Proposition: Increase or Eliminate 10k Character Limit

[Tiassa]

It was blatantly obvious to me that your lengthy dissertation was about the evils of posts by "trolls" that were too long.

Can't wait for your explanation of that bullshit. Or, what, will it take too many characters to actually make the point?

That is self evidently support for Russ's perception and matches mine also.

Then learn to read.

It did not require rereading his post to fully understand it and to simultaneously agree with it.

It does, however, require basic reading comprehension in order to assess the post.

You are not a foolish person Tiassa, are you seriously maintaining that you did not understand what he was saying?

I am seriously maintaining that both he and you are full of excrement.

False dichotomy. (Now do you really lack the intellectual vigour to understand what I mean by that concise statement. Do I really have to spell it out for you. Do I actually have to say "Real communication and Twitter are not the only options available to us."

Stupid pedantry.

Real communication, truly effective communication, is concise. Full stop. Period. End of. (And all those needless emphases added for your benefit. the first sentence of this paragraph is all that is required to convey my meaning.)

You know, every once in a while, I laugh at one of my colleagues who says the defining aspect of Sciforums is its overriding respect for the scientific method. Not only can nobody actually explain what that means, but as you show, it's also bullshit in any context.

You are clearly reading into his post something you have dredged up from other interactions with him. He has not inverted reality. He has fairly represented it. And what frigging politics do you feel he is pursuing?

I'll take it under consideration when you demonstrate adequate reading comprehension.

I see no evidence of that in this thread. It is this thread and the proposition made in it that is the subject of discussion. The person who appears to want a fight here is you, launching as you did into a series of unwarranted insults.

I just want to be able to write a goddamn post without having to break it up into pieces for the sake of something arbitrary.

In truth, I estimated this community wrongly; I hadn't expected the objections to be a defense of trolling.

Let me be clear. I am not defending anything. I am attacking verbose posts that lack concision and clarity. And arguing for keeping the size of posts limited. (If there ever is a genuine need to exceed the permitted length, make a second post.)

Let me be clear: Go get some reading comprehension and then, if you are so inclined, try again.

So what aspects of my position were unclear to you?

That should be self-evident. Brevity. Concision. Right?

Or would you like a more complete answer? One that requires a few more characters: Learn to read.

Just exactly what characteristics are you suggesting are possessed by "people like me"?

Illiteracy and delusion are, in fact, disabilities.

Writing clearly, writing comprehensively, writing concisely are not handicapping a discussion, they are promoting it. I am astounded that you think otherwise.

Only someone with as poor reading comprehension as you have displayed could be so astounded.

Encouraging short posts promotes discussion by minimising dross and making it easier for the reader.

Encouraging a lack of information degrades communication.

If you do not recognise that then you have not thought it through.

Encouraging short posts promotes bogus pedantry as people "fisk" and try to be witty without regard for context instead of actually communicating anything of use.

This is fundamental to good technical writing and this is a science forum where good technical writing should be desirable.

See above remarks about this "science forum".

I've read plenty of technical papers that, by your description, are too long to be anything but trolling.

Where the heck did you get that from? Concise writing requires extensive work. I offered the Mark Twain anecdote to illustrate that. Yazata offered several similar items. You summarily dismissed these. Why?

Cheap wit is proof of nothing.

And your assertion that I "want to feel smart"! Seriously Tiassa, is everything OK with you at present, for that is such a dumb, irrelevant, nutty thing to say I am starting to worry about you.

The appearance of wit is easier than actually having genuine wit. The appearance of intelligence is a happy market for fools. Attend American politics, sometime, and tell me what argumentation by brevity and concision gets people.

Excuse me, lets examine the chronology.

1. You propose making permissible post length longer.
2. Some members remark that it is a good idea, other members questions its value.
3. There is no petulance, rather a mature discussion of options.
4. You come storming in with an offensive post in which you direct egregious insults at anyone who has had the temerity to disagree with your proposal.

Your chronology is, predictably, dishonest.

Smart people communicate concisely and the petulance evident in this thread is coming from you. And now from me, because boy have you pissed me off.

Yes, I give a damn about the moral outrage of a semi-literate pedant with a soundbite fetish.

(Oh, would you like more precise answers? Sorry, then I'd have to [ahem!] "troll" you with more characters.)

 

[billvon]

Can't wait for your explanation of that bullshit. . . .learn to read . . .. It does require basic reading comprehension . . . when you demonstrate adequate reading comprehension . . . . Go get some reading comprehension . . .the moral outrage of a semi-literate pedant with a soundbite fetish. . . . . Sorry, then I'd have to [ahem!] "troll" you with more characters.

