PlanetCatfish.com

I trust this was much thought-through and discussed but still wanted to deposit my 2 cents. No reply is expected if I am alone in my "old-fashion-ness" or in utter minority.

(1) I, for one, love this feature on the BOC forum (Brotherhood of Catfishermen): please look up point #13 on profile picture here

http://brotherhood-of-catfishermen.com/ ... 917721.pdf

I tried copy/paste to avoid an extra step but could not.

(2) And I also, for one, find more-than-1-2-line signatures an inefficient use of space. I wish more posts would fit on one page and we all had to do less scrolling, loading pages, and clicking. For the same reason, lots of space is left blank because of the extensive user data sheet on the right.

NB: I do realize there are pluses and minuses to any existing format as well as any "seemingly improving" change.

1) Was talked about a lot when we set the forum up. My feeling is that you can't enforce it. I mean, I could upload an attractive picture of a girl and (this has happened) I will get a lot more attention. So, the good guys follow the rules and those that are somewhere between counter culture and bad don't. Key point is you can't really tell. It also tends to alienate certain sections of the user community.

2) I agree, but it's hard to define. We do tend to ask people nicely to remove big banners. There isn't a lot I can do about the right handside but it is due for a re-design. It's messy/compact versus elegant and space consuming.

Happy to discuss.

Jools

I agree with Jools: unless you have actually met (or will meet) the person, you will never actually know what they look like, so how do you know that the picture shown is actually of that person...

As an example:
On a different forum where I spent some time in the past, one user is using this as their avatar (profile pic): It is a programming forum, where people discuss programming problems of various levels. As you can probably imagine, there are a fair number of youngish boys on the forum. Laserlight, the user with said avatar, has had several "propositions" from boys on the forum - but Laserlight is not a girl, despit the avatar picture.

You wouldn't have any idea from just reading the posts (unless you happen on one of the posts saying "I'm not a girl").

There is an old thread of "what do you look like" somewhere in Speak Easy. But you still have to trust the person posting the picture that it really is a picture of that person, rather than some picture of a friend or something they found in Photobucket/flickr/google image search.

--
Mats

Yeah, these things crossed my mind too. I still was hoping that talking "face-to-face" with eight out of ten people would make it all worth it. But your, gents, vantage point is immeasurably higher than mine.

The rules, T&C, etc. would take care of the possible harassment, inappropriate behavior, etc. The rules can also state: use your photo or no avatar at all. Users who value their place at PCF hardly would risk being banned because of the pic. Some won't get ever caught. Others will be, e.g., by fellow members. For some reason, I think the problem would mostly (not entirely) be confined to rebellious teens.

Pros and cons all over the place...

People are able to get attention in various other ways, so having photos would not change the state of things qualitatively in this regard but only quantitatively. Is it significant? Among us three, only you would know.

Would you like me to contact the admin for the BOC to solicit his experience-based view?

MatsP wrote:There is an old thread of "what do you look like" somewhere in Speak Easy. But you still have to trust the person posting the picture that it really is a picture of that person, rather than some picture of a friend or something they found in Photobucket/flickr/google image search.

Nice idea. I also mulled it over. One can always challenge it and, politely, ask for a scan of a driver's license

I don't really see the point in a "your face photo or nothing" avatar policy. If someone wants to have their favourite fish, cartoon or some other picture as their avatar, then that makes it a more interesting place.

Even at a much more "personal" place, like facebook, a lot of people have cartoons, their favourite object (e.g. motorbike, fish, flower, or whatever), etc rather than their own picture.

If you look at the avatars that are used on the forum right now, nearly none of them would qualify. So basically, it would remove the avatars that are there right now.

There are a lot of people I know that don't want their own photo to appear online for any number of more or less good reasons.

Someone else, running a different forum, is of course entirely up to the person/organisation behind that forum to set what rules they want to set - as long as they don't ask someone to do something illegal of course.

