to actually have a publically stated size limit on avatars?
You can bring up the 90 x 90 limit if you wish, but this limit is obviously void. The majority of avatars on this forum exceed this size. I’m tired of being requested to remove my avatars for not agreeing with an unstated paradigm (as I’m sure others are tired of requesting it) that I cannot possibly know. What is “reasonable” or “respectable” is completely within the eye of the beholder.
Create a limit. A 200 width is my suggestion, as that doesn’t particularly stretch the forum much.
This is why we have rules- not for the majority, but for those few people who will just assume it’s ok to be a pain in the ass if things aren’t written in stone.
What’s wrong with trying to be reasonable? What’s wrong with logging in, seeing how your avatar is pushing all the text over into one corner of the screen, and saying “Oh, that’s a bit of a pain to read- I bet it’s really a pain for other people,” and making it smaller?
Did you see the Finnish gothic rock band that won Eurovision? It was the best song performed on the night. The British entry was a heap of crap and the backing dancers were all only about 15…
I have asked you twice now to change your avatar to something smaller and have also physically removed 3 oversized ones. The request for a limit on avatars is publically available in the Announcements section and even if it weren’t I asked you to lower it in a PM.
I’m not entirely sure what the point of your holy crusade is but I find it petty and time-consuming. I have better things to do with my time than to fight about avatar sizes. I asked you politely and privately to change your avatar and 3 times you have gone against this. As a result you are banned from ILP for a month.
The 90x90 thing is a guideline, I would like to think ILP members have enough common sense to know what is too big. If someone has one that is outrageously big I will let them know. Yours is fine Ucci,
Uccisore: 146x168. (Right-click the image and look at properties.)
I feel inclined to post because I started something of an ‘avatar crusade’ a while back myself, suggesting 90x90 was much too small. I don’t remember anymore if it was indeed my thread that caused the new standard, but I do remember the rule (as it relates to this thread) was that, while the system will allow avatars of any size, it’s best to keep them small enough so they don’t disrupt the left margin of the page. In other words, the maximum width ought be around 165, with height a little more subjective, though anything in excess of 165 would also be on the extreme side. (Mine is 75x100, as another frame of reference.)
Personally, I think the optimal size for an avatar is 120x120, but even 150x150 doesn’t stike me as being overly large.
Now I understand that his avatars were oversized, but if you’re holding people strictly to a guideline, that’s ridiculous. Just rewrite the rules. I think it displays a gross amount of hypocricy to ban someone who disobeys a guideline that you yourself are breaking, when you can just take 15 seconds to rewrite the rules to say something meaningful.
You call them rules in the Announcement page, then guidelines here. So should we interpret all the rules as guidelines then?
Now, I’m not doing this just to kvetch. I like this site and what it’s for. But, these problems will continue to happen, and your moderators will continue to be attacked unless we establish something that means something to the posters, as the rules obviously do not mean rules right now. There is a personal crusade against a moderator in MB right now, because this mod acts differently than the other mods in mod capacities (supposedly). And this stems from the fact that the rules are applied differently in the different parts of the board. Hence, they are not rules.
Thank you for your comments and for putting them in a polite way. Firstly to the specifics of Centripetal Farce. There was no strictness about it, a lot of avatars on this site are bigger than 90x90 and that’s fine. CP’s were massive and it doesn’t take a genius to see the difference. Even if he was confused then I sent him a PM asking him to change the size and even gave him some guidelines dimensions. He then put another massive one up and so I deleted it and so he put another one up and so I deleted and then again he put another one up. I didn’t ban him because he broke a guideline, I banned him because I’m not going to spend all day asking him to change his avatar and removing it every time he puts another massive one up.
Now to a more general point. I appreciate what you are saying about consistency and I think that is one side of the balance. The other is common sense and I try as much as possible to let common sense prevail over strict rules because I think every case should be treated in context. Perhaps we don’t have the balance quite right but these sorts of comments really do have a sway in how we run things and I thank you again for raising it. The staff spend a lot of time debating the rules and the actions that we take and we really do try and make the most sensible decisions without needing to resort to a list of rules as long as you arm which has the potential to stifle debate and become needlessly beaurecratic.
Not a day goes by without having the delight of someone calling me a hypocrite on this site, but no doubt if the rules were stricter I’d be called a fascist dictator! I guess some things you just can’t win.
I mean more in a general than specific way. Yes, I think a lot of people can agree that overly large avatars can be bothersome to reading the site. And I agree that some of his were overly large. I’m not inherently disagreeing with the overall decision. But, I do think that changing the rules should maybe be a consideration or don’t bring them up at all. I think it’s fine to ask him to change and remove his and so on and so forth, but then either just remove the size limit in the rules or just don’t even bring up the 90x90 limit, as I don’t know if a single member has an avatar (that has an avatar) is within this limit, so you might as well just eliminate it altogether. It seems very lame to bring up a 90x90 limit that a majority of members are breaking in bringing down the law.
I’m not supporting a list of rules as long as your arm, but the rules you do have need to be enforced evenly. I think consistency is the key problem more than anything else. Ad hom is a good rule to have. It makes it no longer a discussion of ideas but of people. This was completely ignored for quite some time. When it started actually being enforced, people thought it was unfair, this probably because it was barely being enforced before that. I think most of the rules on the books are fine. They just need to be enforced and be enforced evenly. Right now this feels like the NBA. Some members are favorites and therefore they get the benefit of the doubt and the rules are “bent” for them.
I appreciate the explanation. And I’m certainly not accusing you of being a hypocrite, but of doing one thing which seems hypocritical. I certainly would never consider any mod/admin on this site a fascist dictator, nor do I think they should ever be labeled such. I’m on another forum (nothing to do with philosophy whatsoever) which has very strict rules. I enjoy the consistency, but it is a little stifling. They have many, many rules. Like I said, I think the rules in place are fine, just not enforced well enough.
I have one last thing. Why is a poster considered free and clear if they make a new name after being banned? I don’t know of any specific instances recently, but I know it has certainly happened in the past. Shouldn’t the ban actually be a ban for a month, not until they can make a new account?
I guess some things you just can’t win.