animated avatars, you want them back?

[unijesse]

do you?

[chosen]

yea i would, anyone that thinks movement disturbs a post while reading it, is too uptight in my eyes. so what-something is flashing to the left while you read. no biggy. but i dont care to much either way.

[forrestunifreak]

It's not like I ever had an animated avatar in the first place, but I liked looking at other poeples avatars.

[phil]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I come here to read the posts, not look at pointless hideous flashing monstrosities that serve only to annoy while you're trying to read.

Some are okay if they're nice and low-key; I remember one of Catboy's with a cat stealing the red 'X' that was very good, but the majority are just irritating.

Make a JC thread and post loads of animated avatars in that; you can look at them all day and those who don't care for them don't have to.

Phil

[koebwil]

You don't have to look at them. The posts are over on this side. If you don't want to look at avatars you don't have to.

[boo radley]

bring them back and give users the option to disable animation. those who don't care for them won't have to look at them. but maybe the current setup makes people focus more on what they say and less on amusing animations.

[phil]

Foolishly I was forgetting the little button in the bottom corner that says "Adblock" which will do a marvellous job of getting rid of individual avatars. You can change my vote from "No" to "Don't Care".

Phil

/me goes off to troll another thread

[Probailer2]

It's not like I ever had an animated avatar in the first place, but I liked looking at other poeples avatars.

Same for me

[Radical Reed]

well I like them when i have high speed internet, but if you have dial-up it spends a bunch of time loading avatars instead of the actual thread, it already takes a while to load regular avatars

[habbywall]

bring them back with the option to delete them, cause it shows about a person's personality if there avatar is animated

[dudewithasock]

I'm sorta indifferent, but I chose no, just because they don't serve much of a point. Regular graphic avatars are here to help distinguish one poster from the next extremely quickly with a mere glance at a visual aid instead of reading the name.

[BillyTheMountain]

well I like them when i have high speed internet, but if you have dial-up it spends a bunch of time loading avatars instead of the actual thread, it already takes a while to load regular avatars

Bring em back, and make it an individual option whether to show them or not.

[habbywall]

Foolishly I was forgetting the little button in the bottom corner that says "Adblock" which will do a marvellous job of getting rid of individual avatars. You can change my vote from "No" to "Don't Care".

Phil

/me goes off to troll another thread

i dont see that anywhere, please map it out, or take a screenshot

[MERCYME]

The flasing tends to burn my eyes.

[weeble]

I'm sorta indifferent, but I chose no, just because they don't serve much of a point. Regular graphic avatars are here to help distinguish one poster from the next extremely quickly with a mere glance at a visual aid instead of reading the name.

If that were really the case, then it would be an argument against allowing people to ever change their avatars - which ironically you yourself have just done - and says nothing about why avatars should or should not be animated. "Unicycles should not be painted bright colors. Unicycles are for riding." The logic is equally obscure.

Anyway, that's NOT what avatars are for. The avatar is an expression of your personality. It presents an image of something that you want to say about yourself, of how you feel about something, of how you want the reader to perceive you at this time, or just of something that you think is cool and want to share with whomever encounters your presence here. Having to pick one and never change it would... suck. The username is what remains constant, and is how we know whose posts we are reading. On my screen, with my display settings, this bit of information is located less than a centimeter directly above the top of the avatar. It's in the same place, basically. Saying that it is quicker or easier to recognize people by remembering which avatar belongs to which poster (there must be hundreds of them) than it is to just glance at the person's name makes no sense to me. It certainly wouldn't work in your case, now that you've transformed into a small burrowing creature, heh. I honestly don't even remember what your av was before. None of this is related to whether the avatar is animated or not.

The ideal solution in my view is to add a control on the CP so that those who don't want to be assaulted by moving images can disable them for themselves. I already suggested this in one of the other threads.

Actually those using Internet Explorer already have this very option; we can just go to the Advanced tab of our IE Properties box and turn off animations. I did this just now, and all I can see of Harper's psychedelic jittering radioactive avatar is what I presume is the first frame. Now I'll go turn the option back on, refresh the page, and, lo! Again the av dances. How 'bout that! Deciding for myself, what a radical concept.

[GILD]

Actually those using Internet Explorer already have this very option; we can just go to the Advanced tab of our IE Properties box and turn off animations.
Brilliant, thanx for posting this.
I won't be using it myself, but it's good to know that this option exists outside the Mozillas and Safaris of the world and without the need for extra code to be tacked onto the existing forum software.
(I think Phil's "ADBLOCK' button is in Mozilla, BTW)

Now we just have to pass the time till Gilby joins the discussion.

Cofee anyone?

[Catboy]

I feel that some of my avatars are more worthy than half of the posts I read nowadays...

Animated avatars are nice, but if people are really too lazy, stubborn and distractable that they cant have something moving on a screen while they read.. oh god help us all.


Then again, it's not a right it's a priveledge, one that we no longer have and we must deal with, blah blah blah... I couldn't care less anymore.

