Why is the use of avatars not allowed on the JCF? [Archive]

Trafton

Oct 12, 2004, 03:18 PM

This has probably been brought up in this forum more than any other topic. It's not going to happen. I encourage you to look back at this forum for more information. I'm not sure the administrators ever posted an opinion, but it has been debated in #jj2, and their opinion is fairly clear.

Iam Canadian

Oct 12, 2004, 03:54 PM

My personal opinion is that if we had text-only signatures and avatars, the board would arguably load faster. After all, a lot of users have signatures with large images (yes, I am included in that vague generalization) that are at least bigger than your average signature image. Just keep the avatar size limit small (60x60 pixels or something) and there shouldn't be any problems. I have a few good avatar worthy images.

Coppertop

Oct 12, 2004, 05:33 PM

It's not just the size I oppose, it's the fact that some avatars are, well, ugly and eye-hurting.

Monolith

Oct 12, 2004, 06:12 PM

That thread I posted above pretty much covers all the pros and cons of avatars. It does lack any sort of final statement by the administration, but lets try to keep the subject to the thread that already has more details in it.

Hazel-rah

Oct 12, 2004, 08:14 PM

I don't care about what the users say... I want to hear Fquist, Derby, Link, and any other italic bold people.

Link

Oct 12, 2004, 09:10 PM

I don't think the administration has ever actually formalized an opinion on avatars. I've stated my opinion in the topic Monolith cited, in addition to Disguise and Fquist.

If avatars are uploaded to the JCF, they would use extra bandwidth. This would be negligible though. A maximum 2KB uploaded avatar combined with a signature reduction to 500 bytes would result in a net gain of 500 bytes maximum per user (the current signature limit is 2KB). Even if we kept signatures at the current limit, that would only be a total of 4KB per user and I doubt it would cause significant bandwidth problems. Images are also cached by browsers, unlike signatures.

There is no option in (this version of) vBulletin for remotely-hosted avatars. It would be too difficult to enforce size restrictions on them anyway.

Just to (re)state my opinion: I'm in favour of allowing avatars, if reasonable limits (such as 2KB and 48x48 pixels, and no animated images) are put in place. I would also be in favour of smaller signatures, maybe with a maximum of 500 bytes.

Hazel-rah

Oct 13, 2004, 05:17 AM

Agreed. People need to find creative ways of reducing the load of their signature. I have made my signature with a style sheet. My signature is not an image. This greatly reduces load time. If other people can be as bandwidth thrifty as me then this could be possible. Go and edit down your signatures... use creative ways. I think a lot of you have forgotten what signature means.

"A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity"

Derby, do not edit the following list of people. It is not flaming.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The following people have examples of signatures that are too big:

SkulLTF, Iam Canadian, Derivative, Enigma, Fawriel, Gr33n Pl4nt, KRSplat, NeoBlaze, defalcon, EvilMike, *Fireball*, Rýû Å$, Batty Buddy, Doubble Dutch, PHT2, Bliss AKA Blink, etc. There are more.

DrazenX's signature messes up the formatting.

A lot of you could just use your lines more efficiently, and make the font size smaller. I'm not so concerned about images.... for me it's how tall your signature is. You can tell if someone is being unreasonable with their signature.

Clear this up, and avatars are more of a reality.

Fawriel

Oct 13, 2004, 08:50 AM

...hang on a second...

EDIT: ... you call that too big? ..oh well. I was planning to change it anyways. *shrugs*

cooba

Oct 13, 2004, 08:56 AM

Faw's sig isn't poor ripoff from mine as yours is.

"A distinctive mark, characteristic, or sound indicating identity" Pfft.

Hazel-rah

Oct 13, 2004, 10:43 AM

one more thing.... I think 2 quotes max in a signature is not a lot to ask. No one reads a signature that has a lot of.... junk... in it.

Coppertop

Oct 13, 2004, 11:24 AM

*raises hand* I do.

cooba

Oct 13, 2004, 11:24 AM

No one reads a signature that has a lot of.... junk... in it.You really must learn a lot of JCF.

Risp_old

Oct 13, 2004, 12:53 PM

*raises hand* I do.
So do I.

Tubz

Oct 13, 2004, 01:23 PM

I prefer big signatures over avatars. Avatars sucks, if you want a avatar, just post a pic in yor sig which you would use as your avatar, that [CC]Tublear thing or something else, would proably be my avatar.

Conker, I read signature's that have a lot of stuff in it. Ironic how people could always find a reason to (*) about my signature, when there are a few other's who have always had a bigger sig that me.

How the hell are you going to forget 'Xion' in that statistic, Conker, really you need to recheck your sources.

Personally, if you want to talk about annoying signature's. Probably yours and Cooba's are out of everyone in the whole board. Basically just because of the Bush logo :D. And especially yours Conker with the bright red outline.

Risp_old

Oct 13, 2004, 01:34 PM

Well, Xion says he will trim down his sig if avatars are allowed, so he sorta isn't a problem.

Hazel-rah

Oct 13, 2004, 02:01 PM

...Batty Buddy, Doubble Dutch, PHT2, Bliss AKA Blink, etc. There are more.