Thank you for a long post that perfectly and precisely demonstrates the sort of posts that we should not be enabling.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Tiassa, the problem with your example really should have been self-evident and my brevity in pointing it out shouldn't have been a problem (a demonstration of a concise point) and certainly shouldn't be worth of such a string of vitriol.

However, if you really don't get it: you posted as an example of why we need longer posts, someone who made long posts and still failed to get his point across - which shows that long posts don't necessarily help get a point across. Perhaps if you showed someone who SUCCEEDED in getting a point across that really required more than 10k characters, it would support your point.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Most long posts could be shortened with no loss of meaning, and people would be more inclined to read them.
Long posts are nearly always over long.

 

[Ophiolite]

Tiassa, your behaviour in this thread is ignorant and immature. I am unable to place you on ignore as you are - amazingly, based on the attitude displayed here - a member of staff. So, I shall seek manually to avoid your posts, at least until one of the sensible members tells me you have sobered up.

And for the benefit of non-staff, I have reported Tiassa's last post.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

I am unable to place you on ignore a

Maybe this forum needs new moderators.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I changed my vote to 'no'. After this Donnybrook, I see the point.

 

[Tiassa]

Thank you for a long post that perfectly and precisely demonstrates the sort of posts that we should not be enabling.

I agree that we should not be enabling that idea of concision.

• • •​

Tiassa, the problem with your example really should have been self-evident and my brevity in pointing it out shouldn't have been a problem (a demonstration of a concise point) and certainly shouldn't be worth of such a string of vitriol.

However, if you really don't get it: you posted as an example of why we need longer posts, someone who made long posts and still failed to get his point across - which shows that long posts don't necessarily help get a point across. Perhaps if you showed someone who SUCCEEDED in getting a point across that really required more than 10k characters, it would support your point.

Try making sense.

• • •​

Most long posts could be shortened with no loss of meaning, and people would be more inclined to read them.
Long posts are nearly always over long.

Sounds like lowering the bar for the lazy.

• • •​

I changed my vote to 'no'. After this Donnybrook, I see the point.

You're an example of the problem.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Some posts take longer to read than they took to write.

 

[Dr_Toad]

You're an example of the problem.

Beg pardon? Snippy, are you?

 

[billvon]

I agree that we should not be enabling that idea of concision.

If that was an example of "concise" then I for one am glad that the 10k character limit plays a part in limiting such posts to a mere 5400 characters.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I agree that we should not be enabling that idea of concision.

• •​

Try making sense.

• • •​

Sounds like lowering the bar for the lazy.

• • •​

You're an example of the problem.

Excuse me? You accuse me of trolling with a one-sentence response that should have been enough in the first place (note: I wasn't even the first to make the point -- you ignored it the previous time as well*) and your response is your own one-liner trolling instead of actually responding to the point, now that - hopefully - you get it? This is just pathetic, Tiassa. Moderators are supposed to act professionally. WTF is your problem? Grow up.

And previously:

His point is to fight, not to communicate.

Go back and reread the title and first few lines of your second post in the thread. That was the beginning of hostility in this thread, and thus far the hostility was almost completly you (until I fought-back, above). That post of yours (your second post) contained no direct responses to anyone's point, it was just a long and not really on topic diatrabe. It seems to me you need to work on both your attitude and your communications skills.

*The parameters for a relevant example were laid-out here:

This is a misunderstanding common among those who lack sufficient experience in tight writing and effective editing. Point me to any post on this forum where you believe the length was essential for accuracy and I'll deliver the same message in half the words or fewer, with no less accuracy.

 

[Tiassa]

Beg pardon? Snippy, are you?

Don't wet yourself, Toad. I'm just trying to be concise.

Or would you prefer I use a few more words, which requires some more characters, in order to be a bit more precise?

• • •​

If that was an example of "concise" then I for one am glad that the 10k character limit plays a part in limiting such posts to a mere 5400 characters.

You see? In the end, you're just out to silence the people you hate.

Tell you what, Bill: I'll do what I can to use fewer characters so as not to unduly distress you, and you will do what you can to actually get some decent character.

• • •​

Excuse me? You accuse me of trolling with a one-sentence response that should have been enough in the first place (note: I wasn't even the first to make the point -- you ignored it the previous time as well) and your response is your on one-liner trolling instead of actually responding to the point, now that - hopefully - you get it? This is just pathetic, Tiassa. WTF is your problem? Grow up.

