I have read the Signature and Avatar Rules, but I didn't find a clear-cut answer.
Personally I find some avatars annoying, they distract you from reading.
What I personally dislike:

1)"Flashing" ones, avatars which flash in your eyes.
2)Creepy small insects which keep moving, it feels as if they were on your screen.

What do you think? Should we have stricter rules? Did I forget anything among "annoying avatars"?

hmmm..... yeah, ive seen some annoying ones, but uh, idk......


its kind of hard to define annoying as its objective, and not subjective.......


i mean, i would agree to stricter rules if they were worded correctly..... this is just such a hard subject to define. im kind of on the fence with this one because it doesnt bother me all that much.


BUT im glad you brought this up and maybe someone will be able to figure out a way to handle this =]

and also i agree that flashing / fast moving ones shouldnt be allowed, i mean, they give me a headache, some people seasures, and everyone an eyesore.

Well, my definition of "annoying avatars" would be: avatars which distract, mainly moving or flashing ones.

An example of a flashing avatar would be nice because right now I'm not sure exactly how annoying they can get.

I agree the moving insects is odd, but I wouldn't personally call them annoying. And even if I did find it annoying, making a rule against "creepy moving insects in avatars" will be difficult to administer.

I'll pm you, Mebster.

I like mine. I find the bug one kind of funny but I agree, the flashing ones are annoying to all hell.

Yours is perfectly OK.

Second that.
Obviously making judgement calls on what is or what isn't annoying is too subjective and wouldn't work. Either you have to allow them all or just say only static avatars.

Actually that wouldn't be a bad idea.

Whoops I think this may be orientated to my Avatar. If its distrubin ya in any way I will be happy to remove it . Just ask!

No, actually not. Yours is quite nice (I know we just said only static avatars )

It's as disturbing as when the exorcist girl spins her head.

Only joking mate. You'rs is actually funny.

I think we should use common sense when choosing avatars that are animated. Suhail's is a good example of a good animated avatar. We just don't need seizure inducing avatars that make a person want to punch the screen.

Exactly. Unfortunately it will be difficult to write a rule about it.

Uhh...Alessandro that green lizard is burning my eyes MY EYES!!!

(Green is very soothing, LOL)

I think mine is kind of cute. Do you think?
Мисля че мината е сладък. Смятате ли така?

Yes, it is.

Not really we could say:

"Please choose animated avatars using common sense. Please do not use seizure inducing and or offensive avatars as they will be removed."

OMG, I have the perfect Avatar for that!

Click to view attachment

Ouch!!!!

I do not like the flashing ones and would like them to be gone, but there's also another one. One member has one that has two guys kissing on it, and I'm not trying to make this a complaint against them just because they support homosexuality, but I do find it offending. Normally I wouldn't complain about it but whenever I get to a post by this person I just find it hard to treat it like a normal post. I mean I'm a Christian, but I don't have one saying, "You are going to hell! You are going to hell! You are going to hell!"

Just a thought to consider.

Yes the flashing ones should go.
I can always right click on one and adblock imageto get rid of it..

MasterofComputers, "Please choose animated avatars using common sense" is a very subjective statement which is where the problem is with it in moderating.

Although some animated avatars are interesting and funny (like the one above or Suhails), I still think the best rule to manage is where we simply do not allow any animated avatars. That way no one can complain about being picked on. We can add to that that we don't allow "distasteful avatars", to add the slightly general side to for those static avatars which often initiate us shouting "MY EYES, MY EYES!"

Although that may slightly be the case it shouldn't be that much of a problem to do. Most of the users here who hit the 200-500 post count mark and have some time here do have [some] common sense and should be able to understand it.

In theory that sounds great but in real life its not practical for forum moderating.

Not everyone is annoyed by the same thing. The avatar with the moving insect seems innocent enough, but for me it draws my attention more than some of the more overt avatars.

Same here. I find it one of the most distracting.

The two guys smacking is one of the most distracting for me. (Now that does make me sound gay.... I'm not.)

I started this thread so that everybody could freely express their opinion.
However, I can't help wondering: if it were a guy and a gal kissing, would you still find it distracting and annoying?

Distracting probably..... I mean that's not really what an avatar should be..... at least imo. The other thing is that the both the avatar and the signature seem to be just in your face about homosexuality. I don't think that's what an avatar or signature should be. I mean Aless, you have some "political" stuff in your signature, but it's not jumping out at me about it.

These images personally don't bother me. Now, if InsanelyMac was part of my daily work routine (was a necessity) it would be a different story. But since this board is a pass-time, I think animated avatars are perfectly acceptable within reason.

Actually I agree. I would find such avatars mildly annoying in both cases (gay or hetero).
However I find it important that we have the same rules for everybody: if you can't flaunt your homosexuality, you can't flaunt your heterosexuality either.



Exactly, within reason. I sent Mebster an example of something really annoying (a flashing avatar).

Well I'd be almost against someone with the exact same avatar and signature but with a man and a woman. It's just not what an avatar should look like....

dont start with your gay {censored} here alessandro

I agree.

Lol kiko....

(That lol is directed at your avatar, not your post)

i thought my post was funny D:

Kiko's avatar blocked

wow. So, I think that...we should just go into our control panels and turn off avatars if we don't like them.

Actually that could be a good idea. Never considered it before.

IMHO avatars should not:

• Force beliefs down peoples throats.
• Flash crazily or annoy users at like 50 billion FPS [Kiko]
• Have lewd content
• Have profanity and or vulgarism

No. Because often you identify members and their posts by their avatars much faster. (My friends option not appropriate.)

It's always best to make decisions so that everyone can still benefit rather than excluding some. Everyone could live without animated/offensive avatars.

That's like having a restaurant and saying we allowing smoking and if you don't like it, don't come in. Where as if it is a non-smoking restaurant both smokers and non-smokers can still benefit.

Kiko's avatar blocked

Can someone pl0x PWN Kiko. That avatar hurts my eyes in all honesty.

I do not think we should have to turn off everyone's avatar because one person has one that is very innapropriate to others. Maybe we should institute a vote system? Like 10 people vote to remove the avatar and then the person is forced to choose a different one.

Maybe they should just stfu and stop whinging like little girls?

Sure, big girls don't, look who's talking...

im not a girl anymore macgirl, not after the operations

to get rid of all avatars add this line of css to your custom css preferences : (in your browser, of course)



-D-

Thanks DiaboliK. There is also an option in "Board Settings"
But it is a lot more practical to block the offending ones.