--
Mats

Most big benelux forums have a "facebook" topic where members can post pictures of them self.
That way everyone can decide for them self if they want to share their picture.
I don't think forcing ppl to put their picture as avatar is a good idea.
I do like the idea of opening a forum for pictures though, it's nice to
be able to put a face on people you talk to

ps if someone wants a custom made avatar like mine you can give me a pm
I'm learning to work with photoshop cs5(I'm quite bad though )

Viktor Jarikov wrote:Yeah, these things crossed my mind too. I still was hoping that talking "face-to-face" with eight out of ten people would make it all worth it. But your, gents, vantage point is immeasurably higher than mine.

Not at all re vantage point, happy, always, to consider. I agree re eight out of ten, however it's the one in five you've got to worry about. We have only banned (outside of spamming) a few members in our years, and issued warnings to a few more. I feel they are ALL in the 1 out of 5 camp. So why burden the 4/5 while the 1/5 do what they want anyway?

Viktor Jarikov wrote:Others will be, e.g., by fellow members. For some reason, I think the problem would mostly (not entirely) be confined to rebellious teens.

It's the rebellious teens who are well past their 21st birthday that are the problem. Actually, youngsters are much more comfortable, adept and better about managing their online persona(s). I wouldn't judge them thus.

Viktor Jarikov wrote:People are able to get attention in various other ways, so having photos would not change the state of things qualitatively in this regard but only quantitatively. Is it significant? Among us three, only you would know.

In my experience so far (the forum will have been running a decade in 2013) it's a bad idea. It's too broad a church, it works for smaller communities - while we are relatively small, we are very wide!

Viktor Jarikov wrote:Would you like me to contact the admin for the BOC to solicit his experience-based view?

With respect to the BOC, how many international members, how many native tongues, what age range? Look at their faces online. Is that a like-for-like community with this one?

On this I am firm there should be no hard rule, maybe there could be some encouragement but I am not sure. Look at Shane's avatar, or mine, both show you faces, but you can't tell it's us unless you know us. So, what's the point? I can tell more about someone by their choice of avatar when it's not enforced to be their face. They have no choice in what that looks like! But when it's a free selection, well, that gives me a clue as to what I am corresponding with.

Jools

Eek. No pictures is wonderful. Guys don't have it too bad but the women certainly get treated differently depending on what they look like. Sensible people try not to but we all do it. If I'm a hot babe I'll be treated differently than if I'm a scary woman with a scowl and mustache. Imagine the kooks that might show up if I posted my face in a burka???
Blondes get treated differently in real life so here would be not different.

I also like to see what people choose for avatars - says alot to me about their personality A cat or another pet picture immediately tells me I have something in common with that person, a face does not.

We all want a moving avatar like Jools' though! Perks come with ownership.

The 'big' banners don't bug me at all and if someone posts a link that might go somewhere offensive, I don't have to click it. I click the banners of the poster I "know".

Viktor,

Just curious (no hidden agenda) - why don't you have an avatar?

Jools

L number Banana wrote:The 'big' banners don't bug me at all and if someone posts a link that might go somewhere offensive, I don't have to click it. I click the banners of the poster I "know".

Just to be clear, if someone's banner (or other links) is offensive [1] then that is definitely against the rules of the forum, and grounds for a warning.

I think Viktor's point was more the vissual/screen space that it takes up, however.

[1] In a general sense - I might take offense to someone linking to a football team that is the biggest rival of my team - that is a personal thing, not generally offensive.

--
Mats

MatsP wrote:
[1] In a general sense - I might take offense to someone linking to a football team that is the biggest rival of my team - that is a personal thing, not generally offensive.

--
Mats

But it also shows that they share the love of that sport...

I agree with all the sensible cons you guys presented but I can see them both ways, really, and I also agree, still, with myself. So you may say you have me torn now...