^^^^
Xion's is only slightly worse than yours, Derivative...

As for my sig.... I'm just showing support for the winner. ;D

Tubz

Oct 13, 2004, 04:07 PM

For the winner, pfft, don't make me laugh. lol. too late.

cooba

Oct 14, 2004, 01:11 AM

Personally, if you want to talk about annoying signatures. Probably yours and Cooba's are out of everyone in the whole board. Basically just because of the Bush logo :D. And especially yours Conker with the bright red outline.Would you mind Trafton having Kerry logo if you would vote for Bush?

Tubz

Oct 14, 2004, 11:01 AM

I don't care, I think they are corrupt white men in politics. Bush is the most corrupt. It would be a snowball's chance in hell, before I would ever vote bush. I prefer Kerry at least 45% to Bush, and the other 55% goes to Nader.

Xion

Oct 14, 2004, 01:44 PM

hey.

Everybody look at Trafton.

Disguise

Oct 14, 2004, 01:48 PM

:O!

Can we talk a little less about politics and a little more about avatars, please? ;)

Xion

Oct 14, 2004, 01:49 PM

:O LOOK AT YOU!

I WANT ONE (-)!

[Filter bypass -FQ]

Blackraptor

Oct 14, 2004, 01:51 PM

I read long signatures all the time, and don't mind them. I don't care about avatars and imo compared to sigs they wouldn't be all that useful imo.

Link

Oct 14, 2004, 02:04 PM

Xion, we're testing the avatar system in case they are implemented. That's why a few people have avatars.

Here's a proposal for avatars:

Avatars must be exactly 48x48 pixels in size, under 3KB, and cannot be animated. In addition to enabling avatars, signatures will be further restricted. They will have a maximum of 512 visible characters (doesn't include HTML, vB code, etc) and a total image size\placement maximum of 750x250 pixels and 80KB file size.

What does everyone think of that?

Radium

Oct 14, 2004, 02:25 PM

Better than the proposed alternatives, but I still think avatars are just ugly.

Xion

Oct 14, 2004, 02:36 PM

Iam Canadian

Oct 14, 2004, 02:38 PM

I'm not sure how many metres my jaw dropped when I saw Trafton's avatar. I dunno, it was just a shock.

Tubz

Oct 14, 2004, 03:11 PM

^^^

He's apparently a tester along with Link. You know, Trafton seems like a joke sometimes. He seems to know everything going on behind the scenes here, makes me wonder why he isn't just a mod or admin by now.

Link your rule was all good, until you had to say no animated.

I have a better idea, in addition to what you said, allow animated avatars, but with a rule like they can only be like 10x10 or less or something pixels. Or like the size of Trafton's avatar.

Radium

Oct 14, 2004, 03:18 PM

Link your rule sucks, everything was fine, until you had to say no animated.
Need I bring up the topic of http://www.foxmage.com/Annoying.gif (warning: annoying D=) again?

Trafton

Oct 14, 2004, 03:20 PM

I have a better idea, in addition to what you said, allow animated avatars, but with a rule like they can only be like 10x10 or less or something pixels. Or like the size of Trafton's avatar.
Uniformity is a good thing. Too small, or too big (or animated period) and things begin to look messy.

Tubz

Oct 14, 2004, 03:21 PM

^^^

Hmm, there can still be restrictions set. Like, this would be mine: http://forums.wirelessadvisor.com/customavatars/avatar74220_1.gif

Not my fault Radium. Everyone isn't going to suffer because of something you made up or did. That's dumb.

Radium

Oct 14, 2004, 03:26 PM

Hmm, there can still be restrictions set. Like, this would be mine: http://forums.wirelessadvisor.com/customavatars/avatar74220_1.gif
Not my fault Radium. Everyone isn't going to suffer because of something you made up or did. That's dumb.

The point of the RAD image is that constantly looping animated avatars are distracting and nauseating. Yours is no better.

Disguise

Oct 14, 2004, 03:31 PM

^^^

Hmm, there can still be restrictions set. Like, this would be mine: http://forums.wirelessadvisor.com/customavatars/avatar74220_1.gif

That image is 6k anyway, double the size of what JCF would allow. Even if we did allow animated avatars (which I can almost pretty much assure you we won't) you wouln't be able to use it.

Tubz

Oct 14, 2004, 03:31 PM

^^^

Mine is better, a lot better. Mine won't give seizures, because it isn't flashing lights. And It's cooler anyway. Besides I'm part of so many forums like 20, no one ever had a problem with it. Some complimented me.

Tubz

Oct 14, 2004, 03:35 PM

I'll find an avatar somewhere, that fits these rules, then, somehow.

ElectroPiZZa

Oct 14, 2004, 04:29 PM

Look at me! I'm... REGEDIT!

Strato

Oct 14, 2004, 04:34 PM

The real question is are the blocks coming out of or going into the larger block.

Page is owned.

Iam Canadian

Oct 14, 2004, 05:28 PM

I'm suddenly starting to regret supporting the implementation of avatars. Now that the novelty of seeing them has worn off (in a matter of hours and they're only on a small group of users), they're starting to look...cheap. Oh well.
*Disables visible avatars*
Look at me. As Bush would say, I've become more of a flip-flopper than Kerry.

