Avatars and post counts

[St Leo]

I think true veterans should be allowed 1024x768 avatars.

[Caesar the Great]

or better yet, vets should be allowed to pick the avatars of new members

[ixnay]

Apolyton could always adopt an approach like Something Awful:

Pay $5 to change your avatar, or pay $10 to change someone elses.

[Andemagne]

yeah, and maybe we could change that title rule(300 for prince, 1000 for king, .....) too? to something like:
*2 years or 300posts = prince
*3 years or 1000posts = king
*4 years or 3000posts = emperor
.
.
.
.
.

[DarkCloud]

Why should you want an avatar if you haven't even stuck around for 300 posts? [500 probably is a bit high and encourages spam]

but please consider the site owners dillema- do they REALLY want to host all those avatars... they take up bandwidth. that's probably the real reason for the limit

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Is this "Sympathy for lurkers" week? Why do anything for them when they can't even be bothered to hit the "submit" button.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Is this "Sympathy for lurkers" week? Why do anything for them when they can't even be bothered to hit the "submit" button.

Maybe DC can do a lurkers 'Poly 100. To be considered you must be able to prove deep knowledge of at least 3 forums (including at least 1 on topic) and have a post count of less than 300.

[badams52]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Jaysus badams52, it is so freaky of you to use my avatar *shudder*

why haven't you changed out of a custom one yet vet?

I've seen a couple of other posters using my avatary as well. I chose this one cause of what he represents. You're playin civ 3 building your empire, then you see this galley sailing past your land and it just broods frustration knowing full well that inside contains a settler heading for the other side of your land or a nearby island. And short of declaring war, you have no way to stop it.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by badams52
Sometimes I also feel guilty if I'm dominating a thread, i.e. showing up every 2 or 3 posts, so I might also refrain in that respect as well.

Well every 2 or 3 posts is ok as long as you have to say something usefull everytime. So something was said and you response I can't see anything wrong with it. It gets critical if you reply to yourself within 20 minutes actual I think this is boring. Of course it no problem in my opinion if there is a delay of days between the two posts. Or you want to attach some images to the forum, then you have to post in a row, if you want to make sure to be able to use other web space freely without having the trouble of knowing which picture is needed and shouldn't be deleted if you want to make sure the post is intact with the image, also some time later.

-Martin

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Maybe DC can do a lurkers 'Poly 100. To be considered you must be able to prove deep knowledge of at least 3 forums (including at least 1 on topic) and have a post count of less than 300.

I know of hundreds of DL's that would make the list...

[CapitanGarlic]

I'm a fan of the 'two year' idea. Because that length of time would scare away most non-serious posters, and more importantly I would be eligible.

[spartak]

Two years is too severe.

[Rasbelin]

Just keep the current system.

[spartak]

Why not revert to the previous system?

[DrSpike]

Inertia.