Animated avatars already disabled

[tbct_mt2]

Today, I found that admin probably disable new-worn animated avatars.
Someone who worn animated avatars have still able to wear them, but if they taking them off, and wear other animated avatars, they will fail to do it.

I guess that this one started in discussion weeks ago, and now officially implemented by theymos.
Original discussion on animated avatar is available there:

OK, APNGs are now detected. Old ones are grandfathered for now, in part because people have ongoing campaigns, but in the future I might (or might not) go through and remove them.

Personally, I support the implementation, that help to keep pages in the forum less annoying, less unexpected distraction from animated avatars.

I thank TryNinja, for fastly supported me with the link.

[1714947313]

1714947313

[1714947313]

1714947313

[1714947313]

1714947313

[1714947313]

1714947313

[TryNinja]

OK, APNGs are now detected. Old ones are grandfathered for now, in part because people have ongoing campaigns, but in the future I might (or might not) go through and remove them.

If animated avatars were supposed to be accepted by default, users wouldn't need to resort into APNGs to bypass the system (gif images aren't allowed).

[xtraelv]

Have a chat to madnessteat. He kindly made my animated avatar. The first one didn't load but then he figured out how to make it work.

[madnessteat]

TryNinja is right. It is possible to use only the avatar in APNG format. I don't have a chance to test it right now. Perhaps theymos was off already and the APNG format.

[hugeblack]

It seems that this is true, I tried to upload some animated avatars with .PNG, and it did not work.
Also, I tried to make some adjustments and did not work.
Let's see if designers will be able to circumvent this amendment.

[akamit]

So it means the current ones will remain active and if we try to add a new one then it will not work?

[LoyceV]

madnessteat. He kindly made my animated avatar.

He really makes nice avatars. They animate, but it's subtle. Too bad that's no longer possible just because of terrible gambling avatars.

Vod has an animated avatar too, it took me years to realize it animates, and I only noticed it after I first read it.

[madnessteat]

Thanks guys. Very pleased when about you say well. Maybe someone knows... Why not prohibit the use of animated avatars if they are used for advertising purposes?

[UserU]

Welp, looks like those lucky accounts may fetch a higher price now.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

So it means the current ones will remain active and if we try to add a new one then it will not work?

Yes that's how it's going to work. same thing happened when ranks from jnr member below were restricted from wearing avatar, users already wearing one could still keep their avatar but new members couldn't wear one.

[Lucius]

Maybe someone knows... Why not prohibit the use of animated avatars if they are used for advertising purposes?

Only way to do that is to set the rule "no animated avatars in signature / bounty campaigns", or even for personal use if user is promoting something. But in such a way someone would have to control it, means more work for moderators.

The simplest way is to disable animated avatars for all users, which certainly is not a popular measure, but as it usually happens in today's world, the majority mostly pay for unreasonable actions of few people.

These animated .png avatars have certainly become more obvious over the past few days since the Stake.com bounty campaign started paying anyone for any old spam with no max post limit.

[hilariousetc]

I never had an animated avatar but I didn't mind them. I don't think they were distracting. Sure, they're more noticeable than others but not glaringly so. In fact, before people started bypassing the gif restrictions I suggested being able to have an animated avatar (and a image banner in signature) as a possible donator perk.

Welp, looks like those lucky accounts may fetch a higher price now.

Why? Who wants an avatar that they can't change and is probably irrelevant to them?

Thanks guys. Very pleased when about you say well. Maybe someone knows... Why not prohibit the use of animated avatars if they are used for advertising purposes?

Why would this matter? I don't think there should be a distinction on whether it's a monetised one or not. I think the idea is that they're prohibited because they're a distraction.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The simplest way is to disable animated avatars for all users, which certainly is not a popular measure, but as it usually happens in today's world, the majority mostly pay for unreasonable actions of few people.

True. Given that this has already been done, but not applied retroactively, as the various bounty campaigns come to an end then animated avatars will slowly disappear, save for the few users with animated personal avatars. The latter group are almost always very subtly animated and not nearly as annoying as having the stake.com visible 5 times per page.

In the meantime, if anyone is fed up with the animated bounty avatars, then see this thread for instructions on how to disable them locally: Stop animated images in FireFox / Tor browser / Chrome.

[madnessteat]

~In the meantime, if anyone is fed up with the animated bounty avatars, then see this thread for instructions on how to disable them locally: Stop animated images in FireFox / Tor browser / Chrome.~

Good solution to the problem.

If a person wants to receive information from the forum he absolutely does not care who has what avatar. I think so. If a person is disturbed by animated avatars, he can turn them off at his place. For example, they never distract me.

I respect the opinion of theymos, but next time someone will write that he is distracted by avatars in the format of .JPG and we will all become without avatars.

[TryNinja]

TryNinja is right. It is possible to use only the avatar in APNG format. I don't have a chance to test it right now. Perhaps theymos was off already and the APNG format.

I don’t know if you noticed but I literally quoted a post where theymos states that he made the system detect and disallow APNGs images. My point is that this was possible just because there was no system to detrct it, but it was not intended to be allowed.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I respect the opinion of theymos, but next time someone will write that he is distracted by avatars in the format of .JPG and we will all become without avatars.

I don't think so. You can already disable avatars by going to Profile - Look and Layout Preferences - Don't show users' avatars and checking the box. Given that the option already exists to locally disable avatars if you don't like them, then I don't see that there is really anything to be gained from a site-wide ban.

[Hhampuz]

At first I did not realize how annoying it could be to a majority of people with these animated avatars. I liked them and thought they were great for marketing purposes but I'll no longer use them and I am in the process of having everyone in my campaigns change theirs for a static avatar instead. Sorry!

[madnessteat]

I don’t know if you noticed but I literally quoted a post where theymos states that he made the system detect and disallow APNGs images. My point is that this was possible just because there was no system to detrct it, but it was not intended to be allowed.

I did not understand what you said. Now I understand everythink.

Update:

At first I did not realize how annoying it could be to a majority of people with these animated avatars. I liked them and thought they were great for marketing purposes but I'll no longer use them and I am in the process of having everyone in my campaigns change theirs for a static avatar instead. Sorry!

I agree. Static avatars can also be good.

[Lucius]

~snip!

Problem is not in my opinion that signature / bounty campaigns or individuals use animated avatars, but in the fact that such a way of advertising is abused to the extent it becomes annoying for most of forum members. Your campaigns are very well managed with clearly stated rules and limited members spots, and I think that you should not be sorry for anything.

[darklus123]

It not a fault or mistake, because before the recent changes (disable of animated avatars), it does not violate forum rules.
The problem (if there are problems) is campaign that don't have limited amount of posts per week.
Letting participants to do massive amount of posts around is annoying.
That is some kind of spamming manipulation, unofficially.

It has always been annoying, a higher min like 25 posts per week for such given fixed rate is much cleaner and effective way of running a signature campaign.

I haven't tried adding a previous animated avatar but I guess it should still work cause it can give more details