At least 10 characters?

[Iku Rex]

"The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters."

***

Is this rule really necessary? Does it have to be 10 (instead of, say, 5) characters?

[NerfTW]

The real question is if your post is less than ten characters, is it really worth saying?

[Rawhide]

Yes. It even has The Giant's wordTM on this.

[Charity]

The real question is if your post is less than ten characters, is it really worth saying?
could be were it allowed,

My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. Your noble son is mad. . . .



But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Charity is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief
That thou, her groom, art far more fair than she.

[Zeta Kai]

could be

QFT. Even the mods do this, so you'll just have to live with it. I've been guilty of this too, but it seems like every couple of weeks, we get into some discussion about the set-up of the forum, or some minutia about how it functions. If there were a better way that everyone agreed upon, they'd do it that way. But things are just the way they are, & are unlikely to change, barring technological breakthroughs.

[NerfTW]

Look, two perfect examples of why you don't want posts less than ten characters. They add nothing to the discussion but head nodding. And no, I'm not counting invisible characters as adding to the discussion, since most people will never see them.

Having a limit ensures that most people try to add something more to a discussion than "yup" "uh huh" and "QFT".

[Zherog]

^ +1

[Charity]

...perfect...

:smallredface: *sniff* I luv you too man... *sniff*

This post was brought to you as a joint venture from the society of creative ignoring for a better tomorrow and The undernourished irony league.

I thought quoting Polonious's ironic 'brevity is the soul of witt' speach might be considered contribution (colour not withstanding) however it is possible on the boards to ask a simple question with a yes/no answer. It is not possible to actually restrict ones answer to that which is required to answer the question (namely a yes or a no)...
Also in many of the SMBG games the requirement is for a single word reply so in answer to your Q nerf me old muker "Could be"

[Castaras]

^ +1

^ +2

[Zherog]

I see somebody else knows how to do it without white text. :smallwink:

[Castaras]

Yup yup.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

The real question is if your post is less than ten characters, is it really worth saying? Yes. There are many occasions where someone asks where an ability is from or something during a discussion of larger issues and essentially gets ignored by the people(including myself) waging wall-o-text wars. The only ones who notice and want to respond are ons who don't have anything to add to the discussion beyond the name of a book or something.

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that why would you want to expand a post beyond what is needed to get the answer across? Brief != Bad.

[NerfTW]

Except that 10 characters isn't that much. If you're answer is "Yes", it just needs to be expanded to "Yes, it is, name of poster." or even just "yes, that is correct."

The extra five or so letters you may need to add on to short answer posts is worth stopping five million posts saying "Yup" "agreed" "Yay" and other such pointless "head nods" that do nothing but clutter up the page.

[Fawkes]

The extra five or so letters you may need to add on to short answer posts is worth stopping five million posts saying "Yup" "agreed" "Yay" and other such pointless "head nods" that do nothing but clutter up the page.

Agreed. lulz

[Eloel]

^ +2
^ +3

[puppyavenger]

^ +3

HOW DO YOU DO THAT!


also ten letters isn't going to stop anyone form saying quoted for Truth, it just stops them from only using the abbreviation.

[Zherog]

HOW DO YOU DO THAT!

Ancient secret. If we told you, we'd have to send Belkar over to kill you.

Or you could quote one of our posts to see how it was done.

[Haven]

As "Casey and Andy" teaches us, if your writing gets rejected for not having enough characters, all you need to do is just say "Bob was there, too".

[The Dark Fiddler]

^ +3


You know, the quote counts as characters, right? So technically, that technique isn't needed, right?

[Douglas]

No, quotes are specifically excluded from the count.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Brevity is

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You know, the quote counts as characters, right? So technically, that technique isn't needed, right?
No, the quote doesn't count. Try it.


HOW DO YOU DO THAT!
Hint: it has more to do with browsers than with board software. Pay attention to what popped up when you quoted the ozgun.


also ten letters isn't going to stop anyone form saying quoted for Truth, it just stops them from only using the abbreviation.
Nope, they won't abbreviate. But it will still count as "Minor Spam (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)," which makes the post liable to earn the poster an official Warning or an Infraction for repeated use.

[Charity]

Yup yup.

:smalltongue:

[Zeta Kai]

:smalltongue:

L O L.

[darkblust]

well,i guess this is fair.It should probably be more like 20 characters though,so u have to actually add something to the discussion.Bob was there too.140-something characters there,its quite simple

[Xondoure]

l o l

[Stormthorn]

Look, two perfect examples of why you don't want posts less than ten characters. They add nothing to the discussion but head nodding. And no, I'm not counting invisible characters as adding to the discussion, since most people will never see them.

Having a limit ensures that most people try to add something more to a discussion than "yup" "uh huh" and "QFT".

me 2. :smalltongue:

[Ripped Shirt Kirk]

:smalltongue:

yu p

[Sneak]

Ok, guys, we get it. It was funny at first. Now, though? Not so much. :smalltongue:

And Bob was there, too.

[skywalker]

In theory, it keeps you from jamming up the page with crap (which is subjective, is most of what is on this page crap? I dunno. It's kinda funny, but at the same time, completely throw-away).

It's supposed to keep people from "spamming" (in the vernacular sense) for any reason, I think primarily to raise our post counts which aren't supposed to matter (but just in case it matters to you, you can't raise it by posting "QFT" "+1" or "bump" in theory).

However, there are a number of ways around it, so that pretty much everyone does the first thing anyway at least occasionally. I haven't even brought up the "legitimate" reasons why someone might have a post shorter than 10 characters.

So in my opinion, no, the rule isn't necessary. That being said, it isn't that hard to get around if you even sorta want to, so who cares?

One might also say that there could be a security reason for it that the staff can't tell us about.

[Nevrmore]

And no, I'm not counting invisible characters as adding to the discussion, since most people will never see them.
If you're very new to message boards or possibly possessing a learning disability, maybe. Anyone who is even slightly perceptive should realize that lines upon lines of obstensibly blank space is unusual.

[Ashen Lilies]

Plus, there's the paranoid people (like me), who highlight every post they read out of habit due to the annoying habit of people hiding white text at the end of lines, in between paragraphs, or even between words. Like this.
Or this.
SeelwhatoIlmean?

[NerfTW]

If you're very new to message boards or possibly possessing a learning disability, maybe. Anyone who is even slightly perceptive should realize that lines upon lines of obstensibly blank space is unusual.

Or most of us just don't feel like highlighting posts all the time, thank you.

I'm definitely neither of the things you mentioned. The simple fact is that having the limit stops MOST posters who just post "lol" "yeah" "Agreed" and other such one word posts. Yes there's ways around it, and there is occasionally reason to, but that's like arguing that you should never lock doors because people can just smash the window. It stops MOST of the junk.

