Bells,
The first bit was at least partly tongue-in cheek, but I want to clarify the "effort" part: I didn't mean you don't favor effort, I meant you favor putting the effort somewhere different from where I favor it. I value concise and consumable more; you value thoroughness more (though the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). I understand that in rare occasion where a really long post is needed for thoroughness, a limit could get in the way. However, as Tiassa has so amply (if accidentally) demonstrated, the problem of long, off-topic rants is also very real.
Let me say that again, more succinctly: I didn't change my vote, so unless I'm inclined to follow Tiassa around, trolling him - and I slow-played this one, knowing he'd explode at me without provocation, I couldn't possibly have voted based on how he's behaved toward me in this or any other thread.
Similarly, someone (I think you, but not sure - don't feel like flipping-back a few pages) accused a vote-switcher of changing a vote based on personal feelings, but the poster in question was clear that the reason was understanding the pros/cons better. The implied and in some cases overt claim from you/Tiassa is that we're lying about our own opinions and motives, even those of us who expressed those opinions before being explosively attacked. That's a serious problem if that's really how little you think of your members, particularly ones who bring professional science experience to a forum that at least in-name is a science forum.
The first bit was at least partly tongue-in cheek, but I want to clarify the "effort" part: I didn't mean you don't favor effort, I meant you favor putting the effort somewhere different from where I favor it. I value concise and consumable more; you value thoroughness more (though the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive). I understand that in rare occasion where a really long post is needed for thoroughness, a limit could get in the way. However, as Tiassa has so amply (if accidentally) demonstrated, the problem of long, off-topic rants is also very real.
Certainly not as much as Tiassa, but:
Tiassa revealed a deep-seated hatred for myself and others - a months old grudge in my case - which has clearly motivated his posts since #20, since he's talked about little else. But I voted before that first rant, and I did so based on the merrits of the discussion held before my first post. Nowhere have I made an argument for my vote based on a personal issue with Tiassa - heck, I didn't even know there was a personal issue between me and Tiassa until he said it! So not only is that a false representation of where my position comes from, it makes no sense due to the timeline of my voting/original posting.
Let me say that again, more succinctly: I didn't change my vote, so unless I'm inclined to follow Tiassa around, trolling him - and I slow-played this one, knowing he'd explode at me without provocation, I couldn't possibly have voted based on how he's behaved toward me in this or any other thread.
Similarly, someone (I think you, but not sure - don't feel like flipping-back a few pages) accused a vote-switcher of changing a vote based on personal feelings, but the poster in question was clear that the reason was understanding the pros/cons better. The implied and in some cases overt claim from you/Tiassa is that we're lying about our own opinions and motives, even those of us who expressed those opinions before being explosively attacked. That's a serious problem if that's really how little you think of your members, particularly ones who bring professional science experience to a forum that at least in-name is a science forum.
