Can't get new avatar to show up!

[BERIGAN]

The New one shows up when I check out what my current avatar is , but several hours later, the older one is still showing up everywhere else! Never had this problem before!

Or is it on my end??? Cookies and all that??? Old one says socialism, supposed to just say Dope now....

Edited September 15, 2009 by BERIGAN

[Claude]

It has nothing to do with cookies.

Either the avatar on the server is not being replaced because of some file restrictions (new avatar too big), or you continue to see the old one from your browser cache although the new one is online. In that case, emptying your browser cache will help.

I'm actually seeing the "socialism" pic, so your new avatar is not on the server.

[rockefeller center]

Dope asks dope question why dope avatar doesn't show up on dope's end. Great stuff.

Edited September 15, 2009 by rockefeller center

[Cliff Englewood]

Dope asks dope question why dope avatar doesn't show up on dope's end. Great stuff.

:rofl:

[Niko]

find the new one less offensive than the last one... that said, i'm still all for banning political avatars and signatures, enjoy the board without the political forums (recommended) and don't want to be reminded (alternatively, i'd propose restricting user with avatars and signatures like those to the political forum)

still angry that my post with computer advice and a link to berigan's avatar was deleted as a political post outside the political forum while berigan can post the same pictures wherever he wants...

[J.A.W.]

In my opinion political (and religious) avatars shouldn't be allowed at all, because they cannot be restricted to the political forum; they're visible everywhere.

I know avatars can be blocked, but that's an "all-or-nothing" option, not a solution in individual cases.

Edited September 15, 2009 by J.A.W.

[rockefeller center]

I know avatars can be blocked, but that's an "all-or-nothing" option, not a solution in individual cases.

Blocking individual content using the Adblock-Plus extension (Firefox):

[J.A.W.]

I know avatars can be blocked, but that's an "all-or-nothing" option, not a solution in individual cases.

Blocking individual content using the Adblock-Plus extension (Firefox):

I don't use Firefox. Besides, political avatars are political statements that shouldn't be made outside the political forum and therefore shouldn't be visible outside that forum. Why allow them everywhere on the board while political posts are not allowed outside the political forum? It doesn't make sense and looks like double standards.

Edited September 15, 2009 by J.A.W.

[Niko]

if the same thing also works for signatures i might give it a try...

[rockefeller center]

I know avatars can be blocked, but that's an "all-or-nothing" option, not a solution in individual cases.

Blocking individual content using the Adblock-Plus extension (Firefox):

I don't use Firefox. Besides, political avatars are political statements that shouldn't be made outside the political forum and therefore shouldn't be visible outside that forum. Why allow them everywhere on the board while political posts are not allowed outside the political forum? It doesn't make sense and looks like double standards.

You're probably right. I just wanted to offer a pragmatic approach for those who don't want to wait until things go their way.

[rockefeller center]

if the same thing also works for signatures i might give it a try...

The browser knows nothing about signatures. After you blocked content (an image, flash anims, etc.), it simply won't show up anymore.

[Van Basten II]

I know avatars can be blocked, but that's an "all-or-nothing" option, not a solution in individual cases.

Blocking individual content using the Adblock-Plus extension (Firefox):

I don't use Firefox. Besides, political avatars are political statements that shouldn't be made outside the political forum and therefore shouldn't be visible outside that forum. Why allow them everywhere on the board while political posts are not allowed outside the political forum? It doesn't make sense and looks like double standards.

I remember that we had a poster complaining about the avatar that Aloc used to have, remember the animation about the charater smashing himself to a bloody pulp while typewriting, and Aloc changed it despite receiving some support for keeping it. So i don't see why, as unpopular as the Berigan's avatar is, would he be allowed to keep it .

Personnally i don't care as disgusting as i can find it, not thrilled at the idea of telling people not to express themselves, as ludicrous as i find their ideas. However regarding the fact that we ask to keep politics in the political board you may have a point about asking its removal.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Van Basten II

[J.A.W.]

I know avatars can be blocked, but that's an "all-or-nothing" option, not a solution in individual cases.

Blocking individual content using the Adblock-Plus extension (Firefox):

I don't use Firefox. Besides, political avatars are political statements that shouldn't be made outside the political forum and therefore shouldn't be visible outside that forum. Why allow them everywhere on the board while political posts are not allowed outside the political forum? It doesn't make sense and looks like double standards.

I remember that we had a poster complaining about the avatar that Aloc used to have, remember the animation about the charater smashing himself to a bloody pulp while typewriting, and Aloc changed it despite receiving some support for keeping it. So i don't see why, as unpopular as the Berigan's avatar is, would he be allowed to keep it .

Personnally i don't care as disgusting as i can find it, not thrilled at the idea of telling people not to express themselves, as ludicrous as i find their ideas. However regarding the fact that we ask to keep politics in the political board you may have a point about asking its removal.

