I never had an animated avatar but I didn't mind them. I don't think they were distracting. Sure, they're more noticeable than others but not glaringly so. In fact, before people started bypassing the gif restrictions I suggested being able to have an animated avatar (and a image banner in signature) as a possible donator perk.
Welp, looks like those lucky accounts may fetch a higher price now.
Why? Who wants an avatar that they can't change and is probably irrelevant to them?
Thanks guys. Very pleased when about you say well. Maybe someone knows... Why not prohibit the use of animated avatars if they are used for advertising purposes?
Why would this matter? I don't think there should be a distinction on whether it's a monetised one or not. I think the idea is that they're prohibited because they're a distraction.