I have to make a few points about some of the arguments against them.

1. The possibility of inappropriate images is just as great for signatures as it would be for avatars, because signatures are allowed to have images in them. The only problem would be that the administrators would have one more thing to monitor and edit if it turns bad.

2. The only bandwidth taken up for off-site avatars would be the same as signatures now: Between the viewer's browser and the host of the off-site image. This would be the viewer's own choice in using up their network bandwidth if it is limited (as long as the user is able to choose not to view them), and the image owner's choice of using up their allocated bandwidth if it is limited.

3. An upload system with a third party would not need to be created. People can just upload it themselves by regular means, and give the URL to the JCF.

4. An option to disable them that is off by default means that users would never see them unless they wanted to. This negates the argument that they make the board look ugly, because the people who want to see avatars are expecting the board to look ugly because of them. It would not be detrimental to J2O and the JCF in general because it is off by default and those who want an ugly board can turn it on.

Points 1 and 4 clash, because judging from the negativity here, the administrators do not want to see avatars. But to monitor them for objectional content, they would need to have them on. This is the only reason I can see that stops them from enabling opt-in avatars, and it is a good reason.

Are there any other reasons why avatars should not be enabled, now that the bandwidth and ugliness issues are solved?

I am arguing for avatars to be enabled, but this is for the sake of others. Personally I don't like seeing them, and I would keep them turned off if they were enabled.