If it weren't political, I would never ask someone to remove it, but politics, including political avatars, should be kept in the political forum, in accordance with the rules, and you can't restrict an avatar to one forum. That's the whole point of my previous post.

Edited September 15, 2009 by J.A.W.

[Chuck Nessa]

I'm with Hans on this.

[mjzee]

Anyway, I'd love to get an answer to the original question. I tried to change my avatar months ago without success.

[7/4]

The New one shows up when I check out what my current avatar is , but several hours later, the older one is still showing up everywhere else! Never had this problem before!

Or is it on my end??? Cookies and all that??? Old one says socialism, supposed to just say Dope now....

Sez dope now.

I changed mine a few hours ago...out with the Varèse, in with the Zappa. Worked right away for me, don't know what you're doing wrong.

[Claude]

There can only be one avatar per forum member. When it is replaced, it takes effect instantly.

If you see different avatars in different threads for the same member, the problem is your browser cache, which needs to be refreshed.

[Niko]

In my opinion political (and religious) avatars shouldn't be allowed at all, because they cannot be restricted to the political forum; they're visible everywhere.

another solution would be to make the nonpolitical part of the board invisible to posters who desire to have a political avatar - guess that might be the best solution in some cases such as berigan's (doesn't solve the issue of existing posts, but still...)

[Jim Alfredson]

I remember that we had a poster complaining about the avatar that Aloc used to have, remember the animation about the charater smashing himself to a bloody pulp while typewriting, and Aloc changed it despite receiving some support for keeping it. So i don't see why, as unpopular as the Berigan's avatar is, would he be allowed to keep it .

Be allowed to keep it? You said yourself that aloc changed his own avatar; nobody forced him to. Likewise, Berigan could choose to change his (which he has done from one that some people considered really offensive (why the Joker is offensive is beyond me) to this one, which is just childish but also somewhat funny.)

I guess I just have a thick skin. I don't get upset by people who I know completely disagree with me politically using a silly picture as their avatar.

Is it a political statement outside the political forum? I guess so. Are we going to be that strict with the rules? In that case, I know of some aliases that should be deleted, post-haste. A couple people should probably be banned right now, too. Then we can institute a massive crack down and everybody can tip-toe around trying not to offend each other and the moderators can have fun censoring the crap out of everything.

Let's get rid of all material that could be deemed sexist or sexual in nature. Any avatar that is suggestive at all or any pictures in a signature. Might offend someone. In fact, let's just do away with the ability to post pictures. Too risky.

Let's get rid of all material that could be offensive to a certain religion or belief structure. I'm sure that would make the Catholic contigient here very happy. In fact, let's not talk about religion at all. Too much of a slippery slope. Politics, too. Let's get rid of it.

Let's get rid of all material of opinionated nature that might upset those who don't share that opinion, be it about art or music or literature or movies or TV or sports or what have you. Want to say you think Wynton sucks? Sorry, can't do it. Might offend somebody. In fact, let's just not talk about art at all. It's too subjective.

"Boy, the Browns really stunk up the joint yesterday, didn't they?" Deleted. Sorry, might offend someone. No talking about sports. Too much emotion.

Won't this place be splendid then? Gosh, I'd visit every day just to see a couple people talking about... nothing.

I'm being a bit mean-spirited, but I just get tired with the notion that somehow people think they have a right not to be offended by something. Yes, it's bending the rules a little bit to have an avatar that is political in nature. Same with a signature quoting a political figure (what constitutes a political figure? Could Bono be considered a political figure or is he simply an artist?) But c'mon people.

TURN OFF THE COMPUTER. It's not that big of a deal.

[Swinging Swede]

So it's OK to talk about Stan Getz again? -_-

[Aggie87]

Any avatar that is suggestive at all or any pictures in a signature.

I don't think pictures are necessary in signatures at all. They just distract from the flow of the discussion.

[Use3D]

So it's OK to talk about Stan Getz again? -_-

Sure, try it without rumor mongering or hearsay this time.

[Niko]

don't want to complain again that the getz thread was deleted, it's not like i didn't understand some of that... but if larry kart says he heard something from a source he considers reliable i don't consider that "rumor mongering or hearsay"...

[neveronfriday]

I remember that we had a poster complaining about the avatar that Aloc used to have, remember the animation about the charater smashing himself to a bloody pulp while typewriting, and Aloc changed it despite receiving some support for keeping it. So i don't see why, as unpopular as the Berigan's avatar is, would he be allowed to keep it .

Be allowed to keep it? You said yourself that aloc changed his own avatar; nobody forced him to. Likewise, Berigan could choose to change his (which he has done from one that some people considered really offensive (why the Joker is offensive is beyond me) to this one, which is just childish but also somewhat funny.)

I guess I just have a thick skin. I don't get upset by people who I know completely disagree with me politically using a silly picture as their avatar.