To me, and only to me, non-ID avatars are as informative, or rather less informative, than a real pic of a person. I'd rather talk to Joe from mid west who likes tattoos and motorbikes (cuz he is pictured on one) than to Triple-X from Venus who likes sucking what looks like alien blood... exaggerating, sure...

MatsP wrote:If someone wants to have their favourite fish, cartoon or some other picture as their avatar, then that makes it a more interesting place.

If they are a regular, you'll know all of this anyway. It takes away one of the cornerstones of human interaction. We might as well be talking to robots?

MatsP wrote:Even at a much more "personal" place, like facebook, a lot of people have cartoons, their favourite object (e.g. motorbike, fish, flower, or whatever), etc rather than their own picture.

Are you able to define "a lot" in terms of % of total users? 100,000 of 100,000,000 is not a lot but itself, it is. Besides, their pics are just a click away anyway right on that site. Not so here.

MatsP wrote:There are a lot of people I know that don't want their own photo to appear online for any number of more or less good reasons.

If you are implying misuse/abuse, a tiny photo like that hardly would be useful for such a vile inclination.

har_eh wrote:it's nice to be able to put a face on people you talk to

yep... cornerstone...

Jools wrote:I agree re eight out of ten, however it's the one in five you've got to worry about. We have only banned (outside of spamming) a few members in our years, and issued warnings to a few more. I feel they are ALL in the 1 out of 5 camp. So why burden the 4/5 while the 1/5 do what they want anyway?

I did not get that whole thing, Jools. Sorry.
If it is a burden for the 4/5th, then it doesn't matter what 1/5th will or will not do.

Jools wrote:It's the rebellious teens who are well past their 21st birthday that are the problem.

they are a problem anyway, with or without a photo, and in my proposition, nobody will force them to put up their photo

Jools wrote:Actually, youngsters are much more comfortable, adept and better about managing their online persona(s). I wouldn't judge them thus.

Very good to know. I was cynical, stereotyping, and wrong.

Jools wrote:In my experience so far (the forum will have been running a decade in 2013) it's a bad idea. It's too broad a church, it works for smaller communities - while we are relatively small, we are very wide!

That's quite fine. I am not up to break anyone.

Jools wrote:With respect to the BOC, how many international members, how many native tongues, what age range? Look at their faces online. Is that a like-for-like community with this one?

Are these rhetorical or real q's to me? Little international. Age is all over the map. Little education except for fishing techniques. They are angler community. I love seeing who I am talking to. And I see what they like and a little what they are like from their photos too.

Jools wrote:Look at Shane's avatar, or mine, both show you faces, but you can't tell it's us unless you know us. So, what's the point?

Humanity. Something that will escape from us soon. Can see it in our kids already. They can fire off 300 SMS's a day but don't know how to talk to each other when put in one room without their beloved thumb-driven gadgets. It doesn't matter that I don't know 2 out of 10. I will know 8. How can I ask for more? I'd even take 5 but PCF commune appears more mature than that to me.

Jools wrote:I can tell more about someone by their choice of avatar when it's not enforced to be their face. They have no choice in what that looks like! But when it's a free selection, well, that gives me a clue as to what I am corresponding with.

By your own argument, non-photo avatars are at least as, if not more, misleading. E.g., I'd never gather from Steve Grant's avatar that he is one super ichthyologist. Or from SidGuppy's avatar that he is a walking encyclopedia of random fish knowledge. From Shovelnose's prior avatar, I could not even fathom what that thing even was. He is one super guy though.

L number Banana wrote:Eek. No pictures is wonderful. Guys don't have it too bad but the women certainly get treated differently depending on what they look like.

I respect that, L#Banana. Women still go out in public, don't they? Those who are afraid, probably, stay home? Those who want to treat people differently, will do anyway, even if based on incomplete info and their own guesswork.
Is the model of a forum taken after a live, person-to-person multi-human exchange? Conference? Classroom? I realize there are limits to any model.

Jools wrote:Just curious (no hidden agenda) - why don't you have an avatar?

The reason is stupid: never given it any thought til now, obviously.