[Gilby]

Hey, who thinks we should add animated flashy in-your-face ads to the site? :D

[weeble]

Hey, who thinks we should add animated flashy in-your-face ads to the site? :D

I'm not sure that I see the analogy; we're asking that the animations be optional for those who enjoy them, not that they be mandatory for everyone, which is the situation that you are describing.

The basic point is that allowing animated avatars does not force anyone to look at them, because we all apparently have the ability to freely turn them off (I've never used anything other than IE and wasn't aware of the AdBlock option in Mozilla, or how other browsers work). Whether someone ELSE is seeing animations or not shouldn't be an issue for anyone. It's a bit like me saying that lima beans should be outlawed because their wet-spackle texture in my mouth repulses me, and the thought that someone in the house next door to me might be eating them causes me stress. Or that because I don't like Sousa music, then no one else should be permitted to listen to it, even with headphones on so that I can't hear it. Or that because I like to cut my sandwiches in half diagonally, then etc. etc.

[swarbrim]

I agree with what you are saying to an extent. Gilby at the end of the day has the power and he obviously doesnt like them. I think we should have an option to turn them on or off though.

Mike

[Gilby]

I'm not sure that I see the analogy; we're asking that the animations be optional for those who enjoy them, not that they be mandatory for everyone, which is the situation that you are describing.

Ah, so the options should be between:
- allow animated gifs
- don't allow animated gifs

So, for those that allow animated gifs, we'll display flashy ads, via animated gifs. ;)

I guess I'm lost, I thought this forum was about spreading unicycling information.

[habbywall]

i like those flashy ads, as long as we get some of your profit gilby

[Gilby]

i like those flashy ads, as long as we get some of your profit gilby
Profit? Oh sure, you can have some of the negative profit, the donate button is at the top of the page. ;)

[habbywall]

i dont mind flashy ads if we can get are animated avatars back, but dont you get paid for those ads gilby?

actually if you gave us are animated avatars i just might be compelled to donate, i have 42 dollars sitting in my paypal account right now, just waiting to go somewhere

[Spudman]

I think you should put in all of the flashy ads and let us put in animated avatars that are at least 500 x 500 pixels, and then instead of that awful blue color that plagues these forums you could make it fade through the rainbow! Make the font size change spasticly, too, that gives your site the fresh look that's so popular today. And for added fun, make the reply buttons bounce around the screen and strobe bright white! That way you have to have gaming skills to be allowed to reply.

Yep, this could be a really awesome site if you work hard enough! ;)

[dudewithasock]

I think you should put in all of the flashy ads and let us put in animated avatars that are at least 500 x 500 pixels, and then instead of that awful blue color that plagues these forums you could make it fade through the rainbow! Make the font size change spasticly, too, that gives your site the fresh look that's so popular today. And for added fun, make the reply buttons bounce around the screen and strobe bright white! That way you have to have gaming skills to be allowed to reply.

Yep, this could be a really awesome site if you work hard enough! ;)

Don't forget the viruses every time you post in MR!

;)

[maestro8]

Hey, who thinks we should add animated flashy in-your-face ads to the site? :D
If it means we can have our animated avatars, sure! Put it all in! I've installed Adblock (http://adblock.mozdev.org/), it won't bother me one bit :)

[habbywall]

I think you should put in all of the flashy ads and let us put in animated avatars that are at least 500 x 500 pixels, and then instead of that awful blue color that plagues these forums you could make it fade through the rainbow! Make the font size change spasticly, too, that gives your site the fresh look that's so popular today. And for added fun, make the reply buttons bounce around the screen and strobe bright white! That way you have to have gaming skills to be allowed to reply.

Yep, this could be a really awesome site if you work hard enough! ;)

without sockdudes virus's this sounds great!!
go for it gilby!

[Gilby]

If it means we can have our animated avatars, sure! Put it all in! I've installed Adblock (http://adblock.mozdev.org/), it won't bother me one bit :)

Never fear, I can evade your adblock. ;)

[koebwil]

Hey, who thinks we should add animated flashy in-your-face ads to the site? :D
Can we get the fancy ones with like games on them and stuff?

[chosen]

the reason i want them back is so i can have this avatar:

http://photobucket.com/albums/d41/jonnypeacock/th_StupidPosts.gif

[habbywall]

Can we get the fancy ones with like games on them and stuff?

yeah, those are the kind i like, once there was this game where you have to flip a bean into a can with two mice guarding it, it was fun

[Gilby]

the reason i want them back is so i can have this avatar:

http://photobucket.com/albums/d41/jonnypeacock/th_StupidPosts.gif
Thank you for proving that we do not need animated avatars. ;)

[monkeyman]

I guess I'm lost, I thought this forum was about spreading unicycling information.
Then why is there a Just Conversation forum?
Thank you for proving that we do not need animated avatars.
I didn't see anything....did you remove it?

[Gilby]

Then why is there a Just Conversation forum?To keep the non-unicycling stuff out of RSU.

I didn't see anything....did you remove it?No, it's there... an image that appears to be on photobucket.com

[BillyTheMountain]

Thank you for proving that we do not need animated avatars. ;)

Ahh, censorship!

Is this what democracy looks like?

The people have spoken, but the OWNER-MAN is keeping us down!!!