[Charity]

To be honest Nerf old bean, if this thread demonstrates anything it's that the character limit does no such thing.

I don't give a monkies that it exists (it is ridiculously easy to circumvent, and some of the most amusing posts I've seen have been so only because such circumvention was required) but it does nothing to prevent pointlessTM posts.

In truth I know boring posts are... well boring, but there a precious few posts of real worth on this site, or indeed any other and if you let that upset you then the internet would be an uncomfortable place to visit.

I'm not advocating that we should just let slip the reins and encourage folk to post tedious repetative drivel, but the character limit doesn't have a meaningful effect on the number of spam posts.
The only effective means to reduce spammy posts is for mods to warn those that make them, which just ramps up the mod burdon into the stratosphere...

[Rawhide]

Actually Charity, it demonstrates nothing of the sort. All it demonstrates is that it can be circumvented if need be (plus, that people are sheep).

It can be annoying at times and there are some legitimate reasons to post less than 10 characters but it is, on the whole, better to have it than not.

[Nevrmore]

Or most of us just don't feel like highlighting posts all the time, thank you.
Did I say in that post that if you're not highlighting posts all the time to make sure that there is no hidden wonderment within that you're some sort of stooge? No, I said that if someone has an ostensibly short post and several blank spaces underneath it, anyone who is lucid should be able to figure out that it probably has more to it than first thought. If you're too lazy to highlight those relatively rare posts, then God help you when you have to do difficult things like taking baths or eating.


I'm definitely neither of the things you mentioned. The simple fact is that having the limit stops MOST posters who just post "lol" "yeah" "Agreed" and other such one word posts. Yes there's ways around it, and there is occasionally reason to, but that's like arguing that you should never lock doors because people can just smash the window. It stops MOST of the junk.
What are you even arguing with? I never said it didn't. All I asserted was that whited out characters to circumvent the >10 limit "counted" and you're being unnecessarily stingy when you say they don't.

[Zeful]

If you're very new to message boards or possibly possessing a learning disability, maybe. Anyone who is even slightly perceptive should realize that lines upon lines of obstensibly blank space is unusual.
Except it's possible to mask those lines.
Really?
Can you tell that this text is here without quote?

[Nevrmore]

Yes, because I know how much space is supposed to be between a quote and the text beneath it and how much space is supposed to be between the text and the Quote button.

[NerfTW]

Again, I think you're missing the point. It stops most one word posts.

Look at sites that don't have such a barrier. You get fifteen or so posts per page just "head nodding". It makes finding actual conversation difficult. Most of those posts are by people who can't or don't want to figure out how to circumvent a filter.

Having the filter simply cuts down on the posts, and prevents it from becoming cluttered. Yes, you can circumvent it, but you can also circumvent the swear filter, the only one account rule, and a lot of other things. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there at all.

The mere fact that it's there stops a lot of those who just want to respond for the sake of responding. Because if you can't muster the effort to write more than 10 characters, you're probably not going to bother with the many ways to get around it.

In fact, if this thread weren't about the limit, I'd almost say most of the posts here are spam and should be scrubbed in a normal post.

[NerfTW]

Did I say in that post that if you're not highlighting posts all the time to make sure that there is no hidden wonderment within that you're some sort of stooge? No, I said that if someone has an ostensibly short post and several blank spaces underneath it, anyone who is lucid should be able to figure out that it probably has more to it than first thought. If you're too lazy to highlight those relatively rare posts, then God help you when you have to do difficult things like taking baths or eating.


What are you even arguing with? I never said it didn't. All I asserted was that whited out characters to circumvent the >10 limit "counted" and you're being unnecessarily stingy when you say they don't.

You are being an absolute jerk right now. Stop it. I'm talking about those posts with one little line of text that for all I know is an extra carriage return. It has nothing to do with my ability to bathe myself. :smallfurious:

[Nevrmore]

I'm a jerk most of the time, that doesn't stop the fact that you're talking about one thing and I'm talking about another, and yet you're arguing as if we're debating the same issue. Small posts with no substances to them are to be avoided, I never argued against that. But it's possible to have a small post with impact and it's especially possible to have a seemingly small post with something extra hidden to everyone who is not sober of their internet surroundings.

[Stormthorn]

Ok, guys, we get it. It was funny at first. Now, though? Not so much. :smalltongue:

And Bob was there, too.


(plus, that people are sheep).

My post wasnt actually agreement. The :smalltongue: was intended to show that i was mocking the concept that brevity is pointless and that people ONLY make sort posts to say "me too".

[skywalker]

The mere fact that it's there stops a lot of those who just want to respond for the sake of responding. Because if you can't muster the effort to write more than 10 characters, you're probably not going to bother with the many ways to get around it.

In fact, if this thread weren't about the limit, I'd almost say most of the posts here are spam and should be scrubbed in a normal post.

Eh, I tend to try and type more than 10 characters just because it's so much easier to craft a filler sentence than to go looking for buttons for white text. Just like you said.

But like Charity said, the crap is still there. It's just that instead of one smiley, or "yes," or "QFT," we get "I completely agree with that," or "so-and-so has it right," both of which exceed the limit but still do little more than "QFT" to contribute to the discussion, beyond making us all seem marginally more educated.

[chiasaur11]

Eh, I tend to try and type more than 10 characters just because it's so much easier to craft a filler sentence than to go looking for buttons for white text. Just like you said.

But like Charity said, the crap is still there. It's just that instead of one smiley, or "yes," or "QFT," we get "I completely agree with that," or "so-and-so has it right," both of which exceed the limit but still do little more than "QFT" to contribute to the discussion, beyond making us all seem marginally more educated.

To be fair, even seeming a touch more educated has a decent amount of value.

Just saying.

[Blue Ghost]

For those of us who hang out a lot in SMBG, where a lot of the threads are designed for one-word answers, the 10-character limit does become a bit annoying. But I suppose it has its uses there too. Forces us to think more creatively.

[Zherog]

Again, I think you're missing the point. It stops most one word posts.

Look at sites that don't have such a barrier. You get fifteen or so posts per page just "head nodding". It makes finding actual conversation difficult. Most of those posts are by people who can't or don't want to figure out how to circumvent a filter.

To my understanding, this is the reason Rich implemented the rule. The goal here is to have stimulating conversations. Things like "QFT," "+1," and so on add nothing to the conversation. At all. No, not even then. Like many of the rules here, this rule exists entirely to raise the level of conversation.

