| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 57799 | 2005-05-13 03:49:00 | why dont we have sigs and avatars? | harvesterofsorrow (6955) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 354669 | 2005-07-19 00:49:00 | Oh look, its sunny outside...... if thats not dropping a subtle hint, I dont know what is!? |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 354670 | 2005-07-19 00:54:00 | While I think some users have a point with whats been said (vapo & wmoore) I can also agree that I personally have better things to do than to sit down and approve 5,000 odd Avatars. I understand the frustration of many folks over not having access to Avatars, and yes, I'm sure 95% of people wouldn't abuse it. But unfortunately we have a track record of 1] Occaisional idiots 2] ***** fights between old hands Avatars open up too much temptation to both groups to be offensive. I would much rather allow avatars - they're fun, they allow a bit of character and they don't add significantly to download times -- but I'm just not confident that it would not open up a can of worms. And quite apart from what is obviously offensive, there is the much bigger grey area of what some people MIGHT find offensive. Do we allow anything of a politcal nature in an avatar? Do we allow vague sexual refences in an avatar? Religious comments? When does something cease to be tongue in cheek and become over the top? Images can be taken as offensive far more easily than words (strange, but true). Given that we have what many already consider to be harsh rules of (attempted) behaviour, while others consider either those rules or the enforcing of them to be entirely TOO slack, avatars would just become a major minefield. I might be wrong on all this, but so far I don't think I am. |
Biggles (121) | ||
| 354671 | 2005-07-19 00:58:00 | Personally I have no problem with impersonation, it'd be hard to try and be as perfect as I am ;) Not a truer word spoken Chill. You might like to qualify your state of perfection though Chill. Examples: Perfect gentleman, perfect specimen, perfect idiot :p |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 354672 | 2005-07-19 00:58:00 | has anyone got a school timetable to check when original thread was started? Coinciding with the last lot of holiday's?.. I can't talk i'm on school holidays with the kids :( |
plod (107) | ||
| 354673 | 2005-07-19 01:01:00 | For me, it's pretty much right as it is BB. | Murray P (44) | ||
| 354674 | 2005-07-19 01:03:00 | Dear Bruce Buckman: I think you have a really special bully-pulpit on which to speak here, and it is well needed and warranted too. This site is so INTERNATIONAL in scope, that I am very sure that SOMEONE would be insulted by anything that might be locally considered non-volatile. Stick to your guns and stay away from personal icons/avatars and such...I am happy with what I got. If I didn't like it, I'd go somewhere else <no comment Mr Metla!> now..about the spell-checker thing........ <gads, I love colors> |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 354675 | 2005-07-19 01:03:00 | Storm,teacup,Meh. SurferJoe,is that some weird attempt at baiting or do you have a fetish of some kind? |
Metla (12) | ||
| 354676 | 2005-07-19 04:13:00 | Perhaps we can have a button to report "bad avatar", just like "report bad post"? Or PF1 could provide us a selection of avatar to use instead? | Renmoo (66) | ||
| 354677 | 2005-07-19 04:43:00 | I was gonna let this ride, but thought ah what the heck.... As far as avatars and picture siggys are concerned... yeah they look good, and can be quite good to have something personalised but since this is a forum with not just adults, but also younger members (I think I saw one member turned 10 recently) avatars/sigs also have the potential to offend. As we have seen from earlier in this post, there are some [now] ex members who could ruin it for the rest by posting some not-in-the-best-taste avatars/sigs, just because they can, and its (apparently) fun, and all the rest of it. Normally I don't live in the what-ifs, but if I found out my kid was hanging in a forum where porn etc was being used in avatars/sigs I for one would be #$@*ed off, not just at the kid, but also the mods. But then ... if that happened, I would have to shoulder some of the blame as well. Not every parent cares what there kids get up to online though. There are some forums that allow there members a limited selection of avatars... if that happened here.. sweet ... if not... its all good. Now ... I see the occassional dig at certain members in here and the fact certain members use the middle finger (among other things) to make a point.... I'm not one of this persons cronies... but some people are so ana**y-retentive they need more than the middle finger. Alas however, it takes all kinds to make a forum Can't all be the same, it would be too boring :) |
Myth (110) | ||
| 354678 | 2005-07-19 04:56:00 | Again,storm,teacup,meh. If avatars were allowed that wouldn't give the green light to porn, thats not allowed and never will be.I don't see any troll posting links to porn or objectionable pictures, The place is in no danger of going downhill if tiny pictures besides our names were enabled. As it is,we have an answer, I can't see how it matters or why the debate rages on...... |
Metla (12) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | |||||