Disallow the use of avatars with epileptic seizure

My response was to this. If we're just removing annoying flashy banners that nobody wants to see, we already do that on a case by case basis.

I 100% do not agree to do it for the sake of a disability though.

 

I agree to disagree with a few comments talking about making sythe look bad because of these Sadi avatars.
1. What’s sythe main attribute / purpose that people visit the site?
For business, if someone has a shitty avatar or a stupid banner than they are not representing the site they are representing themselves & they will lose business. That’s how general marketing works, you make yourself / your business appealing to the consumer, if it’s not appealing than you’re losing out on the first (visual) interaction to grab a customer.

Currently we allow this, and how many people have an avatar that is unbearable to look at?
you were able to list one & one banner

How many members on sythe are there?

so percentage wise the answer to these questions ^ is that 0.001% (probably less) people AT THE MOMENT are using an avatar that doesn’t follow said regulation of “being epileptic inducing”.

 

@Beast I understand the point you're making and you are def correct. Most people wont have aids banners or avatars because it would cause them to lose business and there is no plus side to doing it.

That said, I think you're underestimating the trolls and spam forum users here on sythe. Grave literally paid thousands of dollars a month to host some trash ass flashing banner multiple months in a row just for fun. Especially after this becomes a suggestion thread like it is now, if it's denied, I'd bet money some people will all band together and go full retard mode and all get flashing avatars and signatures.

So, IF it doesn't improve business, which as you just stated is the main purpose of visiting the sythe site AND it in fact has a negative impact on user experience on sythe (ie not appealing to customers, is quoting your own words 'unbearable to look at', and less than .001% of people think it's a good idea to use one) why not just disallow them.

Legitimate users wouldn't use them in the first place, so disallowing them would only get rid of people either trolling or trying to sabotage the main purpose of the site ( I'm not saying business is the main purpose/only purpose, but from your own words it is). Disallowing it would be extremely easy and the only reason anybody can come up with not to ban them, is because we have fReEdoM to do what we want where we want. Which is already a load of non-sense given the amount of regulation we face in all facets of life and industry.

These forms of banners/avas are already so unpopular( quote beast '.001% of users') that banning them will have little impact on the user base that are hosting said banners/avas. That said, the reverse, not banning them, will have a disproportionately larger impact on users who would otherwise have to stare at these garbage ass flashing eye sores. ban em


P.S.
IF anyone could make an argument for them that actually had some valid points, instead of the only points being 'because we can' or 'because too many rules bAd' or 'it's not my problem', then maybe there should be discussion about it, but c'mon now

 

@spacegems im aware of graves power, I worked of him IRL for 6 months, been in his lambo, been in his r8, beach front condominium and been to exquisite fine dining experiences with him where he dropped a check fatter and faster than me.

Grave paying thousands of dollars to troll brings what to this community?

The answer to that question is the site. It’s a sponsored post / banner that is fueling the longevity of this site by paying for its hosting & paying for Richards time to continue to keep this community up & running.
take away the banner? Take away a few thousands of dollars that is again paying for the site to stay active.

we are on a old school (primarily) 2007 video game with I’d say the majority age group of the community being around the later teens up to mid to late 20’s
All capable of comprehending what a troll is & if they want to give business or continue their interest in such events (joining the banners url)

The need to further regulate users that are directly contributing to paying for this sites “hills” than I can see further action being taken towards these harmless adverts.

 

right, and that's exactly why we didn't disallow graves use of the paid site banners on a previous suggestion thread. But since nobody is paying the site for their avatars or signatures, we should probably ban the use of the flashing gfx on those, since the only thing you're saying it provides is payment for the site, and that is only on the sythe site banners.