Can it be bypassed? Yep. Is it allowed to be bypassed? Yep, if circumstances actually call for a post shorter than 10 character -- just like the word filter can legitimately be bypassed to discuss **** van Dyke's best movies, **** Grayson, and so on. It can be bypassed, and if you have a legit reason to do so, then go for it. Otherwise, if your post is less than 10 characters in length maybe it would be best to consider whether it truly adds to the conversation.

[Charity]

Actually Charity, it demonstrates nothing of the sort. All it demonstrates is that it can be circumvented if need be (plus, that people are sheep).

It can be annoying at times and there are some legitimate reasons to post less than 10 characters but it is, on the whole, better to have it than not.


Why do I feel I am being slowly drawn into advocacy of the devil here... anyhow.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that the ten character limit has any effect on the meaningful:meaningless ratio.
Once folk have hit that post button do you honestly believe that when the 'your post is too short' message pops up, they suddenly decide to void the post? Or perhaps they become enlightened posters after the epiphany that more letters is somehow more creditable... really?

I know it is somewhat incumbent upon you to tow the party line Raw, but my experiance of human nature wouldn't lead me to such a conclusion.



Again, I think you're missing the point. It stops most one word posts.

Where is the evidence that this is the case, I know, I know it is impossible to gather such data but as I stated above Nerf, I'm not buyin it.


Look at sites that don't have such a barrier. You get fifteen or so posts per page just "head nodding". It makes finding actual conversation difficult. Most of those posts are by people who can't or don't want to figure out how to circumvent a filter.

There is no such barrier on alot any other forum I post in, and there is no greater incident of head nodding posts in those than here.


Having the filter simply cuts down on the posts, and prevents it from becoming cluttered. Yes, you can circumvent it, but you can also circumvent the swear filter, the only one account rule, and a lot of other things. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be there at all.

It really doesn't, at best all it does is provide a muse for our sillier side.


The mere fact that it's there stops a lot of those who just want to respond for the sake of responding. Because if you can't muster the effort to write more than 10 characters, you're probably not going to bother with the many ways to get around it.

how much effort does it take to hold down a key, any key, for 2 seconds?
I genuinely do not believe for a second that the ten letter filter has prevented one single post


In fact, if this thread weren't about the limit, I'd almost say most of the posts here are spam and should be scrubbed in a normal post. Yet they have all been over 10 letters, how can that be?

Sorry Nerf, I promise I poke but the lightest hearted fun.

The real reason the ten letter limit is in place is because Rich wants it, he figures it will work, so its like it or lump it. As has been well documented, it ain't really that big a deal, it just seems... well pointless really.

[Zherog]

There is no such barrier on alot any other forum I post in, and there is no greater incident of head nodding posts in those than here.

Just curious: Do you post to the WotC forums? Because that forum has a meaningless limit (2 characters) and, frankly, I see a lot of "head nodding" posts over there.

[Charity]

Very rarely.
Though I was unaware of the limit, I imagine it is to prevent 'empty' posts rather than 'contentless' ones however.
If I'm honest some forums are spammier than others, I find it is dependant on the particular forums sense of community and intellectual maturity rather than any artificial posting restrictions that dictate the average post 'quality'.

Seriously Z, do you think it actually prevents any posts?
I mean, I am playing Devils advocate here, I don't actually care, but it is just a knee jerk reaction to a perceived problem that offers no real solution.
If spammy posts are a problem the only effective method of preventing/discouraging them is to mod hammer them and give out the occasional warning to persistant offenders.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Just curious: Do you post to the WotC forums? Because that forum has a meaningless limit (2 characters) and, frankly, I see a lot of "head nodding" posts over there.And I post on the Loserz forum, which has the same meaningless limit, and has no "head nodding" posts.

I have not once changed anything about a post, other than inserting white text, due to the 10-char limit. When writing, length is sometimes a hinderance to the message. I doubt that is different for most other people.

[PhoeKun]

I don't see much point to complaining about a 10 character limit. Spammy posts are always a concern on any message board, and there are a large number of factors that go into determining whether or not that will be the case on any specific one.

Keep in mind, 10 characters usually means writing three or less words, not accounting for punctuation. At its absolute worst, it is a minor inconvenience and a magic rock that keeps tigers away. Since it's not especially detrimental to hold onto the rock, why talk so much about throwing it in the lake? We might need it later to start a campfire.

[Rawhide]

Charity: There is no evidence I would be allowed to provide that could satisfy you. Plus, you have no evidence to say that it does not work, a personal anecdote about certain forums you visit or the attitude of a particular person does not and can not count as evidence. (See also "The problem with anecdotes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc)", mostly paranormal related, but still relevant)

Another thing that people seem to fail to realise is that you don't consider each rule or restriction in a vacuum. They work together to create or help create the environment and foster a friendly community. There are other such rules that assist this, including a rule that even mentions that QFT or similar posts are not wanted. They work together, hand in hand, to improve the community and assist the moderators to apply the rules.

For one, it tells people, in no uncertain terms, that we don't want short, meaningless posts being made. Those that get around it for a meaningless post (i.e. not what could be considered a legitimate circumvention) know that they are circumventing a small part of what the community is about. This goes towards discouraging such posts, not just at the time of posting but for all future posts.

Delving deeper into the psychology of the posters, I've already raised that people are sheep. Monkey see, monkey do. I've talked about this in a previous board issues thread and you can see people 'jumping on the bandwagon' in this very thread. If a piece of park furniture is vandalised for example, it is best to clean/fix it immediately, because, with each piece of vandalism, there is an increased likelihood of further vandalism. Keeping the forum relatively clear of super short posts helps reduce the amount of really short posts (and that is known as a positive feedback loop).

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Keep in mind, 10 characters usually means writing three or less words, not accounting for punctuation. At its absolute worst, it is a minor inconvenience and a magic rock that keeps tigers away. Since it's not especially detrimental to hold onto the rock, why talk so much about throwing it in the lake? We might need it later to start a campfire.
Seems to me you can wind up weighed down with a lot of rocks with that kind of thinking.

[Stormthorn]

Another thing that people seem to fail to realise is that you don't consider each rule or restriction in a vacuum.

Well, OBVIOUSLY. You would DIE if you spent too long in a vacuum looking at your rules proposals.

I looked at that youtibe link, Rawhide. I dont think its completly applicable here. I also watched a few othe rthings by that guy. He must be a sad lonely individual for all the time he spends making videos to battle against the evils of faith and belief and religion. Dont get me wrong, he has a point, but he freaks me the f*** out for being so zelous about it as to put hours of work on videos online.

[Rawhide]

Well, OBVIOUSLY. You would DIE if you spent too long in a vacuum looking at your rules proposals.

