselves. Maybe worry about having continual original thoughts, and not one moment of inspiration of self-branding.

If they happen great, if not... hey... what's this a pencil and some paper? ... why I think I might draw something... there, lovely... now, what else can I draw?......

[vynsane]

okay, last post here - everyone has brought up thoughtful, articulate points since my last post and i understand all points of view here. it merely struck me as odd that avatars are such a divisive issue, but i see where everyone is coming from.

and i didn't meant to come off as threatening - the responses i initially received were rather curt, and didn't feel welcoming to someone who is new. i figured it was a good idea to remind people that at the end of the day new and repeat traffic is what keeps sites like this on the web, and when people are met with answers that i initially received, it's off-putting. i merely wanted to point out that i would take my business elsewhere if that was the standard type of response to things, not that i would dare to bad-mouth any other site - that's just not me, though no one would know that, so i can see where that assessment came from.

when i first signed up i was looking to upload my avatar and saw it was disabled and thought "huh... that's weird..." because it's kind of a standard thing at this point, but that was the full extent of it. then i happened upon this thread and thought i'd measure in with my feelings on the matter as a relative outsider opinion.

i thank everyone for their thoughts and explanations on the matter, and find this brand of tyranny right up my alley

as for signature line images, i've always abhorred them, myself. most of the boards i've frequented in the past have had stringent regulations on sig lines, more lax on the avatars. diff'rent strokes, i guess.

that said, i think if you don't want anyone else posting in this thread, it's probably a good idea to close it. although, from the sound of it, there will just be another thread opened down the line asking about it again.

[Draykov]

I don't think the actual intent has ever been to "silence the oppressed." Rather than silence, just a little more understanding and a lot more patience.

For my part, I apologize if my initial response to your query came off as curt. This is generally considered to be a dead-horse issue that's usually only brought to the surface when people want to do a little b'n and m'n. I was convinced that you had missed the explanation of Ace/Onions as to his motives. I am protective of our founder given that he can pull the plug on the whole thing if the mood strikes him.

[onions]

i don't think it's necessary to close the thread as it will still generate some interesting conversation as evidenced by the latest round of posts. and its kind of funny in a way. i think joedward made a pretty good point about how the issue will be forgotten until it's inevitably resurrected for the umpteenth time.

i do have one issue:

Honestly, I can see not wanting avatars because of the varying size, animations, and questionable material (although that's all easily fixed), not allowing them because you don't like someone else's representation of themself is, as vynsane said, pretty tyrannical.

as explained in other posts, this is not the reason there are no user submitted avatars. i just wanted to make that clear.