yellowlightman Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 I don't think Shawn has anything to do with it. If the goal were to save Shawn bandwidth expense, we'd still be allowed to host animated GIFs on our own web space (which would cost Shawn nothing). My guess is that this is being done because some dial-up users didn't like having to download large animated GIFs. And, unless I'm mistaken, a certain moderator around here is a dial-up user and has been grumbling lately about how slow the site has seemed. There's also the issue of "offensive" avatars being. . . well. . . more offensive when they're animated. Not that I recall every being offended by anyone's avatar (but that's just me). 352663[/snapback] Animated GIFs slowing down the board isn't an excuse, as the file size is limited to 150KB for avatars (and could be made smaller) or people could turn off avatars under "My Controls."
Agent ONE Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Hurin is refering to the time where DT and I put the picture of a cock in our avatars for 1 frame. It took the mods months to notice. HAHAHAHA
Hurin Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Hurin is refering to the time where DT and I put the picture of a cock in our avatars for 1 frame. It took the mods months to notice. HAHAHAHA 352682[/snapback] Actually, I wasn't referring to that instance. I was thinking about the more blatant/overt sex-oriented avatars that are possible and made more blatant/overt via animation. H
yellowlightman Posted December 15, 2005 Posted December 15, 2005 Actually, I wasn't referring to that instance. I was thinking about the more blatant/overt sex-oriented avatars that are possible and made more blatant/overt via animation.H 352688[/snapback] That could be remedied by having a "no sexual content" rule for avatars. Really, not being allowed to use animated GIFs is silly. We're not allowed to have pictures in our signatures either, but it's not like it had to be taken to the extreme and not be allowed to have signatures at all. So this avatar thing is wonky.
JB0 Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 Actually, I wasn't referring to that instance. I was thinking about the more blatant/overt sex-oriented avatars that are possible and made more blatant/overt via animation.H 352688[/snapback] That could be remedied by having a "no sexual content" rule for avatars. Really, not being allowed to use animated GIFs is silly. We're not allowed to have pictures in our signatures either, but it's not like it had to be taken to the extreme and not be allowed to have signatures at all. So this avatar thing is wonky. 352704[/snapback] Your analogy is actually right on target.Sigs weren't banned, just certain forms. Avatars weren't banned. Just certain forms.
Roy Focker Posted December 17, 2005 Posted December 17, 2005 The funny thing is people keep replacing their avatars. When you find your avatars missing and see others as well get a clue. Like Santa Claus I'm making a list.
Recommended Posts