You say that like it's a bad thing. We've put a lot of time and effort into these rules to make the community we have today. We have thought through them, debated them and revised them until they do the best that they could possibly do. We don't make arbitrary rules and don't just make rules on the spot and without thought.


I looked at that youtibe link, Rawhide. I dont think its completly applicable here. I also watched a few othe rthings by that guy. He must be a sad lonely individual for all the time he spends making videos to battle against the evils of faith and belief and religion. Dont get me wrong, he has a point, but he freaks me the f*** out for being so zelous about it as to put hours of work on videos online.

It does have a very definite point here. Charity has provided a personal anecdote, but we know nothing about the boards he frequents, the rules they have in place, the moderators, what level of moderation gets performed on the boards, what type of people get attracted to post on those boards, the aim of the boards, the focus of the community.

We also have only his memory to rely upon and memory is inherently unreliable, it makes up facts in the way it wants to remember it. If he says that there was no head nodding, then he will remember that there was no head nodding, even if there was.

[Charity]

Charity: There is no evidence I would be allowed to provide that could satisfy you. Plus, you have no evidence to say that it does not work, a personal anecdote about certain forums you visit or the attitude of a particular person does not and can not count as evidence. (See also "The problem with anecdotes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc)", mostly paranormal related, but still relevant).

I was simply refuting Nerfs assertation that it "It stops most one word posts".
I thought I had made it clear that it was my opinion that "my experiance of human nature wouldn't lead me to such a conclusion."

I also stated "I know, I know it is impossible to gather such data but as I stated above Nerf, I'm not buyin it."

So, just to be clear, I am not making any claim, just refuting one and stating my opinion based on the empirical evidence that we all gather on human nature every day.
I did ask you a question though Raw,

"Once folk have hit that post button do you honestly believe that when the 'your post is too short' message pops up, they suddenly decide to void the post? Or perhaps they become enlightened posters after the epiphany that more letters is somehow more creditable... really?"

...



It does have a very definite point here. Charity has provided a personal anecdote, but we know nothing about the boards he frequents, the rules they have in place, the moderators, what level of moderation gets performed on the boards, what type of people get attracted to post on those boards, the aim of the boards, the focus of the community.
I think my clarification above may address why the poster questioned the links relivance.

[Rawhide]

There is no such barrier on alot any other forum I post in, and there is no greater incident of head nodding posts in those than here.

That is one reason why it was relevant.

And you will see that I answered your question in my post before last.


Another thing that people seem to fail to realise is that you don't consider each rule or restriction in a vacuum. They work together to create or help create the environment and foster a friendly community. There are other such rules that assist this, including a rule that even mentions that QFT or similar posts are not wanted. They work together, hand in hand, to improve the community and assist the moderators to apply the rules.

For one, it tells people, in no uncertain terms, that we don't want short, meaningless posts being made. Those that get around it for a meaningless post (i.e. not what could be considered a legitimate circumvention) know that they are circumventing a small part of what the community is about. This goes towards discouraging such posts, not just at the time of posting but for all future posts.

Delving deeper into the psychology of the posters, I've already raised that people are sheep. Monkey see, monkey do. I've talked about this in a previous board issues thread and you can see people 'jumping on the bandwagon' in this very thread. If a piece of park furniture is vandalised for example, it is best to clean/fix it immediately, because, with each piece of vandalism, there is an increased likelihood of further vandalism. Keeping the forum relatively clear of super short posts helps reduce the amount of really short posts (and that is known as a positive feedback loop).

I also resent your implication that I am simply "towing the company line".

[Charity]

Fair enough Raw I did say dem words, but I did go on to say in a later post "If I'm honest some forums are spammier than others, I find it is dependant on the particular forums sense of community and intellectual maturity rather than any artificial posting restrictions that dictate the average post 'quality'."

The thing is, I don't think you can do anything but weigh each rule in a vacuum in order to assess it's effetiveness.
If you do not look at each rule individually how do you identify whether it is effective?

From memory, the rule came about at the same time as the whole SMBG posts don't count toward post count/title thing. If I recall correctly at the time it was introduced at Rich's insistance.

It is the strange dicotomy that we have here, where post counts are suposedly irrelivent, but Rich felt the need to change the board structure to remove post count from those whom he felt had made less worthy posts.

To my mind the 10 letter minimum post length rule stems from the same source.
If a post is less wordy it's less worthy, I understand its his forum with his rules, and as I have stated several times, it don't bother me, but lets not dress this up as some sort of well oiled rigorously psycologically based sytem to promote desirable posting here, it was and remains a knee jerk reaction with no supporting empirical evidence.

Edit, It was merely a head nod to the reality that what you say must be coloured by the fact that you are a mod, and thus you have to support the current rules.

[Zherog]

Once folk have hit that post button do you honestly believe that when the 'your post is too short' message pops up, they suddenly decide to void the post? Or perhaps they become enlightened posters after the epiphany that more letters is somehow more creditable... really?

I can't answer this question for anybody other than me. I could guess for other people, of course. But I can give you a definitive answer for myself.

Yes, the rule changes my posting habits. I've never been the type who posts "QFT" or any of the other memes. Those posts bug the daylights out of me. What the rule does do, though, is forces me to think in full, complete sentences. Rather than answering a question with the word, "Yes," I'm forced to think - even if just a little bit - about what I actually want to say to whomever asked the question. "Yes, that's how the spell works" or whatever the topic is.

Is there a significant difference between "Yes" and "Yes, that's how the spell works?" No, not really. But, the existence of the rule does change the way I go about posting and answering questions. So, at least in my case, it does its purpose.

[Rawhide]

Actually, both rules were implemented because of the forum software switch, vBulletin supports these technical measures while YaBB 1.3.1 Gold! did not. Not counting posts in the SMBG is the way it would have been if it could have been like that from the start (I have been personally informed of this). The timing was mearly because there was now the technical means to implement it.

The posts don't count not because they are a "lesser" part of the board and/or community, but because they are a separate area. Rich has provided an area for people to play some very simple to rather complex "5 minute games" which are far from the core reasons the site and forums exists and when he definitely doesn't need to. Not counting towards postcount was supposed to be there from the start (but couldn't be due to technical limitations), as it was a separate area provided for your enjoyment.

You can't assess the restriction on its own. Just like you can't assess any of the rules or restrictions on their own. It works in combination with others.

You can't assess the effectiveness of the word filter without assessing how it interacts with the no swearing rule and the no flaming rule. Just like you can't assess this restriction without assessing how it interacts with the other rules and the goal of the community. They work together and are intrinsically linked.

