Proposition: Increase or Eliminate 10k Character Limit

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Tiassa, Mar 6, 2015.


Petition the Administration to increase or eliminate current character limit per post?

Poll closed Mar 20, 2015.
  1. Yes

    7 vote(s)
  2. No

    11 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Hurrah for the 10k limit!
    Hip hip!.................
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    The advantages of the 10K limit are becoming more and more clear.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Sounds like you're trying to restrict content. I await your peer-reviewed scientific articles, Mr. Watters.

    Still, though, that little jab doesn't change the fact that you're advocating censorship.

    Of course, you're also obliged under journal standards to actually properly cite your sources. Can't wait for that, since members here generally have never shown themselves capable of meeting such simple citation standards as author and hyperlink.

    But since you've invoked writing quality, there are other factors to consider as well. A coherent thesis, for instance. Narrative structure. Responsible citation of sources. These are the sorts of things people around here really don't like being demanded of them.

    Additionally, the internet does not share the need of a print-based publication to account for column space. Longer than six pages requires more column inches than the publication model accommodates; it's a business decision within the context of being a scientific journal.

    Furthermore, take a look around. We get very few journal papers here. If you wish to constrict this community's discourse to those standards you are functionally advocating censorship. If, however, you are simply isolating a single publication standard from a single journal out of context in order to support this absurd notion that people shouldn't suffer long posts pertaining to complex discussions, you're just being intellectually dishonest.

    Flip a coin.

    You're one who likes to pack a lot of opinion into unsupported assertions of fact with no apparent regard for context; it would obvious why you want the people responding to you artificially limited. Because, after all, you can't have a fair dispute without demanding your opponents handicap themselves.

    • • •​

    That's because it's not actually about what they're pretending it's about. This is about empowerment, pure and simple. Look at how the objections opened, with Billvon Billvon↑ arguing for a censorship standard, Russ Watters making a point about viewership and intellectual laziness↑, Billvon's censorship appeal to simply remove those discussions to another place↑, Ophiolite's emphatic but imprecise assetion of concision↑, his subsequent critique that long posts addressing complex subjects are not good writing↑, and Billvon's complaint about responding to deceptive posts↑ that echoes Russ' advocacy of intellectual laziness.

    Russ goes on to assert that trolls use long posts↑; Billvon goes on to argue that complex arguments should be censored at Sciforums↑; Ophiolite whines about feeling insulted↑; and then people just start going off the rails. Russ thinks the idea of dragging an argument out over multiple short posts in arguments resulting from imprecision and complaints of misinterpretation are a reason to not write longer posts↑. And as we see starting with responses to #31↑ that some of these people so do not like brevity and concision that they will complain that it is an example of why people shouldn't write long posts↑.

    The trend is clear; they can frame how they want but the resolving theme to the objections has less to do with quality writing and more to do with lowering the effort they need to put into their own posts by limiting other people.

    Notice that I occasionally↑ ask if people would prefer a less concise and more precise↑ answer, and it doesn't seem they do.

    Meanwhile, we are treated to the spectacle of a guy who can't write a proper citation complaining about copyright violations and plagiarism↑, and another member demonstrating the advantages of "concision"↑ with a deliberate contextual sleight intended to deceive.

    The only thing that would enrich the irony of that last would be if someone predicted that sort of behavior. But, you know, apparently such a prediction would be insulting↑, so it's a good thing nobody ... er ... ah ... oh, right↑.


  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    That first sentence tells me your entire post is stupid.

    Are you a student or just a beligerant retard?

    You should not be a moderator.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  8. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    In fact, the next sentence made a reasonable point.
    The following sentence says that restricting the allowable length is censorship.
    Not sure if I agree, but it isn't stupid.

    Is there a possibility of only showing a few centimetres of a long post, which can then be fully lengthened if people want to read the whole post?
    Then people could post as much as they wanted within reason.

    We already have that format where someone quotes someone else, and it makes the site easier to read.
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Not a bad suggestion. It would make the forum more readable, although it would still encourage Gish Gallops and Tiassa Torrents. If you combined that with the ability to block any user (or moderator) you'd have a pretty good solution.
    Russ_Watters likes this.
  10. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member


    I think what I posted earlier defeats any of this bullshit. And if I'm right, why are people trying to argue against me?
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    They said I had to do it.
  12. Bells Staff Member

    Or you could just go to Facebook which would allow you to only converse with the people you wish to actually talk to.

    But thank you, for once again pointing out that your real issue in this thread is personal and not so much with the issue itself.

    I have already advised two other members in this thread that they should not flame it further. You should take that advice for yourself as well. Because if your intent is to troll and flame this thread, I will prevent you from participating in this thread entirely.
  13. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    [shrug] Being concise takes effort. I'm already aware you don't value that. You don't need to add more unnecessary words to reiterate the point, especially since doing so supports my point even more!

