Utah Fishkeepers

[CarpCharacin]

I will take out the strike through.

 

[Mark.B]

It's the avatar you should take out more than anything.

People who do that seem to think it looks clever. It doesn't. It says "this site is run by someone power crazy who loves to ban people and delete stuff". And so nobody signs up, they stick to Facebook where that sort of thing mostly doesn't happen.

 

[CarpCharacin]

The avatar is there so I don't have to delete creepy avatars.

 

[Mark.B]

The avatar is there so I don't have to delete creepy avatars.

Eh? Just remove the avatar and leave it blank if it bothers you. Takes about four seconds.

Showing a banned avatar is a bad idea on a site with no members. Not going to argue interminably about this, it's advice from an experienced forum owner, you can take it or leave it.

 

[CarpCharacin]

Eh? Just remove the avatar and leave it blank if it bothers you. Takes about four seconds.

Showing a banned avatar is a bad idea on a site with no members. Not going to argue interminably about this, it's advice from an experienced forum owner, you can take it or leave it.

My site has 30 members not counting the banned ones.

 

[Mark.B]

My site has 30 members not counting the banned ones.

And how many of them post regularly?

Look, I"m trying to help but as always you're picking an argument with people trying to give you advice. If you want to keep the banned avatar then keep it, but it's a bad idea.

 

[CarpCharacin]

Will my site really die if I don't remove the banned avatar?

 

[Mark.B]

Will my site really die if I don't remove the banned avatar?

No, I never said that. I said it might discourage new members from joining.

 

[CarpCharacin]

No, I never said that. I said it might discourage new members from joining.

JIM only had 17 posts. He shamed my site on twitter, so he is being shamed with the avatar.

 

[Dakota Storm]

JIM only had 17 posts. He shamed my site on twitter, so he is being shamed with the avatar.

Now you're just showing your age, An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

 

[Mark.B]

JIM only had 17 posts. He shamed my site on twitter, so he is being shamed with the avatar.

That's just silly. He won't care, and all it will do is damage your site.

 

[CarpCharacin]

That's just silly. He won't care, and all it will do is damage your site.

How is it damaging my site?

 

[Mark.B]

How is it damaging my site?

I've already told you, several times, in the past few posts.

 

[Steve F]

He's answered that

 

[CarpCharacin]

Sorry. I don't want to damage my site, but I don't want to uninstall the add-on.

 

[KeVo]

Sorry. I don't want to damage my site, but I don't want to uninstall the add-on.

Think of it like this. If you do remove the add-on and clear out the banned notices.

• You'll be taking a high road. This is a good thing!
• You'll also be saving some overhead from that add-on on your site, even if it's minuscule. The default grey avatars are perfect for permanently banned users.
• It's just more aesthetically clean. Clean and tidy is good, very good.
• Mentioned above, you'll be removing that off-setting display to guests that could be potential contributing members!

TAZ, for example, doesn't have anything that immediately shows when a user is banned until you go visit their profile, which then just says their profile isn't available. As someone that wishes you the best with your site and is hoping you make it a success, it might not be a bad idea to consider this change. In the end, it's your site, though. The final decision is left up to you.

 

[CarpCharacin]

I removed the addon, but now all of the avatars of banned members are broken. How do I fix it? EDIT: I fixed it

 

[Ozzy47]

But you added the strikethrough name back.

 

[CarpCharacin]

I didn't add it back, I just never removed it.

 

[Ozzy47]

Well remove it.