It is not and never has been a knee jerk reaction. The theories of psychology that the decision to leave the minimum character count in place is based upon are sound. And while I would not be allowed to provide any direct evidence, you are welcome to research psychology, the psychological theories and how the human brain works for yourself.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Fair enough Raw I did say dem words, but I did go on to say in a later post "If I'm honest some forums are spammier than others, I find it is dependant on the particular forums sense of community and intellectual maturity rather than any artificial posting restrictions that dictate the average post 'quality'."
But don't the rules of a forum help shape the level of community at that forum? If the rules encourage a certain type of behavior, people will engage in that particular behavior, and that will in turn affect the sense of community. Likewise, rules can discourage certain behaviors. These rules will also work to filter the sorts of people that think a particular behavior is either abhorrent or necessary, and these people will in turn contribute or detract from the forum's sense of community.


The thing is, I don't think you can do anything but weigh each rule in a vacuum in order to assess it's effetiveness.
If you do not look at each rule individually how do you identify whether it is effective?
In any complex system, most rules are dependent on other rules to create their desired end. For instance, in D&D, the rule that a sorcerer can cast a spell that deals 6d6 to 10d6 fire damage to all creatures within a 20-ft. radius spread is dependent on the fact that sorcerers have a limit to the number of spells per day to create the desired end of game balance.

And really, the very fact that a rule ultimately does not exist in a vaccum makes it all the more important you look at how it interacts with all the other rules to make sure the entire system contributes to the desired goal.

[Charity]

When introducing a new law, that law must first stand on its own merits.

When you add something to a system (complex or otherwise) in an endeavour to improve it, one must first assess the function of it in isolation.


Raw, saying you have evidence that proves your stance... but you can't show me does very little to convince me I'm afraid to say.

I truely am amazed to see such staunch defence of the slightly annoying and in my opinion pointless rule but fair play to you.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

When introducing a new law, that law must first stand on its own merits.
Running with my previous example… What are the merits of the rules of fireball when taken out of the context of the rules that define spell slots, spell levels, hit points, fire damage, area of effect spreads, spell components, etc.?

[Charity]

To be honest Shhalahr, I don't think your analogy is that strong.
I am talking about governing rules or laws rather than simulation mechanics, it's the difference between legal and physical laws if you like.

[Rawhide]

Shhalahr: You are correct in stating that a rule or law governs and shapes a society. The mere fact that a law exists means it will influence the people and the culture of a society. It changes attitudes and it changes the way a culture is percieved by not only those outside of it but those inside it.

Charity: Do you think when creating an act, the legislators consider each individual law in complete and total isolation? Why then do they sometimes use "penalty units" that require you to refer to a different act rather than directly mentioning the punishment ? Why do they specifically mention other acts and sometimes mention that this law must be read in conjunction with another law or act?

The affects of laws or even whole acts are not considered in isolation when the legislators consider the affect is will have on a society or the changes they want to bring into effect. Just as they are not considered in isolation when they are reviewed. What is the point of having a law that states you must wear a safety belt or helmet without a law that enforces the minumum quality of the safety belt or helmet?

Another thing to consider is that this is not a rule, this is a restriction implemented through technical measures in the same way that the lock on a door is a restriction. A standard lock on a door is rather useless in isolation, anyone with a modicum of skill or knowledge can bypass it. The laws that pertain to not bypassing the lock must be considered in conjunction with the lock. What is the point of having a sign on the door which states that you must wear shoes inside the building or to keep off the grass if there isn't a law that allows the proprietor to remove someone from the premises?

[Charity]

What is the point of having a law that states you must wear a safety belt or helmet without a law that enforces the minumum quality of the safety belt or helmet?

I must confess to being somewhat bemused as to what you consider 'a law'.
Of course a law governing the use of safety equipment would have stipulations as to the quality of said equipment, but that would be part and parcel of the same law...


Another thing to consider is that this is not a rule, this is a restriction implemented through technical measures in the same way that the lock on a door is a restriction. A standard lock on a door is rather useless in isolation, anyone with a modicum of skill or knowledge can bypass it. The laws that pertain to not bypassing the lock must be considered in conjunction with the lock.

Again I am not sure what you are trying to convey here...
But if I might point out, a good lock on a strong steel door could prevent access indefinately to anyone without the specialist equipment to penetrate it.


What is the point of having a sign on the door which states that you must wear shoes inside the building or to keep off the grass if there isn't a law that allows the proprietor to remove someone from the premises?

I am still struggling here, but there are hundreds of signs that have no backing.
For example businesses often post signs like this
http://69.90.174.250/photos/display_pic_with_logo/10690/10690,1129205891,6.jpg
However if my valuables are stolen on their premises their insurance company is liable for my claim, sign or no sign... well under UK law anyhow.
and on the subject of signs
here's a favourite of mine
http://www.magnetic-marketing.co.uk/images/No_Tools_4.jpg
Now this one is a classic, essentially if you bother to put this on your van it is almost certainly not true.

... I feel that this tangent signals that I have just about exhausted my interest in this subject... I'm guessing the same is true of the poor innocent bystanders whom are staring on in horror as Charity of all people starts riding around on a tall horse. I don't expect I've done the poor shmo's whom still play the SMBG's justice in my championing of their cause, but heck I've got a PR game to win... Hey did caw put you up to distracting me?

[Rawhide]

I must confess to being somewhat bemused as to what you consider 'a law'.
Of course a law governing the use of safety equipment would have stipulations as to the quality of said equipment, but that would be part and parcel of the same law...

We seem to be getting into a matter of semantics here. If you want to go into greater detail and be very specific on terms, you could consider the entire forum rules roughly equivalent to a single "law", i.e. a collection of rules imposed by authority (note that this means that it does clearly stand up by itself), with each individual rule being roughly equivalent to a single regulation that is part of that law. The regulations are all linked together, the regulations refer to each other and require each other, within the same act and in different acts. The regulation that states you must wear a safety belt, helmet or other safety equipment only states that you must wear one (sometimes stating that it must conform to a particular safety standard), it does not specify how that particular piece of safety equipment must be built to conform to that safety specification. That is specified elsewhere.


Again I am not sure what you are trying to convey here...
But if I might point out, a good lock on a strong steel door could prevent access indefinately to anyone without the specialist equipment to penetrate it.
You will note that I said standard lock specifically. i.e. A lock you would be likely to find on just about every home or office building. But you have raised a great example there, imagine that there was nothing set in law that prevented you from bypassing a lock. You could not go to jail for breaking and entering. Currently, very few people have training in lockpicking or have the equipment required such as lockpicking tools, acid, etc. If that was not against the law to do so, how many more people do you think would have the training in how to pick a lock? How many more people would have the specialist tools required to bypass the locks? Not only has the presence of these locks and legislation influenced and changed the culture and society, but the mere fact that it is against the law to bypass a lock in order to enter a property makes locks much more effective, and the mere fact that locks exist and have been put on a building makes the legislation more effective.


