Should the Avatars be reduced in time?

[Androme]

I don't think DM is using his Dace avvie

[Blastoderm]

The way I see it, let it as it is (1 year) and/or have posts more than 500.

Sounds fair to me.



If someone mentioned something similar, sorry. Couldn't be bothered to read everything.

[JetLinus]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Increase the limit to three and a half years.

Seconded for the sake of old-school-ness \o/

[JetLinus]

Originally Posted by 1-X

a peach avatar if you want it...

I actually read the book with that picture as front cover. Am I special?`




Oh, and I wouldn't like that 1000 posts thingy, as it boosts spamming once more!!!

[Stew]

Originally Posted by JetLinus

as it boosts spamming once more!!!

Says you who posted twice in a row not editing orignal

[JetLinus]

Heyyyyyy, I'm afraid I'm going to loose my avatar now, so I gotta do some work...
524 to go ;-)

[1-X]

it's interesting that the majority of the posts support reducing the time, but most of the votes are against it.

I've given some thought to why that might be, and it seems Dace had it right when he said

Originally Posted by Dace

There are alot of bitter lonely people here.

[Wraith[x]]

Originally Posted by 1-X

there are ppl with like 50 posts in three year old accounts when I've got two bastard thousand

Current post count is not your total post count. Posts in deleted threads don't count to your post count, AFAIK. I once had over 2k posts too...



Maybe you could do something like 150 posts per month, or automatically qualify at 1 year? But if the postcount qualifier doesn't work, you wouldn't be able to do this I s'pose

[Wraith[x]]

Originally Posted by 1-X

it's interesting that the majority of the posts support reducing the time, but most of the votes are against it.

At the risk of a qwide sweeping generalisation, anyone older than a year will vote no, and anyone newer than that will vote yes...

[Zharkov]

Originally Posted by Wraith[x]

At the risk of a qwide sweeping generalisation, anyone older than a year will vote no, and anyone newer than that will vote yes...

I voted yes.

So you are generalising!

ha!

[Dace]

I voted "yes" too *shrug*

[Dace]

Originally Posted by 1-X

it seems Dace had it right

ALWAYS!*


















*:)

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Wraith[x]

At the risk of a qwide sweeping generalisation, anyone older than a year will vote no, and anyone newer than that will vote yes...

Worst generalisation ever.

[Zaphod I]

I vote yes, 6 or even 3 months. And I'm wondering also the big amount of posts required: if a person (read: me) speaks rarely, but always has a point (yeah, right), should that person be punished while those who yabber all kind of nonsense get rewarded. This almost invites people to post " , , lol ..." -comments to every post of every thread if they really want an avatar.

Of course these characters might get kikced out pretty fast just for doing that, but still...

-Zaps

[MrL_JaKiri]

If I was an admin and they started to do that, I'd give them a high negative post count.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Zaphod I

I vote yes, 6 or even 3 months. And I'm wondering also the big amount of posts required: if a person (read: me) speaks rarely, but always has a point (yeah, right), should that person be punished while those who yabber all kind of nonsense get rewarded.

I prefer people who yabber to be honest.

edit : Besides, it's misleading to presume the people who post often have lower quality posts (on average). Most of the people in the top 15/20 posters always make relatively decent efforts.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Zaphod I

I vote yes, 6 or even 3 months. And I'm wondering also the big amount of posts required: if a person (read: me) speaks rarely, but always has a point (yeah, right), should that person be punished while those who yabber all kind of nonsense get rewarded. This almost invites people to post " , , lol ..." -comments to every post of every thread if they really want an avatar.

Of course these characters might get kikced out pretty fast just for doing that, but still...

-Zaps

Why do you want an avatar if you don't post?

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I prefer people who yabber to be honest.

edit : Besides, it's misleading to presume the people who post often have lower quality posts (on average). Most of the people in the top 15/20 posters always make relatively decent efforts.

HAHAHAHAHA
oh you were being serious!

[Zaphod I]

Originally Posted by Ste

Why do you want an avatar if you don't post?

Well, Im' quite new in PA and, well, not actually very familiar with discussion forums in general - yet. I guess I'm right now browsing through different threads and trying to find the interesting ones. Of course it's kinda hard to participate in conversations, where every second word is 1337 (?!?) or the talk is about tr0lling in a heated alliance-talk between "friends" that go way back, or some such... so my posts are few for the time being.

In that sense I do admit that many other deserve their avatars better than I, as they have contributed much more. But I still want one, as most would. I guess I don't have to delve into the question why people want to use avatars in general?

-Zaps

[JC]

Woah dont go near AD :eek:.

Stay on the cool board were you get ripped to pieces if you type words with numbers in .

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JC

Stay on the cool board were you get ripped to pieces if you type words with numbers in .

Stop with the organic chemsitry hatin, mr playa jc.

[Zaphod I]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I prefer people who yabber to be honest.

edit : Besides, it's misleading to presume the people who post often have lower quality posts (on average). Most of the people in the top 15/20 posters always make relatively decent efforts.

True. I'm talking about the two extremes: the almost-silent that usually have a good reason to post (not necessary me) and the idiot loudmouths. An of course this place is for conversation, so at least some activity is in order

All I have said so far isn't based on anything else than some pondering in my part - I can't point a finger to any talkative nuisance or rarely speaking oracle to make my case.

Maybe I'm just whining for my cause... avatarrr... precious avatarrrr.... :gollum:
-Zaps

[JC]

Organic chemistry is pretty shit. My first year lecturer was the stupidest bloke ever and his lectures were at 6 on a Monday, it was not good . Thankfully i didnt have to do any after first year.