Is it a political statement outside the political forum? I guess so. Are we going to be that strict with the rules? In that case, I know of some aliases that should be deleted, post-haste. A couple people should probably be banned right now, too. Then we can institute a massive crack down and everybody can tip-toe around trying not to offend each other and the moderators can have fun censoring the crap out of everything.

Let's get rid of all material that could be deemed sexist or sexual in nature. Any avatar that is suggestive at all or any pictures in a signature. Might offend someone. In fact, let's just do away with the ability to post pictures. Too risky.

Let's get rid of all material that could be offensive to a certain religion or belief structure. I'm sure that would make the Catholic contigient here very happy. In fact, let's not talk about religion at all. Too much of a slippery slope. Politics, too. Let's get rid of it.

Let's get rid of all material of opinionated nature that might upset those who don't share that opinion, be it about art or music or literature or movies or TV or sports or what have you. Want to say you think Wynton sucks? Sorry, can't do it. Might offend somebody. In fact, let's just not talk about art at all. It's too subjective.

"Boy, the Browns really stunk up the joint yesterday, didn't they?" Deleted. Sorry, might offend someone. No talking about sports. Too much emotion.

Won't this place be splendid then? Gosh, I'd visit every day just to see a couple people talking about... nothing.

I'm being a bit mean-spirited, but I just get tired with the notion that somehow people think they have a right not to be offended by something. Yes, it's bending the rules a little bit to have an avatar that is political in nature. Same with a signature quoting a political figure (what constitutes a political figure? Could Bono be considered a political figure or is he simply an artist?) But c'mon people.

TURN OFF THE COMPUTER. It's not that big of a deal.

Hm.

This is the result of not having a clear stance on what goes and what doesn't.

That's all.

One day it's this, the other day it's that, depending on the moment.

I've seen you take a clear stance for complete free speech, and I've seen you rant against the results of that stance.

Gotta make a decision at some point.

Sorry.

You may kick me off now.

[J.A.W.]

I remember that we had a poster complaining about the avatar that Aloc used to have, remember the animation about the charater smashing himself to a bloody pulp while typewriting, and Aloc changed it despite receiving some support for keeping it. So i don't see why, as unpopular as the Berigan's avatar is, would he be allowed to keep it .

Be allowed to keep it? You said yourself that aloc changed his own avatar; nobody forced him to. Likewise, Berigan could choose to change his (which he has done from one that some people considered really offensive (why the Joker is offensive is beyond me) to this one, which is just childish but also somewhat funny.)

I guess I just have a thick skin. I don't get upset by people who I know completely disagree with me politically using a silly picture as their avatar.

Is it a political statement outside the political forum? I guess so. Are we going to be that strict with the rules? In that case, I know of some aliases that should be deleted, post-haste. A couple people should probably be banned right now, too. Then we can institute a massive crack down and everybody can tip-toe around trying not to offend each other and the moderators can have fun censoring the crap out of everything.

Let's get rid of all material that could be deemed sexist or sexual in nature. Any avatar that is suggestive at all or any pictures in a signature. Might offend someone. In fact, let's just do away with the ability to post pictures. Too risky.

Let's get rid of all material that could be offensive to a certain religion or belief structure. I'm sure that would make the Catholic contigient here very happy. In fact, let's not talk about religion at all. Too much of a slippery slope. Politics, too. Let's get rid of it.

Let's get rid of all material of opinionated nature that might upset those who don't share that opinion, be it about art or music or literature or movies or TV or sports or what have you. Want to say you think Wynton sucks? Sorry, can't do it. Might offend somebody. In fact, let's just not talk about art at all. It's too subjective.

"Boy, the Browns really stunk up the joint yesterday, didn't they?" Deleted. Sorry, might offend someone. No talking about sports. Too much emotion.

Won't this place be splendid then? Gosh, I'd visit every day just to see a couple people talking about... nothing.

I'm being a bit mean-spirited, but I just get tired with the notion that somehow people think they have a right not to be offended by something. Yes, it's bending the rules a little bit to have an avatar that is political in nature. Same with a signature quoting a political figure (what constitutes a political figure? Could Bono be considered a political figure or is he simply an artist?) But c'mon people.

TURN OFF THE COMPUTER. It's not that big of a deal.

Hm.

This is the result of not having a clear stance on what goes and what doesn't.

That's all.

One day it's this, the other day it's that, depending on the moment.

I've seen you take a clear stance for complete free speech, and I've seen you rant against the results of that stance.

Gotta make a decision at some point.

Sorry.

You may kick me off now.

I agree.

It's one thing to set rules (such as "no politics outside the political forum"), but quite another to follow them and act accordingly; it's a lot easier to bend them a bit, and no one's feelings will get hurt.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's how I see it.

Edited September 16, 2009 by J.A.W.