I am still struggling here, but there are hundreds of signs that have no backing.
For example businesses often post signs like this
http://69.90.174.250/photos/display_pic_with_logo/10690/10690,1129205891,6.jpg
However if my valuables are stolen on their premises their insurance company is liable for my claim, sign or no sign... well under UK law anyhow.
and on the subject of signs
here's a favourite of mine
http://www.magnetic-marketing.co.uk/images/No_Tools_4.jpg
Now this one is a classic, essentially if you bother to put this on your van it is almost certainly not true.

... I feel that this tangent signals that I have just about exhausted my interest in this subject... I'm guessing the same is true of the poor innocent bystanders whom are staring on in horror as Charity of all people starts riding around on a tall horse. I don't expect I've done the poor shmo's whom still play the SMBG's justice in my championing of their cause, but heck I've got a PR game to win... Hey did caw put you up to distracting me?

I really don't see your point here. There are many signs that have no legal backing and laughably so. There are many other signs that do have a legal backing or can be enforced legally, such as a sign that warns a person that they are now entering a private property or the examples I have provided.

Additionally, while not a rule or regulation, that "no tools" sign is not as useless as you think. If indeed there are valuable tools kept in the vehicle, and society knows about it or at least thinks that there will be anyway, then yes, it is pretty useless. I have seen signs on shops to indicate that no cash is stored on the premises. And, well, no cash is stored on the premises except for the change they bring in of a morning and the cash they make during the day. All cash is removed overnight and only minimal change is replaced of a morning. As long as the shop continues to not store cash on the premises, as long as other shops do the same thing and as long as that sign means something to the society, then it will have an impact on the number of break ins to those shops. No, it won't prevent all of them and particuarly not if someone gets a whiff that the sign is potentially misleading or false. But it will assist in preventing the damage of property required to enter the property when someone only wants cash.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

To be honest Shhalahr, I don't think your analogy is that strong.
I am talking about governing rules or laws rather than simulation mechanics, it's the difference between legal and physical laws if you like.
What? You figure D&D rules are developed with more context than legal laws? The point here is that nothing exists without context. So when considering the effect something has on its environment, it is useless to ignore that context.

[skywalker]

Raw, saying you have evidence that proves your stance... but you can't show me does very little to convince me I'm afraid to say.

I thought this might happen.

I think we take something positive from this discussion, however. To use the "Rich's house" metaphor that everyone is so fond of: It is a bit annoying to visit this house and be told I can only talk a certain way inside, ostensibly because it contributes to discussion. It is further annoying that, when I ask for evidence why this is the case, none can be provided. However, I think it is nice that we can have a nice conversation with rawhide about this (even going so far as to tell him he is wrong, as long as we do it in a considerate manner), and no one has been scrubbed or banned. A credit to the house, I feel.

[NerfTW]

Evidence has been provided. Refusing to accept it doesn't make the reason meaningless.

And the Rich's house metaphor only goes so far. Technically, this would be more like having a classroom rule where they don't want you just shouting out "YEAH" during a discussion, but instead demanding that you say something more substantial, to avoid the class turning into a five minute long "yeah yeah yeah yeah" spiel.

This is not a small community. It's fairly large. Rules need to be in place to keep it manageable. There are more than enough examples time and time again on these boards of meaningless comments overrunning any hope of conversation. Just look at the "fan club" fiasco that popped up a year or so back. The entire front page turned into "fan club" posts that simply had "I'll join" as responses. It was impossible to find real posts.

There's even a perfect example on THIS very thread, with all the "QFT ^x" replies just to prove they can do it.

[Szilard]

You can always use white text to put a punch of spaces and a period to avoid too much unecesary filler.

[Charity]

This seems to have slid into the conceit that -
a: I give a damn that the filter exists.
b: I cannot imagine a possible way around said filter.
c: I don't think that forum rules are nessisary.
d: There has been some sort of empirical evidence provided to prove that the 10 letter filter works to prevent 'head nodding'/content lacking posts.

I remain unconvinced of it's usefulness, but don't really care as it can be trivially circumvented.

I played devils advocate to promote some discussion...
I figure that has occured, and I sense an entrenchment of opinion, that is unlikely to move any time soon.

[Rawhide]

I wasn't going to comment on this directly, but as it has been brought up again.


Raw, saying you have evidence that proves your stance... but you can't show me does very little to convince me I'm afraid to say.

For one, it wasn't supposed to convince you, I was just being honest and upfront. All I stated is that the type of evidence you wanted from me to justify this claim can't be provided and conversely, the same type of evidence you want of me can't be provided by you to justify your claim. Therefore, in a discussion of merit, we need to focus on different evidence, evidence which in this case has been provided, is solid, and has been futher explained. The evidence provided here was the psychological theories and principles the decision to keep it is based upon. The theories are sound and have been worked upon by psychologists and researchers for longer than this forum has existed.

[Szilard]

Okay. .

[Charity]

If I am honest I am trying to avoid being further dragged into what appears to be a cyclic debate however...


For one, it wasn't supposed to convince you, I was just being honest and upfront. All I stated is that the type of evidence you wanted from me to justify this claim can't be provided and conversely, the same type of evidence you want of me can't be provided by you to justify your claim..


I was simply refuting Nerfs assertation that it "It stops most one word posts".
I thought I had made it clear that it was my opinion that "my experiance of human nature wouldn't lead me to such a conclusion."

I also stated "I know, I know it is impossible to gather such data but as I stated above Nerf, I'm not buyin it."

So, just to be clear, I am not making any claim, just refuting one and stating my opinion based on the empirical evidence that we all gather on human nature every day.



Therefore, in a discussion of merit, we need to focus on different evidence, evidence which in this case has been provided, is solid, and has been futher explained. The evidence provided here was the psychological theories and principles the decision to keep it is based upon. The theories are sound and have been worked upon by psychologists and researchers for longer than this forum has existed.

No link to said theories has been 'provided' just an option to go and look up for myself some nebulous and unnamed theory.

note - In all cases, my emphasis.

[Last_resort_33]

To be honest I can only give anecdotal evidence, which on the grand scheme is, as you say, worthless. However it DOES prove that the filter works within the sample of me, and thus to some degree has reduced the pointless post count.

There have been more than a few times when I have typed "wow" or similar and pressed the submit button. At that point a message comes up, basically saying "Just think about what you've written" and I have reconsidered and either pressed the back button and looked at another thread, or thought up something more constructive to say.

