Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions
Jamanda

Avatars

These are basically just graphics files (jpegs, or .jpg) to add one click on the Profile button at the top and then scroll down to the section that says Avatar Control Panel there you have the option of uploading an image from your PC, or somewhere on the internet. The image should be less than 170x170 pixels in size. Make sure you press submit to save the changes to your profile.

Our members have voted that we do not permit moving images as avatars.
bibbster

oh
pookie

what about the moving emoticons? I was very restricted in my choice for Noras' birthday message Confused
Jamanda

Emote away Pookie. Just don't shove them in your avatar or sig.
mochyn

Jamanda wrote:
Emote away Pookie. Just don't shove them in your avatar or sig.


She's not very good at emoting. Tends to bottle things up.
Chez

mochyn wrote:
Jamanda wrote:
Emote away Pookie. Just don't shove them in your avatar or sig.


She's not very good at emoting. Tends to bottle things up.


Laughing Laughing Laughing
Chickem

mochyn wrote:
Jamanda wrote:
Emote away Pookie. Just don't shove them in your avatar or sig.


She's not very good at emoting. Tends to bottle things up.

Just let it out luvvie....we're all friends here!
Laughing Laughing Laughing
Mr O

Re: Avatars

Jamanda wrote:

Our members have voted that we do not permit moving images as avatars.


How did you work that out? 65 votes in total, hardly even a snapshot of the membership. Personaly I am not bothered either way but I did vote. It seems to me that 29 members don't like moving images and the rest dont give a s***, so it is in reality an overwhelming vote to leave the images moving, I would say? Twisted Evil
Gervase

TBH, 65 is probably more than the number of active regular posters over the past week, so in that sense it is representative. As in real life, if people don't vote, then they can't really grumble about the result of an election. After all, would you be happy if fewer than 50 per cent of the populatilon voted for a change of government, but because the unsung majority didn't express a preference, the government remained the same? Wink

ETA: That said, polls regarding the site itself used to be time specific, whereas the new one is vague. This issue of moving avatars doesn't really register on my flying-fartometer, though, so I have no real views on the poll.
Mr O

Gervase wrote:
TBH, 65 is probably more than the number of active regular posters over the past week, so in that sense it is representative. As in real life, if people don't vote, then they can't really grumble about the result of an election. After all, would you be happy if fewer than 50 per cent of the populatilon voted for a change of government, but because the unsung majority didn't express a preference, the government remained the same? Wink

ETA: That said, polls regarding the site itself used to be time specific, whereas the new one is vague. This issue of moving avatars doesn't really register on my flying-fartometer, though, so I have no real views on the poll.


Wording is equally important. A poll should simply say " If you object to moving Avatars Vote here " those that don't care need not even vote, which is the fairest way I feel. Otherwise we give an over credence to those that do object.

The way it is at the moment, it seems like if you complain, then you get your way, cos no one else is really bothered.
marigold

Not giving a sh*t is not the same as being in favour. It could equally be seen as being anti. It's irrelevant.
Mr O

marigold wrote:
Not giving a sh*t is not the same as being in favour. It could equally be seen as being anti. It's irrelevant.


Totaly disagree," not giving a s888" or not interested etc. etc. means, it is not an issue. Therefore not against the moving bits. Simple really.
Marionb

Moving avatars are obviously something that can have an adverse effect on some people.... they may suffer from migraines/epilepsy etc so I think this should be taken into account. Because only a minority of Downsizers are likely to suffer these ailments then only a minority are likely to understand the relevance of such a vote.

I have a disability myself and I like to think that if something that was occuring on this site was giving me problems then others would be sympathetic and make amends to help if possible.. especially if the solution was something relatively simple and achievable.
Mr O

Marionb wrote:
Moving avatars are obviously something that can have an adverse effect on some people.... they may suffer from migraines/epilepsy etc so I think this should be taken into account. Because only a minority of Downsizers are likely to suffer these ailments then only a minority are likely to understand the relevance of such a vote.

I have a disability myself and I like to think that if something that was occuring on this site was giving me problems then others would be sympathetic and make amends to help if possible.. especially if the solution was something relatively simple and achievable.
Hi Marion
I do agree with you, but also feel that the reason this thread has happened is for other reasons.
toggle

Re: Avatars

Mr O wrote:
Jamanda wrote:

Our members have voted that we do not permit moving images as avatars.


How did you work that out? 65 votes in total, hardly even a snapshot of the membership. Personaly I am not bothered either way but I did vote. It seems to me that 29 members don't like moving images and the rest dont give a s***, so it is in reality an overwhelming vote to leave the images moving, I would say? Twisted Evil


65 is a fair proportion of the membership that post on a very regular basis.
Mr O

Re: Avatars

toggle wrote:
Mr O wrote:
Jamanda wrote:

Our members have voted that we do not permit moving images as avatars.


How did you work that out? 65 votes in total, hardly even a snapshot of the membership. Personaly I am not bothered either way but I did vote. It seems to me that 29 members don't like moving images and the rest dont give a s***, so it is in reality an overwhelming vote to leave the images moving, I would say? Twisted Evil


65 is a fair proportion of the membership that post on a very regular basis.

Do you really think so? Is it a real reflection of all the members? Regardless if they post often or not? Post counts are irrelevant in my eyes. Perhaps you feel they are more important than I do?
toggle

i made no mention of post count at all.

A lot of the membership list is inactives, people who drift in for a specific reason and then do not return or people who were once active members and have left. the actual regularly posting membership is fairly small.

I would suspect that polls that you agree with the result of would not be criticised in a similar manner.
Mr O

toggle wrote:
i made no mention of post count at all.

A lot of the membership list is inactives, people who drift in for a specific reason and then do not return or people who were once active members and have left. the actual regularly posting membership is fairly small.

I would suspect that polls that you agree with the result of would not be criticised in a similar manner.


All irrelevant.
pricey

Well i wasn't going to say anything, yesterday lunch time I was fuming, but the wife told me not to say anything, but I read more of this, this morning and well.....

The poll did not even last 24 hours and It was on a Sunday!! how many people post on a Sunday? So the "Mods" think this is OK? who made the decision.

Only 47 people voted on Sally's new poll so it was not 65!

What Has DS become? I feel let down and disappointed, I really thought this was a fair, site, but now I don't feel this way at all.

I like Mr O don't give a s**t, either way, but just make it fair, for god sake, this has been done very, I'm whats the word?

Also who do you complain to? is there some one who is not a Mod, who is impartial? no thought not, it stinks!!!!!
jema

The poll just reaffirmed the long standing position, it hardly needed to run for long to get that view confirmed.

I don't agree with the result myself, but for flips sake on a scale of importance this hardly registers with me at all.
Treacodactyl

pricey wrote:
Only 47 people voted on Sally's new poll so it was not 65!


It would need at least 65 people to vote to change the decision.

As the original poll ( http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?t=26420 ) had been running since 2007 and 70% didn't want moving avatars I, personally, didn't think there was much need for a new poll anyway.

I, like many, don't really mind either way but as I understand some people really don't like them I'm happy to no have moving avatars.
toggle

Mr O wrote:
toggle wrote:
i made no mention of post count at all.

A lot of the membership list is inactives, people who drift in for a specific reason and then do not return or people who were once active members and have left. the actual regularly posting membership is fairly small.

I would suspect that polls that you agree with the result of would not be criticised in a similar manner.


All irrelevant.


why?
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Site guidelines, Announcements, Problems and Suggestions
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home