Why? Cuz he's afraid of what will happen if unicyclists really have FREE EXPRESSION in an ORGANIZED forum.

Buffalo Springfield

For What It's Worth (Buffalo Springfield, '66)

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound

[JJuggle]

Ahh, censorship!

Is this what democracy looks like?

The people have spoken, but the OWNER-MAN is keeping us down!!!

Why? Cuz he's afraid of what will happen if unicyclists really have FREE EXPRESSION in an ORGANIZED forum.
Flippant though you may be being, I think that Gilby does very little to restrict behavior and speech here. Both of the other forums I frequent restrict, monitor, and delete all political and religious discussion. They also delete expletives and ban users who use them. Gilby does not do either.

I think of the avatar issue as more of imposing a dress code.

[cathwood]

Thank you for proving that we do not need animated avatars. ;)

Me too.

Cathy

PS, I'm all in favour of censorship, as long as I don't want the thing that's being censored.

[BillyTheMountain]

Flippant though you may be being, I think that Gilby does very little to restrict behavior and speech here. Both of the other forums I frequent restrict, monitor, and delete all political and religious discussion. They also delete expletives and ban users who use them. Gilby does not do either.

I think of the avatar issue as more of imposing a dress code.

I guess for someone like you, old man, who is more used to fascist environments, a little politics or religion tastes like REAL FREEDOM.

But for us young people who have always had freedom, WE KNOW WHEN OUR FREEDOM IS BEING RESTRICTED!!!

unicyclists UNITED will never be defeated!!!! Freedom of expression for all unicyclists!!!! Down with the OWNER-MAN! Stop the OPPRESSION of unicyclists everywhere.

We will never be free as long as one unicyclists is under the thumb of the OWNER-MAN!!!

Free speech for unicyclists!!!

[swarbrim]

Im confused you used to be nice. then you said someone has jacked your username and im thoroughly confused.

Mike

[JJuggle]

But for us young people
HAH!
who have always had freedom
Double HAH!

[Gilby]

It's not censorship, it's just that you need to fit anything you want into the defined limit of 100x100 pixels. What would happen if the avatar could be unlimited in size?

If I wanted to censor anything, Billy would have been banned a long time ago. ;)

However, like JJuggle pointed out, I don't restrict people much on what they post... for the most part it's just dealing with spam (and occasionally something that is clearly not "family friendly"). Even then, I put it in the "Trash Receptacle", so anyone can call me on it. I beleive in letting the community self moderate itself. If a member of the community is misbehaving, then they will hopefully receive the wrath of the community (ie. being told to change their behavior by other community members).

I should also mention that RSU is a usenet newsgroup, and unicyclist.com is not the only way to access it. The freedom is there to access it by other means.

[JJuggle]

If a member of the community is misbehaving, then they will hopefully receive the wrath of the community (ie. being told to change their behavior by other community members).
Yeah, there's nothing quite as effective - and as much fun - as an angry mob. ;)

[habbywall]

If a member of the community is misbehaving, then they will hopefully receive the wrath of the community (ie. being told to change their behavior by other community members).


ie. getting bad rep, o wait you took that away too gilby, come on now, give us are rep back!!!

[entropy]

Oops...Hey, who still has the holdover animated avatars?

[BillyTheMountain]

Im confused you used to be nice. then you said someone has jacked your username and im thoroughly confused.

Mike

Mike: You're NEVER getting Billy back. Billy has been bulldozed into a flatland!

HAH!

Double HAH!

Raphael: You're laughing NOW, old man, but who will be laughing last, when unicyclists are not free?

It's not censorship, it's just that you need to fit anything you want into the defined limit of 100x100 pixels. What would happen if the avatar could be unlimited in size?

If I wanted to censor anything, Billy would have been banned a long time ago. ;)

I should also mention that RSU is a usenet newsgroup, and unicyclist.com is not the only way to access it. The freedom is there to access it by other means.

Oh, you say it like it's SO EASY for me to fit into a mere 100 pixels. I cannot live that way, cramped into such a small space. If I wanted to do that, I'd move into Blake's new house, but I prefer to live out back, where I have my FREEDOM!

And WHO is the OWNER-MAN to DEFINE the 100x100 pixel limit??! How can you restrict my freedom of expression in that way, OWNER-MAN??!

Feh!! Pixel limits.

Everybody chant: No Pixel Limits!! Freedom for Unicyclists!! Owner-Man, don't limit our pixels!!!! Fascist Media Pigs!!!

Power to the Unicycle People! Ride On!!

[maestro8]

Everybody chant: No Pixel Limits!! Freedom for Unicyclists!! Owner-Man, don't limit our pixels!!!! Fascist Media Pigs!!!
No Pixel Limits!! Freedom for Unicyclists!! Owner-Man, don't limit our pixels!!!! Pigs Are Tasty!!!

[JJuggle]

Everybody chant: No Pixel Limits!! Freedom for Unicyclists!! Owner-Man, don't limit our pixels!!!! Fascist Media Pigs!!!
Demagogue.

[Jethro]

I beleive in letting the community self moderate itself. .