Quit bawling. I would use more characters in order to be more precise, but I'm trying to honor your standards and not troll you.

If you don't have the basic decency to respect that, don't make your own inadequacies anyone else's problem.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Quit bawling. I would use more characters in order to be more precise, but I'm trying to honor your standards and not troll you.

If you don't have the basic decency to respect that, don't make your own inadequacies anyone else's problem.

No, you really aren't. You are trolling here and you have been since your second post when you accused everyone who disagreed with you of supporting lying without actually addressing the points they made.

And you still haven't addressed the points being made.

 

[billvon]

Don't wet yourself . . .you will do what you can to actually get some decent character. . . .Quit bawling.

Ten posts ago, the vote was pretty even, 5 to 4. Now it is 10 to 6 against. Keep up posts like that and you should be able to drive it up to 20 or 30 to 6.

 

[Tiassa]

No, you really aren't. You are trolling here and you have been since your second post when you accused everyone who disagreed with you of supporting lying without actually addressing the points they made.

You're not exactly a reliable character, Russ.

• • •​

Ten posts ago, the vote was pretty even, 5 to 4. Now it is 10 to 6 against. Keep up posts like that and you should be able to drive it up to 20 or 30 to 6.

And?

Your appeal only reminds of your superficiality.

If this community wishes to lionize low-effort, social media-style posting, they're going to do it regardless of any feeble claims about this being a "science site". Some of us would just like to be able to write. You know, communicate. But communication apparently equals trolling in your outlook. What the fuck ever.

Watching trolls such as yourself and Russ freak out, meanwhile, is an unexpected side benefit.

But you do win one point: "Concise" is fun.

 

[Russ_Watters]

When someone posts a Gish Gallop, the most effective way of addressing their claims is to isolate each one and rebut it, fisking. But while the limit means a reply will have to be split, so be it. Just as long as splitting long posts to exercise rational conversation is not regarded as evading some forum rule.

While I respect the effort you put into these things, trolls use this tactic purposely to waste your time and overwhealm you. And since they are cutting-and-pasting their responses, you have no hope whatsoever at coming out on top of such an argument. The best way to combat this isn't for you to do attack it outright, it is for the moderators to outlaw it:

In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments that a debater can make as well as time, and opponents and moderators often try to keep people on topic as closely as possible. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice (like the Internet, or when creationists control the environment) such techniques are remarkably common. Any audience whose consciousness isn't quite raised to the technique may mistake it for a vast breadth of knowledge on a subject.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

So the better solution is to force shorter, more concise arguments -- to outlaw excessive copy-and-paste flooding. Realistically, that's copyright violation and/or plagarism and should be outlawed anyway.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You're not exactly a reliable character, Russ.

Since you don't know me even a little bit, you are not in a position to judge my character. However, what I do know is that character attacks are against the forum rule here, yet somehow you are being allowed to break them.

Some of us would just like to be able to write. You know, communicate. But communication apparently equals trolling in your outlook. What the fuck ever.

Watching trolls such as yourself and Russ freak out, meanwhile, is an unexpected side benefit.

Tiassa, you stopped communicating and switched to trolling with your second post. Legitimate points remain unanswered because you switched to insulting the people you disagree with instead of answering them. I think most people can recognize here who is freaking-out and who isn't based on the extreme amount of insults in your posts, compared to the reasonable arguments being made in others' posts.

 

[James R]

After reading the above, I'm in two minds about this. For now, I vote "yes" to increasing the limit.

There have been a few occasions since the forum update in which I have found it necessary to split a long post into 2 or 3 separate posts (I think my record is probably 4 posts.) Despite this being a rare requirement, I would prefer the convenience of a 30000 character limit, say.

I can really only see myself using this facility in the context of formal debates, and in point-by-point rebuttals in a complex argument. However, from time to time I do engage in such discussions.

On the other hand, we tend to get our fair share of posters here who like to cut-and-paste long extracts from their blogs, or from random screeds they found elsewhere on the internet. The 10000 character limit arguably reduces such clutter, although it doesn't prevent a string of consecutive posts (and I find a string of 6 one-liner posts about as annoying as a 10,000 word copy from wikipedia).

I'd just like to add that we probably don't need a personal nuclear exchange about the issue of potentially increasing the character limit on the forum. Consider.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

I'd just like to add that we probably don't need a personal nuclear exchange about the issue of potentially increasing the character limit on the forum.

For sure... an ive read this thred 3 times an for the life of me... i cant figer out who made it personal