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Zaphod I

-Zaps

Ahhhhh I assumed you were a completely different Zaphod... HC of Legion back in the day iirc...

wow, remembering back to round 4... the only complete round I ever played!

[Zaphod I]

Originally Posted by Ste

Ahhhhh I assumed you were a completely different Zaphod... HC of Legion back in the day iirc...

wow, remembering back to round 4... the only complete round I ever played!

Heh, I was wondering why I got the name so easy... that "I" must have helped.

-Zaps

[Androme]

MrL makes decent quality posts? :eek:

[NEWSBOT3]

Originally Posted by Androme2

MrL makes decent quality posts? :eek:

[Dace]

ITT "Zaps" is a trolling 'mo.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Dace

There are alot of bitter lonely people here.

Also ones with not much to fill their (our) time.


I voted yes, purely for selfish reasons.


If, I can have my July - August 2000 account back, I'd obviously vote nay, to follow other's wishes to remain 'elite' with a supreme object that is, the avatar. Not to mention, it'd make me cool!


In an internet forum, mainly based on a web browser, text-based game.

[I am Idler]

its a ****ing miracle that I cant get a avatar. so do decrease the limit

[Baron Morte]

I think that people who got banned or lost their accounts or some shit like that should be granted avatar. It isnt fair that I dont have one.

[Sunday8pm]

How about the fact it will surely defeat new registered users from signing up?

This whole preservation and elevation of the 'old guard' does not possibly lend to the long-term survival.

I suggest avatars for all and some decent administration of people who use em.

Or is this about hte most laziest option that upsets the fewest?

am i rite?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Or is this about hte most laziest option that upsets the fewest?

am i rite?

Actually the laziest option was not giving anyone an avatar. I supported that one.

[Sunday8pm]

Nah Laziest wasn't not giving them one considering they were getting enough harrassment about it.

[JonnyBGood]

That rests on the wild assumption that anyone in charge listens to anyone who isn't.

[Sunday8pm]

Oh I know they don't, but it's more about keeping them sheep innit?

The minute users disagree with their needs and wants with other users the flock seperates.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Oh I know they don't, but it's more about keeping them sheep innit?

Find out on saturday in the next edition of "it's an invalidly formulated question"!

The minute users disagree with their needs and wants with other users the flock seperates.

What? This doesn't even make grammatical sense.

[Sunday8pm]

Pedantic grammar police alert.

Ok, The moderators and Admins will ignore the requests of the users (the flock of sheep) however if the sheep start to differentiate in their opinions and views too much from where the shepards are leading them (to keep the moderators and admins sustained in their position), the threat of sheep breaking off, stopping, not coagulating in a flock diminshes the amount of sheep that need watched and hence less shepards as you could call em, bigger flock more shepards.

Gettit?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Pedantic grammar police alert.

Ok, The moderators and Admins will ignore the requests of the users (the flock of sheep) however if the sheep start to differentiate in their opinions and views too much from where the shepards are leading them (to keep the moderators and admins sustained in their position), the threat of sheep breaking off, stopping, not coagulating in a flock diminshes the amount of sheep that need watched and hence less shepards as you could call em, bigger flock more shepards.

Gettit?

No. If the sheep start separating you need more shepherds not yet. Didn't you herd sheep up in the scottish highlands or something? If so you must have been pretty damn shit at it.

[Sunday8pm]

Well no, if the sheep start spreading out then you need more administrators of the new flocks and it's not likely to be you?

I mean let's face it the head shepard appoints other shepards to guard his flock, if his flock degrades in number then he needs less shepards, to assume you can shepard the flock that has been lost is just that, assuming.

The sheep could already have a new head shepard that isn't you and hence no power.

p.s. Didn't you know they moved all the sheep out of scotland and replaced them with trees and tourist information signs in the massive and horrific highland clearances of the 1990's.

[JonnyBGood]

I don't think the sheep analogy was a very good one sunday. As far as I'm aware if they're your sheep they're steal your sheep no matter how far they go and your responsibility.

Sorry to diminish the impact of your rhetoric

[Sunday8pm]

Perhaps not the best analogy but you understnad what I mean, you need the demand to create the moderators, you lose the demand you lose moderators, settling things is the best way around this.

You are merely settling the users rather than listening to their needs.

[JonnyBGood]

This has become nonsensical to the point where even I'm going to object. This is just a string of disconnected statements.

[Sunday8pm]

Conversational Chaff is you.

[JonnyBGood]

I dare anyone to attempt to follow your reasoning in the previous dozen or so posts. Double dare.


It's like there's some conspiracy I'm involved in I don't know about but sunday does

[Sunday8pm]

I'm not ignoring the hidden code in your signature either jonny.

I'M ONTO YOU.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Baron Morte

I think that people who got banned or lost their accounts or some shit like that should be granted avatar. It isnt fair that I dont have one.

Surely being banned should be some form of punishment?

[Sunday8pm]

Depends, we've had various moderators and administrators in the past, some were absurdly elitist and harsh, many were wronged.

Tbh, I generally disprove of the whole dated e-penis system, it's as neccessary as post-counts, avatars should just be moderated and everyone should have them.

That'd be too much work though.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Depends, we've had various moderators and administrators in the past, some were absurdly elitist and harsh, many were wronged.

Agreed.And if someone was banned unjustly I'd support giving them an avatar. Same with people whose accounts were lost for other reasons.

But if someone has been banned justifiably then I'd certainly say it makes sense not to give them the same "privilidges" as other users. That way there's at least some incentive to not be banned.

[Inferno]

For 1-X's sake.....yay.

Or just give him a special grant for an avatar or some sort.