Curial Decision: Proposal to Allow Animated Avatars

**Evariste** · February 25, 2007, 04:49 PM

Curial Decision: Proposal to Allow Animated Avatars

Proposer: Evariste (original proposer Cassy)
Supporters: Sir Dinadan, Ozymandias

Summary:
This proposal aims allow animated avatars provided that they comply with the Terms of Service and aren't overly distracting.

Curial Decision: Proposal to Allow Animated Avatars
Animated avatars will be allowed on the Total War Center provided that they comply with the Terms of Service and aren't overly distracting (rapid flashing, changing of color, etc.) Non-compliance will be decided by Hexagon.

Version 1.1: added "Non-compliance will be decided by Hexagon."

Thanks to Cassy for the original proposal in the Suggestus, and Spiff for some of the wording.

**The Walrus** · February 25, 2007, 04:52 PM

I support so something like Cassy's avatar would work while something like this

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

would not

EDIT: This is Cassy's

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

EDIT: Still support Ev

**Evariste** · February 25, 2007, 04:54 PM

Right, I think that falls under "overly distracting."

I added a line to say that Hex would be charged with deciding if an avatar is out of line.

**imb39** · February 25, 2007, 05:20 PM

I don't think this is needed. Sim has already said it can happen - not everything needs to go through the Curia, surely...

I'd do this if someone says they cannot be bothered (or words to that effect) and then get the Curia to say - 'No! We think it is a marvellous idea and should be implemented!'

**Evariste** · February 25, 2007, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by imb39

I don't think this is needed. Sim has already said it can happen - not everything needs to go through the Curia, surely...

I thought so too, as this seemed a tad trivial, but I was told that this was the way to go....

Anyway, I don't really mind what channels it needs to go through, as long as it is made so.

**Spiff** · February 25, 2007, 07:02 PM

Its good to see the "decision provision" (good ring to it) being used - but then as you say this is a somewhat minor issue which has already being implemented.

I suppose there is no harm in making it a decision, just promise not to make a seperate one for every single rule on the forum.

**Tom Paine** · February 25, 2007, 05:21 PM

I support. Sensible proposal, and I thought (and told Cassy...) that it was what the rules specified at present anyway.

**Halie Satanus** · February 25, 2007, 07:57 PM

I'd prefer if common consensus was applied in this case so not to use Curial decisions when unnecessary.

What next?? the Artifex ask for a Curial decision to change the colour of their index title.

**Evariste** · February 25, 2007, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by halie satanus

I'd prefer if common consensus was applied in this case so not to use Curial decisions when unnecessary.

And I'd tend to agree. Obviously there should be a line drawn, or at least a gray area between when a Curial decision is and isn't needed.

I merely was informed that this was the way to get things done. If not then the related thread in the Suggestus should be common consensus enough, I think?

**Halie Satanus** · February 25, 2007, 08:10 PM

I agree there will be grey areas, but those we'll have to suffer now and then. As animated sigs and avatars will have to be looked at case by case anyway a Curial decision on them isn't going to mean much, imo, as there is no law against them. There is one opposer in the other thread but i don't think he would stress the point to much.

**imb39** · February 26, 2007, 12:26 AM

Evariste, you have done nothing wrong. Indeed this is a good thing to discuss - when does this legislation need to be used?

There is nothing to stop this from carrying on and turning into a Curial Decision. I just merely pointed out that it is not necessary as Sim had already indicated it would probably happen.

**Tom Paine** · February 26, 2007, 05:12 AM

Actually that raises an interesting question... why did it stop happening? I remember we used to be able to have animated avatars; why are we now unable to do so?

**Spiff** · February 26, 2007, 05:41 AM

It was probably accidentally left disabled when the forum software was upgraded - at least, if i had to venture a guess, that would be mine.

**Arakorn** · February 26, 2007, 06:12 AM

I support this, whether it is necessary or not. I can't at least use animated avatars...

**Simetrical** · February 26, 2007, 10:46 PM

This is now superfluous although, of course, it can still be brought to a vote if desired.

**Shaun** · February 27, 2007, 12:22 PM

I see no reason why animated avatars should not be allowed, so I support.

**imb39** · February 27, 2007, 12:29 PM

but they are allowed...

**Shaun** · February 27, 2007, 01:01 PM

Well whats with this then?

Originally Posted by Evariste

Curial Decision: Proposal to Allow Animated Avatars

Proposer: Evariste (original proposer Cassy)
Supporters: Sir Dinadan, Ozymandias

Summary:
This proposal aims allow animated avatars provided that they comply with the Terms of Service and aren't overly distracting.

Curial Decision: Proposal to Allow Animated Avatars
Animated avatars will be allowed on the Total War Center provided that they comply with the Terms of Service and aren't overly distracting (rapid flashing, changing of color, etc.) Non-compliance will be decided by Hexagon.

Version 1.1: added "Non-compliance will be decided by Hexagon."

Thanks to Cassy for the original proposal in the Suggestus, and Spiff for some of the wording.

**Tom Paine** · February 27, 2007, 01:03 PM

Because it was decided that the only reason they weren't was a mistake so we reverted to the status quo. Also because some people thought that the Curia wasn't the right place for that sort of decision.

**Muizer** · February 27, 2007, 01:11 PM

Of course if the proposal is rejected that would be tantamount to a Curial decision to disallow animated avatars. So, who knows it may have an impact after all!