I think I know why people on ATOT are hostile

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
My avatar would be an image of a hostile middle finger.

as opposed to the loving caring middle finger?

Extra words do not make you look smart.

Nor do they assist your post count

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
My avatar would be an image of a hostile middle finger.

as opposed to the loving caring middle finger?

Extra words do not make you look smart.

Nor do they assist your post count

Would you like me to demonsrate to you a loving, caring middle finger?

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
My avatar would be an image of a hostile middle finger.

as opposed to the loving caring middle finger?

Extra words do not make you look smart.

Nor do they assist your post count

Would you like me to demonsrate to you a loving, caring middle finger?

An X-ray shot of a middle finger pleasuring someone's hole could technically be called a a loving, caring...

 

[MotionMan]

This would be my "flashy annoying .gif" (Watched it "live" on TV)

This would be my NOT "flashy annoying .gif" (Watched it live in person )

MotionMan (49er Faithful since 1967)

 

[Goosemaster]

Avatars lead to anger
anger leads to hate
hate leads to /b/

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: tm37

Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
My avatar would be an image of a hostile middle finger.

as opposed to the loving caring middle finger?

Extra words do not make you look smart.

Nor do they assist your post count

Would you like me to demonsrate to you a loving, caring middle finger?

An X-ray shot of a middle finger pleasuring someone's hole could technically be called a a loving, caring...

pics?

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Goosemaster
Avatars lead to anger
anger leads to hate
hate leads to /b/

/b/ doesn't have screen names, much less avatars...

I don't see how something that isn't an aspect of /b/ can lead to /b/, unless there is some anti-avatar backfire revolution that ends up with even screenames being taken away.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
People resort to Ad hominem arguments when trying to prove their ideas. The irony is an Ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, that is making an argument like that will not prove your idea in a logical setting.

You don't think that posting a link to "ad hominem" is a little condescending?

 

[Howard]

I know exactly who I'm flaming, so no thanks.

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
People resort to Ad hominem arguments when trying to prove their ideas. The irony is an Ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, that is making an argument like that will not prove your idea in a logical setting.

You don't think that posting a link to "ad hominem" is a little condescending?

Don't you think posting a link just reeks of snobbery?

 

[CrazyLazy]

Originally posted by: Howard
I know exactly who I'm flaming, so no thanks.

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
People resort to Ad hominem arguments when trying to prove their ideas. The irony is an Ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, that is making an argument like that will not prove your idea in a logical setting.

You don't think that posting a link to "ad hominem" is a little condescending?

Don't you think posting a link just reeks of snobbery?

Not really. The wikipedia article has some very nice diagrams that explain the logic, or lack of logic behind ad hominem arguments.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Howard
I know exactly who I'm flaming, so no thanks.

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
People resort to Ad hominem arguments when trying to prove their ideas. The irony is an Ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, that is making an argument like that will not prove your idea in a logical setting.

You don't think that posting a link to "ad hominem" is a little condescending?

Don't you think posting a link just reeks of snobbery?

I was going for "irony."

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Howard
I know exactly who I'm flaming, so no thanks.

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
People resort to Ad hominem arguments when trying to prove their ideas. The irony is an Ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, that is making an argument like that will not prove your idea in a logical setting.

You don't think that posting a link to "ad hominem" is a little condescending?

Don't you think posting a link just reeks of snobbery?

I was going for "irony."

This is the worst game I have ever played.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The Declaration of Independence guarantees only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect is earned, the internet is Darwinian in nature and people who go out of their way to prove how stupid they are get smacked. Why should it be any different here? Despite the wishes of namby-pamby crybabies who want the world to be like a Coke commercial where everyone joins hands and sings, it doesn't work like that on its own and you can't force it to work that way with some e-rules. The best feature of AT is that you CAN beat the living crap out of some idiot that's begging for it. Long live hostility, it's here to stay and stupid avatars won't change things one bit.

I agree with you on the respect point. But it is difficult to determine who deserves respect, and who doesn't, when uniquely identifying members takes a fair bit of brain power. This leads to people just throwing around insults because they don't know who deserves it, and who doesn't.

"Fair bit of brainpower" = reading 1-3 words. If you can't exert that fair bit of brainpower, there's no chance you're going to construct intelligent respectful conversation.

You have to realize it's not just reading the members name, it's memorizing their name and the personality that goes along with it. Now imagine doing that 50 times over for every single unique person posting in a thread. Science tells us that graphical representations of something make it much easier to recognize and remember something.

For example, I can see a glimpse of a Coca Cola logo driving down the highway at 60mph and know exactly what it was. If that same store just had a plain text logo saying "Coca Cola" I would have no idea what it said. On other forums I frequent I can quickly scroll past an avatar in my peripheral vision and know exactly who is making that post.

There's no reason you can't make the mental association between a name and a personality as easily as you can make the association between an image an a personality, especially considering how creative most of the names on here are.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Howard
I know exactly who I'm flaming, so no thanks.