The Catholic Church tried this once. It was called the Inquisition. It didn't work out that well, so they went back to listening to the Pope.

I suggest you name yourself Pope Gilby and ban (or "excommunicate) the people you want to ban.

And don't forget to pass the offering plate.

[swarbrim]

Mike: You're NEVER getting Billy back. Billy has been bulldozed into a flatland!



Raphael: You're laughing NOW, old man, but who will be laughing last, when unicyclists are not free?



Oh, you say it like it's SO EASY for me to fit into a mere 100 pixels. I cannot live that way, cramped into such a small space. If I wanted to do that, I'd move into Blake's new house, but I prefer to live out back, where I have my FREEDOM!

And WHO is the OWNER-MAN to DEFINE the 100x100 pixel limit??! How can you restrict my freedom of expression in that way, OWNER-MAN??!

Feh!! Pixel limits.

Everybody chant: No Pixel Limits!! Freedom for Unicyclists!! Owner-Man, don't limit our pixels!!!! Fascist Media Pigs!!!

Power to the Unicycle People! Ride On!!

Gilby has the choice of this and you do not. Be quiet.

Mike

[GILD]

I think of the avatar issue as more of imposing a dress code.
Good analogy.
I'd still like to see animated avatars back, ideally without having to chant anything.

Oops...Hey, who still has the holdover animated avatars?
I do, why?

[GILD]

Gilby has the choice of this and you do not. Be quiet.
Gilby has always run this place as a (much appreciated) service to the unicycling community. If said community has a specific need (or want, as is the case here), I don't think it can hurt to ask.

Nicely. (http://www.unicyclist.com/?page=donate)

[BillyTheMountain]

Gilby has always run this place as a (much appreciated) service to the unicycling community. If said community has a specific need (or want, as is the case here), I don't think it can hurt to ask.

Nicely. (http://www.unicyclist.com/?page=donate)

As long as the OWNER-MAN can give you your freedom, you'll never be free.

[GILD]

There is no freedom to be gotten here.
I willingly and subserviently play in the cells he built, I'm just asking for a different coat of paint.

[BillyTheMountain]

There is no freedom to be gotten here.
I willingly and subserviently play in the cells he built, I'm just asking for a different coat of paint.

That's because you are OLD and from South Africa.

We are the YOUTH, and we know FREEDOM!!

Listen to BoogieJuice and BobDylan on this:

Say no to unicycle genre discrimination! - MrBoogiejuice

Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a pixel battle And it is ragin'. ...

[GILD]

"And the answer my friend,
is blowing like a lot of hot air up the mountain..."

[BillyTheMountain]

"And the answer my friend,
is blowing like a lot of hot air up the mountain..."

Dave:

You are flirting with me !EEK! If you've been following my relationship with Ethyl and Blake, you know you should PM me such racy wishes.... ooOOOOoo

[GILD]

That's a simile, not a flirt.
Watch out, I'll call Miss A on your arse.

[BillyTheMountain]

That's a simile, not a flirt.
Watch out, I'll call Miss A on your arse.

I got your PM.

Yes, I think i'd like you MUni-ing up my mountain and blowing your hot breath up my .......

And I'll go with your idea of keeping up the cover on JC for the sake of the girls. :D

[BillyTheMountain]

I got your PM.

Yes, I think i'd like you MUni-ing up my mountain and blowing your hot breath up my .......

And I'll go with your idea of keeping up the cover on JC for the sake of the girls. :D

Oh NO!!! Did I send that response to the WHOLE LIST??! I clicked on the wrong button. Sorry, Dave.

Everyone else, please disregard. This was a very PERSONAL communication between Dave and his BIG mountain buddy. A PM response. Uggh!

[dorkybarb]

there are some that are really cool and fun, but then there are some that are just annoying and hurt my eyes, but i think the fun ones outweigh the bothersome ones.
like the one that i want to use is cute. it has penguins and its not annoying

[Wheel Rider]

Oops...Hey, who still has the holdover animated avatars?:)

[BillyTheMountain]

:)

And I scared Dave away.....

Come back, Dave.

[weeble]

Ah, so the options should be between:
- allow animated gifs
- don't allow animated gifs

I don't see why this has to be an issue for you as the host; there's no reason for you to have to make this choice. Whether the animations are allowed or not, either way, you are equally free to view the forum without them, because you can freely turn them off. For yourself. No one need ever see animations on their screen if they don't want to, whether the forum allows them or not. Allowing the animations has no adverse effect on you, and gives everyone else the freedom to decide for themselves. On the other hand, banning animations for everyone gives *you* exactly the same forum experience, but takes something away from the rest of us, for no reason that I have been able to understand. I don't see why there would be a need to globally suppress by force something that each individual has the power to suppress for him/herself by choice. That's about as many different ways as I can think of to state that, and I guess I've been repeating myself. Some people have reasons for not wanting to have animations, and while I may not agree with those reasons myself, I at least can understand what they are. But why it is so necessary for those people to keep *me* from having animations is something that I can't work out rationally. Unless, maybe, I'm not grasping something here, and my having an animated .gif on my own screen causes for someone else some problem of which I am unaware. I don't do well in discussions where I can't see the logic, so it's becoming difficult for me to debate this issue now.

