Custom avatars, bitch

It seems this thread has diverged from its initial purpose of suggesting avatars to a thread about suggesting reasons favoring custom avatars, so I feel it's best to add my two buckazoids before the Mods shove it back on course. (Actually, it'd be nice if they could split this thread in two. One thread for pointed conversation favoring the onset of custom avatars, and another simply providing suggestions for new ones.)

But enough of that, onto my beef with the matter at hand. (And no, that's not a pun.) There's already a ranking system in place (it determines your SwimTitle; i.e. SwimPunk for us, SwimBouncer for Mods). So, I say, why not elaborate on it? I think that the best way to do this is to gradually weem people onto HTML priviledges as their post-counts grow higher. Now, before you rail me for my view here, let me explain a few things. While I will openly admit that this is fairly unfair to newbies, and that ranking systems are a rather distasteful method of determining any single person's worth, but I am under the fundamental philosophy that if somebody contributes more to the improvement of these forums, that they deserve more freedom as a reward. You'll find this very same methodology in place in most of modern society, so try to take this into consideration before you decide to openly dispute me.
(A short forward: Paramount to this discussion is the idea that HTML functions are able to toggled off/on per user. I am not familiar with the abilities of Lithium as a message board, so I can only assume that the ideas I outline henceforth are possible. If a higher-up could confirm this in one direction or another, I'll shut up.)
With that out of the way, this can be endeavored in one of two methods:
The first would be to enact a formal ranking system based on post-counts that unlocks priviledges gradually at predetermined waypoints. This method would be streamlined and relatively seemless. Problems will inevitably arise, however, as even though it's less likely that somebody would abuse their priviledges when their post-counts are at stake, as is their reputation, because post-counts don't always reflect a person's integrity (although they are fairly accurate indication).
Example: At a variable post-count (determined by whomever enacts these ideas into place, assuming they're even taken into consideration), a member will be endowed with the ability to use hyperlinks in a message. At a higher post-count, this member will be elligable for a custom avatar. As their post-count grows inexorably higher, more and more priviledges are born unto them. The ability to use image tags, custom titles, graphical signatures... the possibilities are almost endless.
The second, which is a variant of the first, would be to first submit for Moderator approval, instead of simply automatically empowered by such priviledges. The advantage here is that because you are essentially being "trusted" with these priviledges, the likelihood of such priviledges being abused are even slimmer. Another advantage is that this doesn't necessarily require having a post-count before applying for certain priviledges. (Although this would definitely be a major factor taken into consideration when applying for such priviledges.) Disadvantages are obvious, as the Mods would be flooded by the influx of both legitimate and faux requests for such priviledges. It'd become near impossible to distinguish between the good and the bad, and the Mods already have enough on their plate as it is. One possible solution would be a compromise between the two aforementioned methods, making it so that you can only request certain priviledges at certain post counts.

Both of these arguments have many flaws, the most obvious of which being that if Turner's S&Ps simply prohibit such freedoms, then this entire argument has been nullified. However, I'd like to note that worse infractions than a pornographic avatar could have and have already been committed in the previous format. (Links to questionable material, threads filled to the brim with personal information, threads filled to the brim with questionable conversation, you name it, it's been done. Having been exposed firsthand to some of the worst these boards have had to offer, I can attest to this.) With this new format, and its many robust features, I feel somewhat thwarted by the lack of priviledges that we're given here as a result.

Anyway, that's my piece on the matter. I've left out a few key ideas here (rules outlining how and how not to use images, for instance), but considering this whole thing is proposed in the realm of hypothesis, I don't feel excruciating detail is needed to explain the core of my argument. (I also have a couple other ideas floating around, I simply don't feel like typing anymore. :-/)