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
People resort to Ad hominem arguments when trying to prove their ideas. The irony is an Ad hominem argument is a logical fallacy, that is making an argument like that will not prove your idea in a logical setting.

You don't think that posting a link to "ad hominem" is a little condescending?

Don't you think posting a link just reeks of snobbery?

I was going for "irony."

This is the worst game I have ever played.

Fixed.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy
Cliffs: Members should be able to choose their own small, non-animated avatar in an effort to build community on this forum.

Ugh, no.

KT

agreed

 

[Adam8281]

People will just make fun of each other's avatars then

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Adam8281
People will just make fun of each other's avatars then

that was my point exactly. it's not bad enough they make fun of people's posts for any little thing, now you add in a custom avatar and people will be made fun of for that.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Personal avatars would only give users another method of expressing their hostility, and they would be a nightmare to moderate on what is generally a PG-13 board at worst.

They could be community approved. Set up an approval system that lets you submit an avatar for approval. Then there will be a section that allows all lifers to vote new avatar submissions as either up or down, and after a set amount of votes it is either approved if it has a large number of up votes, or disallowed if it has a large number of down votes. Anytime a vote is close it goes to the mods for approval to prevent rigging of the system.
I think it is quite doable and would not create a large burden on the system or posters. There would have to be community rules listed on what is and is not appropriate, and a warning that if your submission is very inappropriate you might get banned for even submitting it. Lifers would just have to be aware that the approval process is decidedly NSFW.

 

[CrazyLazy]

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy

Originally posted by: AreaCode707

Originally posted by: CrazyLazy

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The Declaration of Independence guarantees only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect is earned, the internet is Darwinian in nature and people who go out of their way to prove how stupid they are get smacked. Why should it be any different here? Despite the wishes of namby-pamby crybabies who want the world to be like a Coke commercial where everyone joins hands and sings, it doesn't work like that on its own and you can't force it to work that way with some e-rules. The best feature of AT is that you CAN beat the living crap out of some idiot that's begging for it. Long live hostility, it's here to stay and stupid avatars won't change things one bit.

I agree with you on the respect point. But it is difficult to determine who deserves respect, and who doesn't, when uniquely identifying members takes a fair bit of brain power. This leads to people just throwing around insults because they don't know who deserves it, and who doesn't.

"Fair bit of brainpower" = reading 1-3 words. If you can't exert that fair bit of brainpower, there's no chance you're going to construct intelligent respectful conversation.

You have to realize it's not just reading the members name, it's memorizing their name and the personality that goes along with it. Now imagine doing that 50 times over for every single unique person posting in a thread. Science tells us that graphical representations of something make it much easier to recognize and remember something.

For example, I can see a glimpse of a Coca Cola logo driving down the highway at 60mph and know exactly what it was. If that same store just had a plain text logo saying "Coca Cola" I would have no idea what it said. On other forums I frequent I can quickly scroll past an avatar in my peripheral vision and know exactly who is making that post.

There's no reason you can't make the mental association between a name and a personality as easily as you can make the association between an image an a personality, especially considering how creative most of the names on here are.

Sure it's possible to make an association with a name, but it is easier with a picture and because it is easier more people are likely to do it.

 

[Bill Brasky]

I think crazylazy has a great point. I've even thought the same thing many times before, and I'm kind of surprised more people aren't in favor of it.

 

[CRXican]

if the freaking vbulliten swtich ever actually happens custom avs should be allowed and those that don't want to see them can turn off the AVs and sigs

 

[Redfraggle]

I like the idea of custom avs. Modding them is not difficult really. As long as rules are set, and consequences enforced, then people usually have enough sense to stay within the rules. I've found that not allowing custom avs until a member is established to be helpful in avoiding NSFW content. VB has a member listing, and at most one person could be charged with modding avs by going through that list daily or weekly or whatever. Reporting by members is easy enough as well.

 

[Fritzo]

You'd act that way too if you were in your 30's and haven't had sex yet.

 

[alkemyst]

I want a big nutsac for a personal avatar.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Personal avatars would only give users another method of expressing their hostility, and they would be a nightmare to moderate on what is generally a PG-13 board at worst.

They could be community approved. Set up an approval system that lets you submit an avatar for approval. Then there will be a section that allows all lifers to vote new avatar submissions as either up or down, and after a set amount of votes it is either approved if it has a large number of up votes, or disallowed if it has a large number of down votes. Anytime a vote is close it goes to the mods for approval to prevent rigging of the system.
I think it is quite doable and would not create a large burden on the system or posters. There would have to be community rules listed on what is and is not appropriate, and a warning that if your submission is very inappropriate you might get banned for even submitting it. Lifers would just have to be aware that the approval process is decidedly NSFW.

All boob images, which would be inappropriate for this forum, would get an instant majority thumbs up. Flaw in the system.