Except cut off should be Sept 99

What sucks about setting a cut-off date is that only certain people will ever have the option of being "rewarded". Period. A member could actively post here for years, provide useful insights, bring the funny and generally make this forum a better place... but he/she happened to join a month or two after the cut-off... so no avatar.




With that said, I think the cut-off should be Jul '02

They just hatin' on the second wave of forum folks like me and jules winnfeld and... um.. the rest of the sucka's that came in the "new school" that shook the foundation. YEAH!

Are you trying to say you've made this forum a better place?

Most of us have all done our little parts to make the forum, as a whole, a pretty cool place to spend some time.

I'd like to think I've tried to do my part, even on a small scale. There are a lot out there like myself who try to contribute on a daily basis. We're not charter members but we've tried to keep things chugging along.

re - "never having an avatar" - ok. say 5 year or longer members could have avatars. Eventually you get to join the club. So, cutoff right now would be Feb 2000.

I hate avatars, but sure I would have one if I could

Maybe, just have the option for money. Seems like some are so in love with them, they would pay, and get the site some extra cash..

When I suggested a cut-off date, I meant for it to be a "rolling" cut-off date. Like for buying cigarettes and alcohol... forum members will need to be 2/3/4/whatever "years old" on the forums to have an avatar.

I don't even want an avatar but 5 years seems a bit much. How about 3 years/500 posts?

I agree!

I can get behind that ... even though we're not there yet.

Good idea on the rolling date. I think 3 years or so is a perfect cutoff point.

I agree. You gotta put in your dues (5 years + x number of posts) before being allowed an avatar.

(I've still got a year to go, though. )

Five years works for me.

avatar = no signature.
or
signature = no avatar.

truely, i find signatures more annoying than avatars. i dislike reading a post then having scroll further to get to the next post becuase of a long sig, or having to think for a bit if that last part of the post is the post or a signature. atleast avatars would be out of the "reading block" and could be ignored easier.

then again, you'd have the option of seeing avatars or not, just like sigs.

also avatars should need remote hosting.

i think those guidlines in addtion to a time spent as a member plus post count would be very fair. and it;s not like people will have avatars just becuase they can. some people would couldn't careless.

finally, avatars would have to be uniform in size. perhaps no animation. a novel idea would be to only allow avatars of dvd covers.

Works for me!

How about this, instead of avatars, make our post counts show up? No biggie if not.

Nah, that's been done. It led to plenty of padding and I think we're better for having it as it is now.

Problem with that is that when the file disappears it will cause the page to load like poo.

Also, if the hosting is crappy it will affect page load.

And if someone leeches their avatar... *shudder* Me no wanna see ****** no more!

ETA: Whoah! ****** is filtered. Well, those who know what I mean know what I mean.

You guys realize that if you find avatars or sigs annoying, you can turn them off.

Obviously you have read the entire thread and are contributing something new!

Being serious once again.......I don't mind Avatars as long as they are not animated.

My biggest gripe would be with what's mentioned above about the site being bogged down because of them. I'm sure this issue has already been taken into consideration and I hope things turn out to be smooooooooth.

bring on the avatars!

any update on this idea of it being a "reward"?

no. I doubt it. most likely it'll be something that can be purchased when paid memberships are here.