Not to mention banning flashing banners from even the sythe bidding banners would not really impact the income they generate as there are tons of entities all bidding on the banners non stop every month that don't feel the need to troll

 

But he won the bid for the slot, meaning that nonetheless if there is others, he outbid them & paid MORE than them.
Removing / banning the opportunity for him to post or advertise is flashy banner would mean Richard is losing a customer, one of which is as you should know friends & has worked for the sythe community for a long time. If you’re unaware Grave has done a lot of development for Sythe
Also I’d like to point out that even tho his banner was in the sense “annoying” to look at, grave himself is a very helpful person that goes to great lengths to help you in whatever it is you need help in even if there is no monetary gain for himself.

banning the use of these avatars > banners is just another steps towards a neo nazi hands off approach to regulating more & more the users that use this site + it limits individuals on ways they express themselves

 

What logic do you disagree with? Being able to browse at your own will?
Or limiting the content of avatars in specific flashing ones? - as multiple users before me mentioned already
there is chrome extensions to prevent such flashing images to be seen.

 

he was stating the obvious that there are already plenty of rules and regulations in place to create the environment that you interact with now, and adding another one that has little to no down side but a pretty clear upside is pretty obviously an easy decision.

Even after I laid out exactly how this would end up, you still somehow manage to conflate not allowing annoying flashy GFX to neo nazism.

 

You just went all around my argument & pick n chooses one singular part..... my argument is that he’s a paying customer that is supporting the longevity of this site... @spacegems

 

I went around that portion of your argument because it's irrelevant to this discussion. I only cited graves as an example, this suggestion thread has nothing to do with the paid banners or banning flashing gfx from the paid banners, since it was already decided that it was allowed in that circumstance. This is specifically about avatars or other non paid gfx spots on syhte. So if that's your argument you must be posting on the wrong thread XD

 

As stated by above users. This can be fixed on users end.


If that’s not enough, than allowing them to have their own avatar to express there own feelings/business model is at their own desecration, why regulate that? They don’t get business because of a shitty avatar? Oh well not our or your problem

Don’t like the way that avatar looks? Use a chrome extension

What else is your argument providing that it’s just not a personal preference of your own that removing these would somehow improve the site?
Also changing your avatar to a flashy one more or less would indicate you’re a donator to this site? Again contributing directly to the site

if you can have a shit / epilepsy inducing avatar perhaps there needs to be a minim $ amount to be donated to change to a gif avatar? Any random can have a static but not gif ? Maybe that’s a solution

 

We Support


Reasons for Support:

Sythe's Terms of Service has you agree not to violate any laws.



"In many Countries, such as the UK, it is illegal to discriminate against disabled people. This includes people with epilepsy."



Sythe's Terms of Service also states: "We reserve the rights to remove or modify any Content submitted for any reason without explanation. Requests for Content to be removed or modified will be undertaken only at our discretion. We reserve the right to take action against any account with the Service at any time." Therefore, actions may be taken in regards to "epilepsy triggers."



Warnings are used prior to displaying triggering content.



Companies, such as PlayStation, provide warnings prior to displaying triggering content.



Click Here for more regarding this.




Counterarguments:

"There are Chrome extensions" - This is a good point to bring up. Certainly there are chrome extensions, but arguing this would be implying that every Sythe user browses Sythe via Google Chrome. Users may have an alternate preference in regards to browsers. (Internet Explorer, Firefox, and even mobile as examples)

​

We believe this is an invalid argument, and here's why. If we looked at this in another perspective, we would essentially be forgiving rule breakers (scammers in particular) for violations, with the reasonings:

- "Someone would be losing a customer."

- "The Violator donated and helped the community so much, therefore they will be an exception to Sythe's rules."

These are just some examples (made up scenarios) to further assist in portraying our counterargument.



Possible Solutions:






Prior Support:
​

 

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. Just a reminder: we do not adhere to UK laws, as can be seen here:

 

Acknowledged. We appreciate the reminder as we stand corrected. We misinterpreted the terms where it states "any laws." However, UK law was only used as an example. There are other examples that may be found with further research, such as the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

 

Gonna close this as it was really a complaint about one user's avatar. The avatar was changed without issue. We don't need a specific rule outlawing these types of designs and will continue to ask users to make changes on a case-by-case basis as issues arise in the future.