I recognize that the issue of whether or not we have animated avatars on the unicycle forum is submicroscopically trivial by comparison to what is going on in too many places around the real world, where people are being tortured and killed for their political beliefs, warring over differences of religions, and rioting over misunderstanding of silly cartoon images. So in the grand scheme of things maybe I have no real right to whine. But I feel that any restriction on artistic expression should be imposed only when there is some compelling reason for it, and I don't see it here, and it's disappointing. The opposing argument here lately seems directed less at the animations themselves and more at the people who want to use them.

I guess I'm lost, I thought this forum was about spreading unicycling information.

I did look to make sure that this was the Just Conversation forum before involving myself in this thread. I thought we all generally nattered on about whatever in here, unless the mission has changed, in which case I must have missed the memo, heh.

[weeble]

On a vaguely topical note, the CP threw an error page at me just now saying that this single-frame avatar was an animated image. I'm not bothered by this particularly - I have planty of others - but am just curious. Anyone know what triggered the rejection?

[DigitalDave]

On a vaguely topical note, the CP threw an error page at me just now saying that this single-frame avatar was an animated image. I'm not bothered by this particularly - I have planty of others - but am just curious. Anyone know what triggered the rejection?

Convert it to .jpg might help?

[weeble]

Convert it to .jpg might help?

That would get around the bug, if it is a bug. I'm not really particularly intent on using that avatar, though; I'm just curious about why the system thinks it's animated.

[GILD]

Thought it could stand a Bump now that you've linked to it (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showpost.php?p=461533&postcount=32)again.

[chosen]

i just watched school of rock a few days ago and gilby i gotta say.....youre the man.

[habbywall]

i just watched school of rock a few days ago and gilby i gotta say.....youre the man.

these topics seem very unconnected, please explain

[KcTheAcy]

these topics seem very unconnected, please explain
Have you seen School Of rock????

[weeble]

On a vaguely topical note, the CP threw an error page at me just now saying that this single-frame avatar was an animated image. I'm not bothered by this particularly - I have planty of others - but am just curious. Anyone know what triggered the rejection?

I rebuilt the avatar into a second file the same way as all of my others; it was still rejected, though it is definitely a single frame and not animated. I did this one up just as a test, and it was accepted as an avatar. I don't know what would be fundamentally different about the first one. Something about the colors that it uses?

[johnfoss]

Back to post #2 for this one:
yea i would, anyone that thinks movement disturbs a post while reading it, is too uptight in my eyes. so what-something is flashing to the left while you read. no biggy.
I'm a Web Developer. Anyone who works in the industry knows animations are distracting to the majority of users, very annoying to a smaller percentage of users, and not annoying to an even smaller percentage of users.

Once upon a time, Netscape came up with the <blink>blink</blink> tag. Everybody who was interested in a quality browing experience hated it, and spent the next several years trying to get everyone else to stop using it.

The poll does not ask if we want an option for turn-offable animated avatars. I will not turn off all animations from every site my browser sees just to stop them here.

I like a good piece of animation. Some of the animations I've seen are very clever, funny, or creative. However I DO NOT want to see them constantly animating, taking up bandwidth and system resources, while I'm trying to read what's next to them. Go ahead and show off animated gifs all you want. just not next to every post you make.

The same goes for animated ads, which are *supposed* to be as distracting as possible. They are. And annoying. I scroll them off the screen. However they don't follow me, and reappear every time the same person makes a post. There is a place for animation on a web page (if you must), but it's definitely not in avatars on a forum like this.

[johnfoss]

As long as the OWNER-MAN can give you your freedom, you'll never be free.
You can give *yourself* your freedom, if you're not too afraid to take it. Some examples:

1. Freedom to post to rec.sport.unicycling through the newsreader of your choice.
2. Freedom to not be constrained by the rules and environment of this forum (by not using it).
3. Freedom to create any forum you want, at your own expense and on your own time. Make sure it contains no restrictions though, your you're just being a hypocrite.

:)

[red_rider]

Great point of view John.
I myself am just thankful for this site, and the fact that it is free, and all the great info and great people that frequent it!!!:)

[maestro8]

However I DO NOT want to see them constantly animating, taking up bandwidth and system resources, while I'm trying to read what's next to them.
If a 100k GIF is taking up bandwidth and system resources, then you need to upgrade your 386 and 2400 baud modem.

Why impose your pet peeves on the entire community? Especially if you're web-savvy, you should know 1,001 different ways to tailor a browser to suit your viewing preferences. Plugins like Adblock, Greasemonkey and Platypus give you ultimate control over the web... why don't you use them and let us do what we want?

[epistolize]

Great point of view John.
I myself am just thankful for this site, and the fact that it is free, and all the great info and great people that frequent it!!!:)

echoes red and johnhttp://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b5/corrugatedair/rolleyes.gif

[gkmac]

If a 100k GIF is taking up bandwidth and system resources, then you need to upgrade your 386 and 2400 baud modem.If every post on a page had a 100k animated GIF next to it, you'd actually involuntarily download 100k multiplied by 25 posts per page = 2.5Mb

[habbywall]

except theres only 15 posts per page

[gkmac]

If every post on a page had a 100k animated GIF next to it, you'd actually involuntarily download 100k multiplied by 25 posts per page = 2.5Mbexcept theres only 15 posts per pageHmm, what part of my post said that we were talking about this particular forum???

