I know that we cannot have avatars, but here is a thought. A site I use, Strike9 gives free image webspace with outlinking. I know that the biggest problem is bandwith, but with this you get about 3 2 megs of space and 100 megs of bandwith. I have used it and am barely using it.

Another thing we need is to opt Avatars: Those who want to see avatars may, and those who don't can not. Custom-Made Avatars.

If this idea works with flying colors, we could have public image hosting with this...

This idea fixes the main two problems with avatars: Bandwith (on another server not on J2O) and people seeing them (the avatar opt-out). Though I do not know if the avatar system is buggy, this idea *could* make everybody happy: Taffy doesn't wanna see avatars, the J2O admins don't want to spend money on extra bandwith, and those who want avatars (Like me and many other people) can have them with people that do not want to see them (like taffy) can not.

Or is this too complex of an idea?

Actually, this idea is simple and perfect in every way. The admins won't listen to it, though.

Derby: Flame tag removal.

Originally Posted by Radium

Actually, this idea is simple and perfect in every way. The admins won't listen to it, though.

Blah! That's what I thought.

Good idea.

Actually, it is not such a good idea. It ignores one of the other, more significant complaints about avatars: they make the board look ugly.

Additionally, avatars take up bandwidth for the user that has to load them. It clutters the board and makes for longer loading times. I am sure you can find a way to express your individuality that will not result in annoying DBZ images below half of the membership's names.

~ Traft

I personally don't use avatars and don't care either way, but conserving bandwith is, to me, more important than having a small, ugly picture next to your post.

I think saying that you can only have images hosted on a certain website is kind of not good. :P

Originally Posted by Xion

Another thing we need is to opt Avatars: Those who want to see avatars may, and those who don't can not.

Read the full post trafton. PWNED.

And also: The bandwith will be from Strike9.com, not Jazz2online.com. All Jazz2online.com has to do is say "Image goes here, it's over there *points*" and your browser, NOT J2O, goes over to strike9 and gets the image.

It's like the image in my signature. Is there bandwith for that image? No, because it's hosted on bloody-roar.com and NOT J2o.

See? If my idea could work (with the avatar opt) everybody would be happy.

And I see no problem in avatars: It makes the board seem friendlier and nicer. If you think a small 60x60 image will wreck the board, raise your hand. Those who raise their hands can also click "NO" to viewing avatars.

I mean, we do have where you can opt out signatures, why not avatars? Think about that.

Oops...maybe I should have done some research before posting this...

AVATARS CAN ALREADY BE OPTED OUT!

I don't find it cluttersome, I do feel however that something is missing and that is AVATARS.

Anyways, here's proof that the avatars can be opted out in the OPTIONS panel.

By the way, Xion, no.

The case is closed, although the topic is still open.

Expected:

Originally Posted by Derby

By the way, Xion, no.

OMG YES

Further expected:

Originally Posted by Derby

Case closed. Topic open.

OMG CASE OPEN + TOPIC CLOSED! I MEAN, TOPIC OPEN! DERBY U (PA)

If you want more good reasons, look at previous topics, Xion. Maybe this forum description should include: "And don't ask for avatars", or something along those lines.

Bah...

The forums seem so...empty...without them.

Didn't the JMMB have avatars? The JCF is the only forum I have been to that does not have avatars...EzBoard has them, (Site removed) has them, the Winamp Forums has them, the DJ boards had them, for the short few months it was open, the PSOW boards have them (even though they are very limiting), I mean, you name a board they have avatars. Even the (URL) board has them...and I bet that the (URL) board has them too...haven't checked...

Avatars are no. They take up bandwidth just calling them, whether or not they are on a different site. The JCF is already low on bandwidth. Besides, avatars have to be screened and may contain objectionable imagery. Most of all, no. That has been the answer in the past and certainly will be in the future.

In conclusion,

~ Traft

The Derbu has spoken. Jeez, I thought after them being denied in the previous topics people would'ove finally accepted that admins won't have 'em here.....

Originally Posted by Blackraptor

The Derbu has spoken. Jeez, I thought after them being denied in the previous topics people would'ove finally accepted that admins won't have 'em here.....

Who's side are you on? Don't you want to see next to all your posts?

Originally Posted by Radium

Who's side are you on? Don't you want to see next to all your posts?

I do.

LOL Xion; Radium.

The JMMB had no avatars.

Maybe Xion will at last remove that too-big image from his signature when avatars are allowed. I vote yes.

I find the custom title a nice way to express one's personality already. Though I like avatars (that's why we use them on the TF Forums, I don't think we need them here.

While the concept has reason and is seemingly feasible, the argument in its favour is in vain since the decision was made long ago against this position.

That was a fancy way of saying "No".

I like them, and they've never hurt on any other board I've been, and can't see them hurting here. But the principle remains - they are not supported by the administration. No biggie.

BTW, Trafton, that was incorrect. The user does not call (download, use bandwidth) the avatar if he/she has disabled them in the profile.

Big signature images are allowed, while small(ish) avies are not?
*vanishes in a puff of logic*

Traffy, I would have expected some more intelligent replies from you.
I will not stop bothering you til you post a reply that contains at least 20 words I don't understand and still makes sense.

*clings to Traftie and pokes him every five seconds*

We don't want avatars(we have said that about a hundred times already), and frankly Xion's idea is impossible, too, unless we are going to spend a lot of time creating some way to upload and work with avatars from that site.

Shen: We actually don't want those big signatures, we have even made rules against them in the past I believe. It's just.. impossible to regulate those signatures. I spent all my time sending messages to people to tell them to make them smaller.

Make a vote and have all the users participate if possible, if 50% say yes, then let there be avatars. I personally have no opinion on this but am just trying to help out.
Oh and leave out idiotic options for people to vote, like "I like pie"..

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.