Yes I use white text if what I want to say is "yes" or "huh?" but on the whole it's a message that reminds me to think whether what I have said is actually worth saying.

[Killer Angel]

Characters limit is an almost theoretical limit; the purpose is to make people think a little more about what they're writing.
If you say "QFT" (or even "quote for truth"), you simply don't add nothing meaningful to the discussion (and it's worth an infraction, exactly for this reason).
The only "meaningful" post with so few letters, probably is the one who contains a link related to the discussion.
And even then, i don't think it's a so great problem to digit a little more...

[ericgrau]

What about a recent example when someone asked a question and I said "yes"? Etc. An affirmative remark like "yes", "QFT", etc. is sufficient when disagreement is unexpected and/or discussion is unnecessary.

But it's a moot point anyway as long as we have white text, the ability to tack on random characters, etc.

[NerfTW]

Wow, we really are going in circles now.

It's moot, since expanding "yes" to ten characters isn't that difficult.

"Yes, that is correct"
"Yes, you're right"

or just adding "padding to get to 10 chars"

[darkninjaoflight]

Usually when 10 character filters show up on a forum, not only do they not help at ALL to reduce short, simple messages (I'm not sure why they would bother anyone...) but instead they cause more spam then they seek to get rid of...as evidenced by this thread and the many demonstrations of how to beat the filter.

but mainly...

someone writes: "V is a girl! 10char"

reply:
"QFT
10quotes!"

"WRONG! apparantlyIneed10characters"


I visit one forum in particular where practically every post has the "10meme" going. I actually find it humorous there, but I don't want to see it happen here.


Long story short though it's not gonna solve any problems. It'll just irritate people who want to come here and talk and occasionally write a short, sweet message. "yes" and "yes, that is correct" convey the same message. The latter does not contribute more to the discussion.

[bluewind95]

Actually, I think that it does serve its purpose. I'm not sure it's so much stopping such posts as telling people that said posts are not very welcome here.

Now, if people know it's not very welcome and still post such messages... well, that's not really the filter failing as it is people saying "I don't care what's welcome here."

That's the way I see it anyways. I read Rawhide's post and highly agree with the theory behind it. It's true. The rules and guidelines as a whole speak volumes for a community and help dictate what it is like. The rules we have in the forum go a long way in making this community the awesome community it is.

[Serpentine]

but mainly...

someone writes: "V is a girl! 10char"

reply:
"QFT
10quotes!"

"WRONG! apparantlyIneed10characters"
I would suggest that these examples could justifiably be reported as spam and, perhaps, unjustified bypassing of a filter, and that having the 10-char limit may embolden people to report them appropriately. In these cases, the limit could motivate the authors to actually justify their statements and, in the event that they decide to just "pad it out", justify someone reporting them.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I would suggest that these examples could justifiably be reported as spam and, perhaps, unjustified bypassing of a filter, and that having the 10-char limit may embolden people to report them appropriately. In these cases, the limit could motivate the authors to actually justify their statements and, in the event that they decide to just "pad it out", justify someone reporting them.
Exactly this.

Furthermore, as Rawhide alluded, just because people break a rule does not mean that rule in itself is useless or should be gotten rid of. There's a world of difference each between a rule, how it is enforced, and the rule's actual value.

[Charity]

Shhalahr I think you (but by no means only you) are missing my point.
It's not the rule that is in question, it is the method of enforcement.
The current method penalises us all (to a very minor extent, I am aware) whether we are making a 'forum desirable' short post or just spam.

The method I would advocate is to encourage reporting, warning, and eventually banning of those responsible for the 'forum undesirable' posts.

In summery - adding more letters to spam just makes it spaaaaaaam.




edit -crud I just can't let this go can I...

[NerfTW]

And you're missing the point that it DOES stop people just by letting them know that small posts are frowned upon, and doesn't terribly inconvenience anyone.

For instance, there's really nothing to stop me from making 20 accounts and spamming threads. But there's a rule there letting me know that "hey, that's going to get me banned."

It won't stop someone who wants to break that rule, but it lets people know what is to be expected on this board. It cuts down on the number of people doing it. That's what matters.

[Charity]

And you're missing the point that it DOES stop people just by letting them know that small posts are frowned upon, and doesn't terribly inconvenience anyone..

I disagree with the opinion that it prevents spam, given that no evidence is likely, that is unlikely to change.


For instance, there's really nothing to stop me from making 20 accounts and spamming threads. But there's a rule there letting me know that "hey, that's going to get me banned."

What has this got to do with it? I am not disagreeing with the rule.
I am disagreeing with the method of enforcement.
The filter is a method of enforcing the rule, it is not the rule itself, please accept this distinction.


It won't stop someone who wants to break that rule, but it lets people know what is to be expected on this board. It cuts down on the number of people doing it. That's what matters.

You state this as it were some sort of incontrovertible fact, it is your opinion nothing more or less.

Once again for the folk at the back.
I do not disagree with the idea of discouraging spammy posts.
But all this does is force a spammy post to be looooonger... it stems from the, (in my opinion) mistaken premiss that more wordy is more worthy.

If anything it could feed people the idea that as long as it's long enough their post is within the rules and the content is irrelivant, you may not agree with this theory, but it is no less credable than the alternative.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Shhalahr I think you (but by no means only you) are missing my point.
It's not the rule that is in question, it is the method of enforcement.
The current method penalises us all (to a very minor extent, I am aware) whether we are making a 'forum desirable' short post or just spam.
Given my point is a point of context, rather than one of enforcement, I'd say we're arguing two different things. I was only responding to your points about taking a rule in a vaccum.


The method I would advocate is to encourage reporting, warning, and eventually banning of those responsible for the 'forum undesirable' posts.
As pointed out above, notices that posts under 10 characters are undesirable does help keep that rule in the public conciousness. And I would hope that encourages reporting of such posts.


In summery - adding more letters to spam just makes it spaaaaaaam.
Indeed. But then aside from the technical limitations regarding larger posts, people seem to be more likely to report "spaaaaaaam" without additional encouragement. :smallbiggrin:


edit -crud I just can't let this go can I...
Well, given that I'm still responding to you, I appreciate the occasional chime-in from you. Let's me know I'm not just talking to a wall. :smallwink:

[Charity]

Given my point is a point of context, rather than one of enforcement, I'd say we're arguing two different things. I was only responding to your points about taking a rule in a vaccum.

I did get rather carried off on that tangent, it's difficult to express what I was attempting to get accross, and largely based in semantics I fear, so I had kind of dropped it as confusing and off topic... I know there is a first time for everything.
My post was a general response, I just addressed it to you as the most recent poster, it seems incorrectly.