[BillyTheMountain]

You can give *yourself* your freedom, if you're not too afraid to take it. Some examples:

1. Freedom to post to rec.sport.unicycling through the newsreader of your choice.
2. Freedom to not be constrained by the rules and environment of this forum (by not using it).
3. Freedom to create any forum you want, at your own expense and on your own time. Make sure it contains no restrictions though, your you're just being a hypocrite.

:)

I see your :), but you don't realize that I'm standing up for your rights to unicycle on the sidewalk (there's no law against it) and for your freedom of expression. You have associated yourself again with someone who is against these rights for unicyclists. See below:

If the people don't mind, then the law should be changed. However, I bet the people do mind unicycles. Store owners want people to be able to walk in front of their store without being ran over by unicycles, and the people that want to walk there don't want to be ran over.

I cannot believe Gilby is AGAINST unicycling on the sidewalk!!!!!:mad:

In my 30+ years of unicycling on the sidewalk, I have never created a problem for people or store owners!!:mad:

I would think that since you yourself have fingered Gilby as an OWNER-MAN, you would know that OWNER-MEN stick together, protecting the common interests of all OWNER-MEN to the exclusion of all other interests.

[johnfoss]

If a 100k GIF is taking up bandwidth and system resources, then you need to upgrade your 386 and 2400 baud modem.
100k here, 100k there. I have my display set to show something like 25 posts per page, which can add up. plus I have other stuff running at the same time. Hey, my computer's only 1" thick, give me a break!


Why impose your pet peeves on the entire community?
I was explaining how it's most peoples' pet peeve, not just mine. Anyway, none of us can impose except Mr. OWNER-MAN. All appeals should be directed in his direction.

As a web developer, I run my browsers fairly generic, to see things the way the rest of the world sees them. For the same reason I rarely exclude forum users, so I can see everything that's actually being posted. Call me a masochist.

[johnfoss]

I see your :), but you don't realize that I'm standing up for your rights to unicycle on the sidewalk (there's no law against it) and for your freedom of expression.
Makes for a fairly weak argument when you jump to topics from other threads...

Anyway, there are some sidewalks you *shouldn't* ride on. If common sense worked for everybody, we wouldn't need so many annoying laws. One man's consideration for others is another man's restricted freedom.

[phil]

except theres only 15 posts per page
Sophisticated people with taste, style, distinction and intelligence have long since spurned 15 posts per page; our minds are not so puny that we must limit ourselves, but are open to 30 posts or more.

If you can only express your personality as a sequence of 100-square pixels then feel free to let us know by starting a thread containing your chosen animation, which will soon be buried under the weight of more meaningful posts; otherwise let us get on with what we come here for, reading the writings of other people about subjects that mean something.

(Very, very) drunken rant over. I'm going to feel absolutely awful in the morning, but on the plus side I still know what "thesaurus" means.

Phil

[BillyTheMountain]

Makes for a fairly weak argument when you jump to topics from other threads...

Anyway, there are some sidewalks you *shouldn't* ride on. If common sense worked for everybody, we wouldn't need so many annoying laws. One man's consideration for others is another man's restricted freedom.

You'll never be president of the unicyclists at that rate.....

[Gilby]

Plugins like Adblock, Greasemonkey and Platypus give you ultimate control over the web... why don't you use them and let us do what we want?Or, you can use them and you can do what you want. :p <-- pink smiley

[jake_amos]

Or, you can use them and you can do what you want. :p <-- pink smiley

pink smiley are you feeling alright gilby?

[weeble]

Ok... I've been away from the forum for a couple of weeks with a lot of other things occupying my attention, but now that I have a moment or two with my taxes done and nothing that I can do about any of the other things anyway, I'll drop another post here. Now, it may look like I'm picking specifically on Foss personally, but no; it's just that his recent posts here have contained most of what passes for reasoning on that side of this issue in suitably articulate form. So for the duration of this post I have annointed him as their official spokesperson, and my response is actually directed at the group collectively. Just be warned also that it's a longish post, and rambling, and I'm in a foul mood as I type. Apologies in advance for any hurt feelings. You should have seen the first draft.

Once upon a time, Netscape came up with the <blink>blink</blink> tag. Everybody who was interested in a quality browing experience hated it, and spent the next several years trying to get everyone else to stop using it.

I will agree that having the actual text itself blinking as I am reading it would be something of an annoyance. However, I would view giving the browser the ability to display blinking text, without giving the user a corresponding option to disable it, as bad software design. This apparently is not the case with .gif animations, so I don't see any parallel.

The poll does not ask if we want an option for turn-offable animated avatars. I will not turn off all animations from every site my browser sees just to stop them here.

