If you use Firefox/ IceWasel with adblock you can add this rule to never see an avatar agin on these forums:
Code: Select all
This sort of works against the argument for limiting avatar size. If there are other options available for dealing with avatars -- options that do not include an infringement on expression -- then there is no justifiable reason for placing restrictions on avatar size and dimensions.
The way I see it, restricting avatars to such small dimensions and file sizes makes almost no one happy. The people that don't use avatars aren't affected by the policy, so they don't really care one way or the other. The people that use avatars within the range specified, are either doing so begrudgingly, or their avatars were already within the adopted range. The people that were affected by the change in avatar policy have made their objections known.
What I haven't seen throughout the course of this discussion, is somebody thanking the admins for adopting the new avatar policy. So I'm wondering exactly who it was that was pleased by this new policy? Lavene is correct in her understanding that it is impossible to please everyone. The question remains however, did you please anyone with the new avatar policy?
It sort of reminds me of a local company that received a lot of criticism from a large segment of the local population. They responded to the criticism with the argument that it was not possible to please everyone. And they took an extreme approach to silencing their critics. (Read: they broke the law)
Anyway, the point is that this particular company didn't really please anyone. Ordinarily, such a company would have no choice but to go out of business. I mean, you have to please your customers if you want to have customers, right? But this business was the only game in town. So they reasoned that they didn't have to please anyone.