    But, shame on me: making a long post makes it easier for the other person to pick-and-choose what to respond to and what to ignore. So I'll just assume that the points you didn't address, you agree with.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You're misunderstanding the math: The post you just made was 967 words, about 5-6,000 characters. That's a little under 1.5 pages, dual column, 11 pt, Times New Roman. So a 3-part post, with each post near the current limit of 10,000 characters would be about 8 pages. I've certainly seen three-part posts here before and the two-part diatribe Tiassa made earlier would on its own be about 5 pages.

    And that's not even counting the fact that a significant portion of the real-estate of a scientific paper is in figures. The actual word-counts are much lower than the all-text posts we're discussing here.
    In that case, I request that you (and more importantly, Tiassa) stop misrepresenting it.
    I'm pretty sure I do. Near as I can tell, you/Tiassa haven't ever had to tell me I don't understand, just that I'm wrong.
    I certainly agree with that, and request that the moderators set the example they want the members to follow. Specifically, I request that Tiassa be instructed to stop his flaming/insulting/trolling and start acting like an adult (as a start; before we even try for "professional") in this discussion. His conduct is beyond ridiculous.

    To Tiassa directly: except for these two sentences and the above to Bells, since she is being more reasonable, I will not be replying to your post. It is unworthy of response.
  14. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Is that possible now?

    More reasonable at the moment.
    Just wait five minutes.

    Come on someone. Vote.
    Where are the Reiku socks when you need them?
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 11, 2015
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    This thread itself might make members ignore this forum voluntarily.
  16. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    I thank this has been one of the more fun threds... an i give credit whare credit is due... mod Tiassa.!!!
    Captain Kremmen likes this.
  17. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    The moderators make no attempt to moderate each other.
    Anything they say or do is tolerated,
    And if it all kicks off, threaten a member or two.

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

    Then learn to read.

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

    and threaten sanctions against:
    What did he say?

    Or a telephone directory.

    If the 80% i didnt read was anythang like the the 20% i skimmed over... it was perty much a 2 post hissy-fit.!!!

    on the grounds that they are inflammatory.
    Amazing hypocrisy.
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2015
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  18. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Well done Tiassa!
  19. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    I would be interested in discussing physics...
  20. Bells Staff Member


    I would really appreciate it if you did not a) misrepresent what I said, b) insert words and meanings into my response to you that clearly were not there; and c) make assumptions about what I do and do not value in regards to this subject.

    Not really. Especially when you consider that you are doing the same thing.

    You can assume what you wish. It does not mean you will be correct. For example, your assumption that I do not value effort is wholly incorrect.

    I stand corrected.

    That said, it still does not answer or explain the point that removing the character limit, or reverting to no character limit, like we had with the old software, is not going to make people write more. With the old software, people were not writing more because there was no real character limit. They just wrote as they continue to write now. Nothing has changed in posting style. As I noted previously, this is simply about allowing us to have what we had with the old software in regards to character limits. My request would not stop there. For example, I would love it if we could have IP search functions like we had with the older software, which truly allowed us to compare IP's and gave us a better picture of sockpuppets, shared IP's and the ability to track spammers more effectively. But I do not think this current software allows that.

    I do not believe that I have misrepresented anything. That is how you are coming across. Comments like this:

    [shrug] Being concise takes effort. I'm already aware you don't value that.

    Are actually very condescending and kind of insulting. It is as though you are going out of your way to get a rise out of me. It isn't working, but you get my drift..

    There is a lot of questionable conduct in this thread.

    However, what is becoming very apparent is that this is now an issue of voting or arguing a certain way because of who the other person is.
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    There will be none of that here! This forum is for discussing all the things that Tiassa and Bells don't like about other posters. In great, >10K character detail.
  22. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Why not have a 1ok+ subforum, where you can't post less?
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    As I noted earlier, this isn't about the 10k character limit, but really about who started the thread and certain staff members. You made that clear from the outset. Now, when I responded to your complaint, it was to advise you that your concerns in your report could be dealt with in the thread itself. What that does not entail is further flaming the thread because you feel the need to be overly sarcastic and snide. And frankly, it is difficult for me to take your complaint (or keep reviewing it even now) seriously when you persist in such fly by remarks. In short, you aren't helping your own cause at this point in time.

    Frankly, at this point, my recommendation would be to shut this thread down. Not because the subject matter is not worthy of discussion. But simply because certain people are pathologically incapable of approaching a thread such as this without voting or commenting based solely on their personal bias about the OP or the staff..

    Thank you for proving the point I was making earlier, Billvon.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page