The possibility of a CP option for each user to selectively block or allow animated avatars is something that I suggested some time ago. My thinking was that the forum system allows users to display or suppress avatars in general, and can (usually) distinguish between animated and static images, so... But, no word yet as to whether or not this is technologically feasible. Actually I doubt that technical issues are the primary obstacle.

So at present it appears to be an everywhere-or-nowhere choice for the user, with the emphasis on choice. You apparently want to see animations everywhere else - you could easily exercise your own freedom to turn them off if you didn't - but find it essential to block them here. Just here. I would politely suggest that maybe I don't want to stop them here just so that you can see them everywhere else. (I, and something like a three-to-one majority of poll responders so far, actually. Not that that matters really. Just something to keep in mind.) Maybe I want to turn them off everywhere else, and on when I come here. Maybe I find blinking ads annoying, but enjoy seeing people's avatars. My sense of web aesthetics is no less valid than yours. The way it was before, you could have it your way, and I could have it my way, and that should have been just fine for everyone. But no; you'd rather take my choice away from me, and make everyone see the the site the way that you want to see it. Your justification for this is that it saves you a couple of mouse clicks, an attitude of transcendent selfishness. What other benefit you get out of it remains a puzzle to me. You're not even logged on here as I post this. You might be out riding somewhere, or eating, or watching TV, or fast asleep, but I still have to have things your way regardless, all the time. I guess that seems fair, to you.

I adjust my settings all the time. I turn scripting on when I come in here, for example, so I can use text enhancements and so forth, and at sites where I pay my bills online. I turn the scripts off almost everywhere else, because it adds a bit of security and speeds up the page-loading considerably for me with my crappy AOL dialup. I don't have a problem with doing that, any more than I would with turning my lights and wipers and turn-signals on and off when I drive my car. You need to recognize that what you call a "quality browsing experience" is different for everyone, and take the responsibility for yours upon yourself. That's what the buttons on your mouse are for.

I like a good piece of animation. Some of the animations I've seen are very clever, funny, or creative. However I DO NOT want to see them constantly animating, taking up bandwidth and system resources, while I'm trying to read what's next to them. Go ahead and show off animated gifs all you want. just not next to every post you make.

I do wish you all would stop going on about all of the reasons why you don't like animated avatars and why you don't want to see them; it's an evasion of the issue. If they annoy you, fine; that's part of your personality and nobody wants you to change. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to enable animated avatars, or no avatars. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, as some pretty smart fellow once said, more or less. The issue is why, when you have the tools available to you to supress them for yourself, you refuse to do that, and instead take them away from everyone, even though it can't possibly make a whit of difference to you whether the rest of us are viewing them or not.

And, I'm unclear on how "bandwidth" is related to an avatar being animated or not. Previous posters on both sides talking about 100K images next to every post are not addressing reality. The animated avatars were always limited to the same twenty-K (nineteen-point-something-K now, I guess) filesize as static ones. My current .jpg avatar is 14.3K, larger than some of the animated .gifs that I've used. How exactly does a, say, 15K .gif cost more bandwidth than a 15K .jpg? A .gif image is not a streaming video. The avatar downloads only once, the first time you see it, or at least that's how it works in my system. If bandwidth actually is an issue for you, then you need to disable avatars in general; the animated property makes no difference. As someone who says he is a "web developer," surely you know all of that, or can explain to me how I am mistaken, a notion which I am willing to entertain. Incidentally, the largest file in my avatars folder is a 19K .jpg. The smallest one, a two-frame .gif animation, weighs in at 616 bytes. "System resources?" Whose system was ever straining to run an 18K 100x100 animated .gif? If someone's surfing the net today on a Commodore 64, please tell me where I can get the software for mine, so I can duplicate that experience.

Seriously, give me a friggin break. Most of the reasons people give for needing this ban kind of - sorry fellas - but kind of insult one's intelligence just a tiny bit, with all due respect and all that. You respond to our protests with elitist puffery about how perfectly free we are to leave the community and go read RSU on Google or some such if we don't like your new policy, without offering any sensible reasoning for why that policy suddenly has to be there in the first place, or considering that you had equal freedom to do the same thing yourself. The avatar ban itself isn't even the main problem with me. Back when it first came down, I assumed that non-IE users didn't have the same ability to control this property as I did. While I was disappointed, I accepted it - grudgingly but with what I felt was a suitable degree of grace - as an unfortunately necessary concession. I grumbled a bit but let it go and went on contentedly using static images. Now that I'm more aware of available options, though, all I see is a minority of users who can't be bothered to literally lift a finger and set a simple browser preference for themselves, imposing their personal taste on everyone else instead, essentially just because they can. You know what a Quality Browsing Experience should be for me, and by golly, you're gonna fix it so that that's what I get. And that's what grates; too much of that kind of self-righteous paternalism permeates our social discourse out in the real world nowadays, and I've developed a sort of allergy to it which dangerously lowers my level of tolerance when I run into it here, whatever the color of the smilies with which it is adorned. My ire is compartmentalized entirely into this thread of course. You know I have the highest regard for you and Gilby and all of you guys as fellow unicyclists and all, but regarding just this one silly little issue, I submit that you are all quite uncharacteristically behaving like a bunch of bullies.