MatsP wrote:I think Viktor's point was more the visual/screen space that it takes up, however.

Yep. Thanks, Mats!

Viktor Jarikov wrote:

MatsP wrote:Even at a much more "personal" place, like facebook, a lot of people have cartoons, their favourite object (e.g. motorbike, fish, flower, or whatever), etc rather than their own picture.

Are you able to define "a lot" in terms of % of total users? 100,000 of 100,000,000 is not a lot but itself, it is. Besides, their pics are just a click away anyway right on that site. Not so here.

Obviously it would be difficult to asses ALL of facebook. But (based on my memory of the rules of what you posted earlier), and sampling my friends that are in "current news", about 1 in 3 fulfills the "ID photo" styel guideline, another 1/3 have something that contains themselves (e.g. themselves and another person, or Scott Redding has a photo of himself riding a motorbike - if you don't KNOW who Scott is, the photo will only tell you that he likes motorcycle racing, not what he looks like in person without a full-face helmet) and 1/3 has something completely different than their own person as an avatar.

Some may well have other photos available to see, but there is still no certainty that you can see anyone's actual portrait in some form.

--
Mats

Viktor Jarikov wrote:

Jools wrote:I agree re eight out of ten, however it's the one in five you've got to worry about. We have only banned (outside of spamming) a few members in our years, and issued warnings to a few more. I feel they are ALL in the 1 out of 5 camp. So why burden the 4/5 while the 1/5 do what they want anyway?

I did not get that whole thing, Jools. Sorry.
If it is a burden for the 4/5th, then it doesn't matter what 1/5th will or will not do.

Sorry, I maybe wrote that in an unclear way. I guess I am saying what's the point in having a rule if you can't enforce it? Why make the 4/5 "good guys" post their faces if all the trouble comes from users who will not post their face.

Viktor Jarikov wrote:

Jools wrote:It's the rebellious teens who are well past their 21st birthday that are the problem.

they are a problem anyway, with or without a photo, and in my proposition, nobody will force them to put up their photo

So, if it's not enforced, do we really think anyone will bother? Let's imagine the outcome of this post is that I change the forum rules to strongly suggest everyone posts their ID photos as their avatars. All 5000 users will change? Half? 50? I do not wish to appear aggressive, but this seems to me pointless.

Viktor Jarikov wrote:

Jools wrote:Look at Shane's avatar, or mine, both show you faces, but you can't tell it's us unless you know us. So, what's the point?

Humanity. Something that will escape from us soon. Can see it in our kids already. They can fire off 300 SMS's a day but don't know how to talk to each other when put in one room without their beloved thumb-driven gadgets. It doesn't matter that I don't know 2 out of 10. I will know 8. How can I ask for more? I'd even take 5 but PCF commune appears more mature than that to me.

I think it's a bad aspect of humanity that makes us more or less likely to respond to a post, or the manner of our response based on what someone looks like.

Viktor Jarikov wrote:

Jools wrote:I can tell more about someone by their choice of avatar when it's not enforced to be their face. They have no choice in what that looks like! But when it's a free selection, well, that gives me a clue as to what I am corresponding with.

By your own argument, non-photo avatars are at least as, if not more, misleading. E.g., I'd never gather from Steve Grant's avatar that he is one super ichthyologist. Or from SidGuppy's avatar that he is a walking encyclopedia of random fish knowledge. From Shovelnose's prior avatar, I could not even fathom what that thing even was. He is one super guy though.

No. My argument is, isn't the point that you shouldn't know (judge) what you are corresponding with and treat everyone the same?

Viktor Jarikov wrote:

L number Banana wrote:Eek. No pictures is wonderful. Guys don't have it too bad but the women certainly get treated differently depending on what they look like.

I respect that, L#Banana. Women still go out in public, don't they? Those who are afraid, probably, stay home? Those who want to treat people differently, will do anyway, even if based on incomplete info and their own guesswork.
Is the model of a forum taken after a live, person-to-person multi-human exchange? Conference? Classroom? I realize there are limits to any model.