Xion

Oct 15, 2004, 04:23 PM

Okay, if this avvy thing ever works out, I got mine here.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Xion810/emuchowavvy.png">

Monolith

Oct 15, 2004, 05:51 PM

Okay, if this avvy thing ever works out, I got mine here.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Xion810/emuchowavvy.png">

4.71 KB -- that's not under 3 KB. I can see filesize is going to be a nasty restriction. Saving that as a JPEG image at highest quality will get it down to 2.7 KB, but there's quality loss around the red (Unless you do some extra tricks in GIMP). Or if you palletize it, that'll get it down too, but also with quality loss. At least the good thing is, at high screen resolutions, it'll be hard to see the quality loss.

Iam Canadian

Oct 15, 2004, 06:09 PM

I think I overreacted about the avatars in my last post. They really don't look that bad. Anyway, in the spirit of the new avatars, here's a few I made up.
http://geocities.com/iamcanadian002/sparkav.txt
http://geocities.com/iamcanadian002/magav.txt
http://geocities.com/iamcanadian002/skullav.txt

Tubz

Oct 15, 2004, 10:06 PM

---Highly dissapointed---

Not as if I ever cared for Avatar's in the first place, but I'll say one thing, if avatars are enabled, then I shouldn't have to downsize or whatever my signature, if I don't use an avatar. Because I was never for avatar's anyway. It should be a choice, either one or the other.

Link

Oct 15, 2004, 10:19 PM

I think some signature restrictions would have been enacted eventually anyway, whether or not we enabled avatars. Under the proposed rules, your images would be fine, but you would need to remove some text. You have about 650 visible characters, and would need to lower it to 512.

Olsen

Oct 16, 2004, 01:38 AM

i really ythink we should enable avatars, with some rules however. Like no pron avatars, yeah like that.

Stijn

Oct 16, 2004, 02:50 AM

Let's do 5kb instead of 3kb because 5kb is 1/2*10 and 10 is a magic number 8D

cooba

Oct 16, 2004, 03:02 AM

Like no pron avatars, yeah like that.OMG YES NO PR0N

Xion

Oct 16, 2004, 10:29 AM

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Xion810/emuchowavvy.png"> <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Xion810/emuchowavvy.jpg">

I see no difference, and I was able to drop the filesize.

cooba

Oct 16, 2004, 10:34 AM

Because they are same.

Olsen

Oct 16, 2004, 12:33 PM

OMG YES NO PR0N

ofcourse not, but ive seen forums with pron avatars.

Xion

Oct 17, 2004, 01:15 PM

ofcourse not, but ive seen forums with pron avatars.
likewise. ABSforums has an avatar with a woman getting her eyelid sliced...creepy disturbing.

Torkell

Oct 17, 2004, 03:51 PM

I think shrinking signatures in favour of avatars is a good idea (especially for someone on dialup as that way the content appears quicker with less to load in signatures), but 50x50 avatars would be better. I know 48x48 is a nice power of 2 and all that, but 50x50 seems to be more common (that or 100x100, which is getting a bit large).

Monolith

Oct 17, 2004, 06:43 PM

48 isn't a power of 2, it's just a common avatar size.

Xion

Oct 18, 2004, 02:21 PM

49's the power.

72-1=48

Though AIM icons are usually 50x50...

Monolith

Oct 18, 2004, 07:55 PM

72 would be a square, not a power. A power of 2 is more of the form 2n. 48 isn't a power itself, but it is half way between the two power numbers 32 and 64.

I think I'll stand corrected that 50x50 is a more common avatar size.

This is just nitpicking, but we might as well do that while avatars are not yet implemented.

A question to the admins concerning avatars. Do avatars have to go through an authorization process, where they can't be used until allowed by an admin? I think this would defenently be a good idea rather than suddenly noticing an unwanted avatar already in use. I know this task could possibly be time consuming, but I don't believe it would take much. I probably wouldn't mind even doing it, if there is a wish to find someone else.

Torkell

Oct 19, 2004, 04:50 AM

My bad. I meant to say "...multiple of 2...". That'll teach me to post at 1 in the morning :D

Re getting the admins to check the avatars: It's a good idea, but this forum has, what, 50 pages worth of members (can't be bothered to work out the exact value)? Granted, not all of them will want avatars (or will have used this forum in the past year), but it's going to place a heavy workload on the admins. Just give them a BFG10k to use against anyone with a dodgy avatar, tho warning them first might be a good idea.

Xion

Oct 23, 2004, 05:47 PM

A question to the admins concerning avatars. Do avatars have to go through an authorization process, where they can't be used until allowed by an admin? I think this would defenently be a good idea rather than suddenly noticing an unwanted avatar already in use. I know this task could possibly be time consuming, but I don't believe it would take much. I probably wouldn't mind even doing it, if there is a wish to find someone else.
I guess not.

But my guess is that avatar offences would be much steeper than normal since they are ALL OVER THE BOARDS and, in most cases, SHOWN MULTIPLE TIMES.