[nick]

I voted no. my avatar is already animated, and as long as I don't change it, I'll be in the increasingly rare group of people that still have them.

That means I win.

[DigitalDave]

And, I'm unclear on how "bandwidth" is related to an avatar being animated or not. Previous posters on both sides talking about 100K images next to every post are not addressing reality. The animated avatars were always limited to the same twenty-K (nineteen-point-something-K now, I guess) filesize as static ones. My current .jpg avatar is 14.3K, larger than some of the animated .gifs that I've used. How exactly does a, say, 15K .gif cost more bandwidth than a 15K .jpg? A .gif image is not a streaming video. The avatar downloads only once, the first time you see it, or at least that's how it works in my system. If bandwidth actually is an issue for you, then you need to disable avatars in general; the animated property makes no difference. As someone who says he is a "web developer," surely you know all of that, or can explain to me how I am mistaken, a notion which I am willing to entertain. Incidentally, the largest file in my avatars folder is a 19K .jpg. The smallest one, a two-frame .gif animation, weighs in at 616 bytes. "System resources?" Whose system was ever straining to run an 18K 100x100 animated .gif? If someone's surfing the net today on a Commodore 64, please tell me where I can get the software for mine, so I can duplicate that experience.


I snickered at this .... you have no idea how much time I spent "shrinking" ,,, Clipping frames" and "whatever" to get my images loaded here :D

Your post is fun reading ...

[GILD]

Your post is fun reading ...
Yeah, makes a crapload of sense as well.

[BillyTheMountain]

And, I'm unclear on how "bandwidth" is related to an avatar being animated or not. Previous posters on both sides talking about 100K images next to every post are not addressing reality. The animated avatars were always limited to the same twenty-K (nineteen-point-something-K now, I guess) filesize as static ones. My current .jpg avatar is 14.3K, larger than some of the animated .gifs that I've used. How exactly does a, say, 15K .gif cost more bandwidth than a 15K .jpg? A .gif image is not a streaming video. The avatar downloads only once, the first time you see it, or at least that's how it works in my system. If bandwidth actually is an issue for you, then you need to disable avatars in general; the animated property makes no difference. As someone who says he is a "web developer," surely you know all of that, or can explain to me how I am mistaken, a notion which I am willing to entertain. Incidentally, the largest file in my avatars folder is a 19K .jpg. The smallest one, a two-frame .gif animation, weighs in at 616 bytes. "System resources?" Whose system was ever straining to run an 18K 100x100 animated .gif? If someone's surfing the net today on a Commodore 64, please tell me where I can get the software for mine, so I can duplicate that experience.

Seriously, give me a friggin break. Most of the reasons people give for needing this ban kind of - sorry fellas - but kind of insult one's intelligence just a tiny bit, with all due respect and all that. You respond to our protests with elitist puffery about how perfectly free we are to leave the community and go read RSU on Google or some such if we don't like your new policy, without offering any sensible reasoning for why that policy suddenly has to be there in the first place, or considering that you had equal freedom to do the same thing yourself. The avatar ban itself isn't even the main problem with me. Back when it first came down, I assumed that non-IE users didn't have the same ability to control this property as I did. While I was disappointed, I accepted it - grudgingly but with what I felt was a suitable degree of grace - as an unfortunately necessary concession. I grumbled a bit but let it go and went on contentedly using static images. Now that I'm more aware of available options, though, all I see is a minority of users who can't be bothered to literally lift a finger and set a simple browser preference for themselves, imposing their personal taste on everyone else instead, essentially just because they can. You know what a Quality Browsing Experience should be for me, and by golly, you're gonna fix it so that that's what I get. And that's what grates; too much of that kind of self-righteous paternalism permeates our social discourse out in the real world nowadays, and I've developed a sort of allergy to it which dangerously lowers my level of tolerance when I run into it here, whatever the color of the smilies with which it is adorned. My ire is compartmentalized entirely into this thread of course. You know I have the highest regard for you and Gilby and all of you guys as fellow unicyclists and all, but regarding just this one silly little issue, I submit that you are all quite uncharacteristically behaving like a bunch of bullies.

Let it out, Dude!

I could not have said it better myself. Most of us never bought that SNOWJOB.

We know what OWNER-Man is trying to do!

[maestro8]

Or, you can use them and you can do what you want. :p <-- pink smiley
Gilby, you'd make a great boxer... you dodge every punch.
... or a great politician... nothing ever sticks to you.
... wait, that'd make you a great frying pan coating!
... except that you release toxic gases when heated.

[red_rider]

I guess Gilby has left the building!:eek:

[patmoore]

I'm guilty. Never heard any gripes on other forums (fora?) I post on. Mine's just a composite of a bunch of sports I engage in (or used to). I'm just coming off a snowboard/ski race season so I haven't visited here in a while. Once I get the unis down from the garage ceiling I hope to be a more regular visitor.

Incidentally if you want to create animaged GIFs, you can get a free trial download program from http://www.gamani.com/

Here's another sample taken on my 50th birthday:

http://i3.tinypic.com/w1fb7r.gif

[GILD]

That wasn't quite what I had in mind for my 50th...