It's its own model. The only "old" one that comes close is pen pal (albeit multi-user and near real-time).

Jools

Jools wrote:Look at Shane's avatar, or mine, both show you faces, but you can't tell it's us unless you know us. Jools

Are you the little green fella with the big ears?

Ha ha, very good!

Jools

Would a simple answer to this be to allow people the opportunity of putting a portrait picture on their profile page in a similar manner to the 'my aquaria' pictures? It wouldn't be used as the profile picture, but would be there for visitors to see if they wanted to.

Ok, Jools, if you allow me to summarize:

(1) You think it's a bad idea.
VJ: My answer is: I submit you are right - see conclusion.

(2) Reason 1: Jools: My argument is, isn't the point that you shouldn't know (judge) what you are corresponding with and treat everyone the same?
VJ: (a) this will never, ever happen or improve to any significant degree, not that we should not strive for it; (b) having it my way will not change much at all - people will always be treated by other people differently - there is plenty of other things to go by to treat people differently than a pic. As soon as you open your mouth, you give as many reasons as the words you use for others to treat you differently, not to mention your name/nickname, location, fish photos, tanks photos, etc.

Treating differently by looks is simple to master and shallow - it is absorbed by very early childhood. Treating differently by intellect, opinion, taste, experience, knowledge, etc. is where it is sophisticated and becomes almost a dark art/hobby/past-time/intractable part of life for some. And in that way, may be even more condonable and occurs freely here and everywhere else.

Good guys will try their best not to treat people differently - it is no different than being in the public out in person and having tact, culture, compassion, and nice disposition to all people. Bad guys will do what they do anyways.

(3) Reason 2: this is not enforceable.
VJ: don't need to: under my proposition they do not have to have a portrait avatar; you can also still allow for any avatar too in addition. Besides, many other things are not enforceable either - big banners mentioned here and things in the speak easy forum, to name two.

(4) Reason 3: unless you know what they look like, you don't know if it is their pic.
VJ: I don't need to guess. If one wants to start any relationship at all, one has to start their relationship somewhere - there is simply no other way about it. It is normal to start it thinking that the other person is not misrepresenting themselves, that they are a nice, genuine person. Once I find out it was not real them, then and only then I will worry about it. Til then, it don't matter and it's on their conscience if they mislead me for a profit or for a laugh. Fine by me, I have plenty of my own much bigger faults to keep track of.

***I say cornerstone of human interaction. You say it is insignificant. It is almost appears to be a debate of taste and culture (which would be really pointless except for getting to know each other better) if it wasn't ignorance and naivete (me) vs. experience and knowledge (you).

Good summary.

Viktor Jarikov wrote:***I say cornerstone of human interaction. You say it is insignificant. It is almost appears to be a debate of taste and culture (which would be really pointless except for getting to know each other better) if it wasn't ignorance and naivete (me) vs. experience and knowledge (you).

I certainly don't think you're ignorant of many aspects of this nor naive. I am equally uncomfortable with the assertion I'm the font of all knowledge on this, but I do have a fair bit of experience. And, it is my forum.

There is one point missed in summary, if it's voluntary, how many people do you think would do it? My opinion would be not a lot.

So, I am moving this thread to resolved but I think we should bump the What do you look like post! So, for me, the outcome of this debate is to make that thread a sticky for those to volunteer their images...
Jools

Jools wrote:Good summary********

**********ave a fair bit of experience. And, it is my forum.


Jools

Oooooooo beware the hammer Viktor!

This is the single most important point of this whole thread, its Jools' Forum and I have always loved it exactly as it is, if Jools decides to change something/not change something then it has always been for the best.

L-number makes a very good point, the avatar that isn't a face, as long as someone is genuine, tells one much more about a person than a picture of their face. Unfortunately this is one thing that peado scum use to their advantage.