He's already said there won't be 'add-on' plans. For $30 I think people should be entitled to avatars.

I use high speed connections wherever i browse from.. and I still dont want avatars to be allowed


just a pointless waste of bandwidth

I use dialup and I hate avatars. I can read an entire page before the darn things load.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth twikoff •<HR SIZE=1>I use high speed connections wherever i browse from.. and I still dont want avatars to be allowed


just a pointless waste of bandwidth <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I don't see what the appeal is. At best, they just take up space, and at worst, they're incredibly annoying and a stress to the moderators. So a few people will have funny avatars. Most everyone else will have boring and uncreative ones that appear all over the place and waste bandwidth.

<b>Geoff</b>, perhaps there's a way to be more creative with the user Profile page in a way that allows paying users to have a small avatar of sorts there but doesn't clog the forum. It would allow paying users to have a bit of self expression without sticking it in the faces of those who aren't interested.

das

Not that I care one way or another (and I feel like the word has been that avatars are out) but if they ever enter the equation maybe users can have the ability to turn them off. I believe the rotten tomatoes forum gives you the ability to turn them off.

Actually, if you go to your User CP and click on options, you'll see there is already an option to select whether or not you want to see user's avatars.

It's right below the view signatures option.

I've always hated them as well, but with this option it's not big deal. Unless having them slows down the site overall.

slows down the site overall.. especially when you let people remote link.. because they might remote link to really slow sites
if you host them internally, then it means more bandwidth wasted

sure.. there is always the option to turn them off.. but Im not sure what the arguement would be, to enable them

Still sounds high at $30 for what you get.

I think part of what you get is the continuing existence of this site. If you like the time you spend on here and feel that the content that is being created here is worth something then you might feel like chipping in.

I would chip in at a lower rate, even if it meant the viewing of ads. I feel most of us, don't mind the banner ads and links. (I even purchase off of them), but the popup/unders, and Final Des2 type ads drive everyone crazy. That said, I would still accept those AND donate, if they had a lower (>$15.00 a year) type membership.

In that case

Like I said, I hate the damn things. I wouldn't mind enabling them if there were no downside to the performance of the site since you can turn them off, but if it slows things down and/or wastes bandwith then forget about them.

Just as I supported Voyager and Enterprise because I am a loyal dude, I will support DVDTalk at as high a level as I can. But I still want avatars.

But either way, I will pony up the dough.

Even though Geoff still owes me a DVD from the 2000 Fantasy Football league.

Avatars =

Completely pointless and annoying to everyone else. Why do you need a picture by your name?

I would do at least one year of the annual membership if for nothing else than I have been enjoying this site for years now and I would like to help out. That being said, $30 a year is too much IMO. I think if you go lower, say $15-$20, you will end up making more because more people would do it.

Avatars will probably be out. But pictures in your profile probably will be in.

For what it's worth, I agree. I wouldn't do it for $30 but I probably would for $15.

I'll be doing this on my board as well and while I'm sure my costs aren't near what yours are I'll be charging $16 per year.

for avatars, too.

If it helps keep the site around longer, I don't mind paying a membership either.

so does that mean we can include mature pictures of ourself, in our profiles?

Twikoff naked?

Make the bad images go away, Mommy!!!

Wouldn't be much to see anyways!!

Even though I don't post much here, consider me signed up. One thing I was worrying about is what happens if a paying member gets banned form this site? Do they get a refund for the months left?

That's a good question I hadn't thought about but am now curious to hear the answer.

As for avatars, give me a break. I don't see the point of having them at all. Especially since one person might have a cool avatar and then 20 people use the same one because they liked it so much, and then you see that avatar by a post and you think, "Oh man, here comes another classic Groucho post," but it's actually Troll73 saying "I hate Luca$! And Ebert is crazy because he didn't like Movie X!"

Personally, I like looking at who is posting what by name. It encourages more participation and awareness (even if it's only a little). And after you've been here for a while, you look forward to posts by certain people. So no avatars.

As it is, the plan sounds pretty good. I'm sure you'll think of new things as it rolls along, so consider me signed up (hopefully for the lifetime membership, as long as it isn't prohibitively expensive).

that wouldnt happen to me..
I keep Troll73 on my ignore list

I'm sure a refund would be made considering bannings, but I'm not sure about suspensions.

Yeah, man, I hate that guy!

Nope. If you're banned for breaking the rules of membership, the membership fee isn't going to be refundable.

- G

Better hope paid banned members don't sue for refunds.

if its int he terms of agreement.. do they really have a case?