You'd be happier with smaller avatar sizes? Well, I can't agree to that personally but I will respect your take on this.
As for your second reason... are you sure your concern is about the amount of people coming back and making new polls for even larger avatars in the future? Or is it more to do with the fact that this motion may *bites his nails* actually pass and the mods had to BREAK on the issue *ahem* for once.
*NOTE: I'm just kidding of course.
But seriously... has this ever been an issue in the past? I'm not talking about how many threads have been created in the past trying to sway a MODs decision in allowing a larger dimension avatar. What I'm asking is, has the avatar size restrictions ever been broken by a motion in the past?SPECIAL REQUEST:
Why not allow this new change to be implemented into this site for "1" full year?
Upon "1" year of implementation of larger avatars review the new change. At the end of "1" years time, see how the larger sizes affected the quality of the site. Only then can you draw realistic conclusions about the "hypothetical therioes" you are drawing your basis on... how it would take a load of coding to make an avatar resoltion ever so sligtly bigger... how were going to lose visable features in the customizable box or a loss of space in written text.
I hear everything you have said but... the reasons that you have given me do not convince. What I'm hearing is that it's a difficult idea to implement, it's a bad idea because tech sites should not have AVERAGE sized avatars, and it's simply an unreasonable request.
One last note, I am not a premium user. So how can I comment on the "I See People" feature argument?
EDIT: Spelling and grammar. --
"You have no idea what I am capable of. People who have tried to cross me, have lived to regret it... ~Michelle Stafford (Phyllis)