Avatar Authorisation!

[Cal]

Should be OK.

[xGlowingAngelx]

OK, Well I've used it, as you can see, which seems strange given that I didn't wait for a reply. However, I figured it would be OK given that it's from a past episode. However, if any moda feel there is something wrong with it, I do apologise.

[emmasi]

Yes?

[.Cat.]

I'd say it would be ok, as it states who it is.

[emmasi]

Thanks for that. (Forgot to say it earlier )

[Foxy]

xGlowingAngelx - that AV's fine!

em - now that it says who it is, its fine to use.

And also, for all you moaners out there, the initial rejection of the the AV had nothing what-so-ever to do with spoilers in avatars rule - it was purely the fact that their heads couldn't be seen. If I had allowed it, there would've been a cascade of people saying "but you didn't let me use mine when it didn't have a head on it". It would appear I can't win.

[emmasi]

I'm not trying to be pushy about this, but... the rule seems a tad inconsistent. This is an avatar that's actually in the bttb gallery:

I wouldn't have known what that was supposed to be unless I read the name underneath. I mean I get that it's Vinnie now, but I didn't have a clue to start with. For the record, I'm not looking for this one to be taken down, I'm just a bit confused about the rules.

[Foxy]

To me, that one is more a "thing" than a person. For example, I recall someone having a picture of Hayley's car as their avatar, and other people have scenery. As far as I'm aware the rule states avatars must be Home and Away related as opposed to Home and Away characters. To myself, and I'm sure many others, that particular avatar is instantly recognisable as Home and Away related. The problem with most headless avatars is that they could be anyone - and the rule has to apply even if I know instantly who they are.

I hope that makes some sort of sense!

[~Angel~]

Would it be OK for me to use this?:

or this:

[.Cat.]

I would say yes.