New Minimum Character Count For Replies.

reply to post by hikix


Really, give us a hint, because right now, I am completely frustrated that there is not an Absolute in the posting characters, what will happen now, is NEW "rules" will have to be made, due to all the "quoting" and reply to's and all the other things people will do - to get around this.

So, ONE standard should be enforced for ALL Postings, no matter if it is quoting, or replying to a certain poster or just hitting the post button.

Edit to add: and 200 characters is excessive.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by questioningall]

alright, i kind of figured out this morning anyway,

Cheers to you mate!

Originally posted by Darth_Prime
alright, i kind of figured out this morning anyway,

Cheers to you mate!

I think I got the idea as to how its done!

reply to post by questioningall



I can't.. staff doesn't seem too happy with me now anyway. But I agree with ignorant ape, the punishment should be for posts that do not contribute, not for posts that are not enough characters.

Anyway, you guys probably don't see much of me because i kindof ran out of things to say. So, Ill shut up now and let the more active members discuss this. Good Luck!

Originally posted by questioningall
Really, give us a hint, because right now, I am completely frustrated that there is not an Absolute in the posting characters,

There is an absolute, it's just not absolutely apparent for each and every post.

A brand-new post, without quotes or reply-to requires 100 characters. I started with 250, but refined it down to 100 after brief testing.

A post that contains a reply-to requires 220 total characters (including the reply-to notice automatically pre-pended to the message).

A post with a quote requires 300 characters (including the quoted post).


As I mentioned, this isn't perfect, but it's needed as an as-you-post reminder to make your posts on-point with content that matters. The character counts aren't unrealistic, even for brief but on-point responses.

Requiring a meaningful contributions to threads is not a restriction on free expression.


Please do not test the limits of my/our patience with trying to subvert the well-intended system within this thread. We've already had one posting ban because of that, and I rather not be forced to assign more of those.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by SkepticOverlord]

I don't like this at all.

I've had to add things to my comment that were not necassary.

I had to write 1000 characters on one post?

hmmmm but it seems it's 200 now?

Maybe 100 is better?



I guess I can live with this

[edit on 12-4-2009 by _Phoenix_]

01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789

Ok, quota fulfilled. Now I'll say something relevent, however parsimonious. Deny loquacious, florid, disultory, prolix prose for its own sake.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Okay, I am replying to your posting and it started out with needing 154 characters and I am still at this moment 41 away from reaching it.

Why is it earlier I hit a reply to from Mr. Smith and I only needed 75 characters, but yet this reply to posting was a long one from you.

My question is... I have yet to see, one standard for each time I am replying and posting, I have now seen 4 standards - one at 200 when hitting the generic "reply" button, another when I posted a reply to from Mr. Smith, now another from posting a reply to from yours, and I did a posting in BTS, which only required 45 characters (which I am not complaining about BTS, it is very minimal).

But I am complaining that everytime I am pressing a reply button I am getting a different set of characters needed.

I have not even done the quoting button yet. I will do that one next, to see what the variation is there.

So, if there is going to be a character count, Please make it consistent so we know every time we are going to post something, but it changing all the time is what is frustrating.

Also see others able to do one liners is also frustrating due to it taking at least 3 lines to post!

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


The problem with this new system is that the more computer savvy members will know how to circumvent the rules, and unless you have a new filter for counting the characters as they appear on the post after posting I don't see how this can be enforced, while the ones that want and know how to circumvent the system will do it.

Explaining it better, if I wanted to make a post with just one word I could do it, but unless a mod sees it, someone complains or there is an automatic system () to see the post as it will appear on the thread, there is no way the mods can enforce this policy.

I hope I made myself understood.

PS: now I have to find a way of saying more than I usually do. This is a real problem for people that are not really good at expressing themselves, like me.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
I don't like this at all.

I've had to add things to my comment that were not necassary.

I had to write 1000 characters on one post?

hmmmm but it seems it's 200 now?

Maybe 100 is better?



I guess I can live with this

[edit on 12-4-2009 by _Phoenix_]

Now I am quoting another posters - post, it started out with me needing 64 characters.

So where is the consistency?

Ok, I apologize for the above. Sometimes I have had to just post a link to something without much to say about the matter or give an answer to a question that amounted to well under 200 characters and yet it was still quite relevent or even exactly what was needed.

I've noticed that the count varies from forum to forum, or something like that. In this forum, it's 200, but in others it's much higher. One thousand characters or more? What's up with that? It's a bit confusing.

Originally posted by questioningall

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
I don't like this at all.

I've had to add things to my comment that were not necassary.

I had to write 1000 characters on one post?

hmmmm but it seems it's 200 now?

Maybe 100 is better?



I guess I can live with this

[edit on 12-4-2009 by _Phoenix_]

Now I am quoting another posters - post, it started out with me needing 64 characters.

So where is the consistency?

Apparently there is none cause there cant be any other reason for me getting 2 warnings, yet other posts here dont even get removed!

Appart from that 200 characters is a bit too much, maybe 50 would do?


Edit: apart from that theyve implemented something thats probably not working correctly atm and still is bug riddled to say the least. Time will tell...

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Fett Pinkus]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
As I mentioned, this isn't perfect, but it's needed.

appologies for my 1st ` hey its broke ` post - which triggered a lanslide

but thats not the point - my opinion is that it is NOT needed - as stated earlier - verbosity does not inject anything meaningfull into a reply [ unless you are majic ]

all you will do - IMHO is force 200 charchers of zero contribution waffle out of the people with nothing to say - while stiffing the style of those of us who can get across a point , raise a question or supply usefull info with < 79 charachters on screen [ ignoring bb code / hyperlinks ]

Requiring a meaningful contributions to threads is not a restriction on free expression.

true - but demanding a word count does stiffle expression - sometimes i have little to say - and will resent having to type when i COULD have made a valid point on one line

i have AFAIK never had a one line infraction - but offten post ` minimalist ` replies - if i am busy

Please do not test the limits of my/our patience with trying to subvert the well-intended system within this thread. We've already had one posting ban because of that, and I rather not be forced to assign more of those.

again appologies - i am not atteplting to try your patience - but point out that all you have done is make zero contribution posts fatter

to elimiinate such activity you have to punish the offenders - brutally if required - the 20 pt / warn didnt work - so up the ante

like i say - all a forsee is ` sero contribution bloat ` - and more staff hassle

edit - code calamity

[edit on 12-4-2009 by ignorant_ape]

I'm all for a minimum for replies but this many? This came up while posting in another thread this can't be right? or is it?

reply to post by EnlightenUp


...and this is the precise point that SkepticOverlord is making, or trying anyway, to you all...

Yes, some one line posts are on topic and relevant, but in my limited reading in the forums; very damned few of them. Most are useless at best, or off topic drivel at worst.

...and lookie here, 200 characters reached with ease.

OK, I have a concern...

Posts can be edited, and many times I have seen members write posts and then later edit them to say something like "nm" or "removed". Now, however, such would be 'illegal', would it not?

On a broader note, I personally agree with the other posters who feel that the restriction will only lead to longer-winded replies, when shorter ones would suffice completely. humanity will continue to be humanity, SO, whether you like it or not. And humanity, despite all its flaws and problems, is what runs this site.

TheRedneck

I like the idea. If nothing else, it makes the poster think a little longer about what they're going to post. I also think the 200 character minimum is just about right. As evidenced by this post, it's really not that much.

Why punish everyone for the one line post of just some of us? Why don't the mods send warnings or deduct points to the one line posters?

I've noticed that black spaces count toward the 200 as well.