As pointed out above, notices that posts under 10 characters are undesirable does help keep that rule in the public conciousness. And I would hope that encourages reporting of such posts.

Yeah, I am not really convinced about this, I will try to explain...
Most folk don't often post fewer than 10 letters unless they are either playing SMBG's or they are frequently 'head nod' posters.

So most of the populous don't see the message (or indeed experiance the annoyance) often enough for it to have much bearing on their day to day forum lives... Also many of the folk here will be grizzled veterans of less moderated boards and will have no doubt become inured to the noise posts.
Of those that do, the SMBGers just see it as an annoyance and circumvent it, and, as it is such a feature of their forum experiance to legitimately circumvent it, see nothing wrong with others doing so, for good or ill. The undesirable head nod posters will jam in some filler and go about their day.

The supposed purpose of the letter filter is to stop/reduce spammy head nodding type posts, but all I can see it achieving is making those drossy posts very moderately longer.
The concept that they will add something of value as their post is too short is flawed, why would someone post a 'me too' post in the first place if they could actually think of something interesting to add to the thread? (irony aside)
Having been a forumite here both before and since the implimentation, I can hand on heart say I've seen no decrease in the number* of contentless posts since its onset.

*note I know there are more posters now, I am really talking about frequency here, using the word number imprecisely as a common shorthand... only to then go on to explain at length...


Well, given that I'm still responding to you, I appreciate the occasional chime-in from you. Let's me know I'm not just talking to a wall. :smallwink:

I won't leave you hangin bro :smallcool:

[Rawhide]

Is there a significant difference between "Yes" and "Yes, that's how the spell works?" No, not really. But, the existence of the rule does change the way I go about posting and answering questions. So, at least in my case, it does its purpose.

Actually, there is. I have on occassion deliberately short circuited the 10 character limit in order to make a simple "yes", "no" or similar response. Through this, I have discovered (rediscovered?) how easy it is for the person to misunderstand what you have said or who you have said it to if you don't provide that context/elaboration. It is much better to say "Yes, that is how such-and-such works" as it makes what you are saying a lot clearer to the person you are replying to and to the other posters/lurkers.


If I am honest I am trying to avoid being further dragged into what appears to be a cyclic debate however...

note - In all cases, my emphasis.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here or why. It looks to me that we're both agreeing on the fact that the type of evidence you are unfairly demanding will not be provided by either party. I have, however, clearly explained our reasons, the basis of them and identified the solidity of them.


No link to said theories has been 'provided' just an option to go and look up for myself some nebulous and unnamed theory.

It's not a single theory or principle, but many of them. If you feel so inclined, you are welcome to do the same research that I have done over several years into psychology, the human mind, management, teaching and the change process. I don't feel particuarly inclined to trawl through hundreds of textbooks, DVDs/videos and search thousands of websites and other resources to find all of the instances of where each one has been mentioned over such a minor point. Additionally, much of the evidence that these theories are sound relate directly to real world politics and as such should not be discussed here.


Shhalahr I think you (but by no means only you) are missing my point.
It's not the rule that is in question, it is the method of enforcement.
The current method penalises us all (to a very minor extent, I am aware) whether we are making a 'forum desirable' short post or just spam.

Unfortunately, you can't say that we are missing the point when you have clearly stated that this is not the point. You have stated on several occassions that you do not care that this restriction is in place and downplayed it's importance considerably. You have made your arguments that it does not help or that we have not convinced you that it does help, not that it harms others.

To this point, there is something that I feel needs to be made clear. This is not a rule. The rules are in the announcement called "Forum Rules". This is not a rule in the same way that having a maximum character limit on usernames is not a rule. This is also not an enforcement of a rule. This is not a way to enforce a specific rule or rules. It does help and assist the rule(s) in many ways, but it is not directly related to it for enforcement.

I don't believe that it harms those who genuinely have a need to post less than 10 characters on occassion. It can easily be circumvented and we have given permission to do so in those cases.

[Charity]

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here or why. It looks to me that we're both agreeing on the fact that the type of evidence you are unfairly demanding will not be provided by either party. I have, however, clearly explained our reasons, the basis of them and identified the solidity of them..
my emphasis.

I have not asked for and certainly have not demanded evidence, I have at all times made it clear that I do not think such data can be gathered, your statement mis-represents my case.

The post was to again clarify my position. The parts I bolded were significant, I tried to make that clear.
I shall endeavour to be more transparant, where you said "...to justify your claim" I pointed out that in my previous post, I thought I had clearly stated "So, just to be clear, I am not making any claim, just refuting one and stating my opinion"


I don't feel particuarly inclined to trawl through hundreds of textbooks, DVDs/videos and search thousands of websites and other resources to find all of the instances of where each one has been mentioned over such a minor point. Additionally, much of the evidence that these theories are sound relate directly to real world politics and as such should not be discussed here.

It appears that you are claiming corroborating theories on the effectiveness of low letter count filters exist, and have been studied by yourself, yet any sort of clue as to their whereabouts is not only not provided, but also ruled out under the inappropriate topic rules...



Shhalahr man, I'm out.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I won't leave you hangin bro :smallcool:
Thankee.


Actually, there is. I have on occassion deliberately short circuited the 10 character limit in order to make a simple "yes", "no" or similar response. Through this, I have discovered (rediscovered?) how easy it is for the person to misunderstand what you have said or who you have said it to if you don't provide that context/elaboration. It is much better to say "Yes, that is how such-and-such works" as it makes what you are saying a lot clearer to the person you are replying to and to the other posters/lurkers.
Yeah. It's especially confusing when the person who is making the "Yes" or "No" answer has misinterpreted the question. A full clarification can help demonstrate wheather that you understood the question as the poster intended. And sometimes you might even get the gist of the question right, but misread the wording, and it turns out it wasn't the simple Yes/No question you thought it was. The extra info can never hurt.

[Rawhide]

my emphasis.

I have not asked for and certainly have not demanded evidence, I have at all times made it clear that I do not think such data can be gathered, your statement mis-represents my case.

You yourself brought up the type of the evidence you want and claim that this is the only type of evidence that will satisfy you. By doing that, you have placed the importance on that particular type of evidence. You have highlighted it in a way that states that if that particular type of evidence cannot be produced, our reasons and points are invalid. I have refuted this claim.


The post was to again clarify my position. The parts I bolded were significant, I tried to make that clear.
I shall endeavour to be more transparant, where you said "...to justify your claim" I pointed out that in my previous post, I thought I had clearly stated "So, just to be clear, I am not making any claim, just refuting one and stating my opinion"
And I have refuted the validity of the arguments used in your refute.


It appears that you are claiming corroborating theories on the effectiveness of low letter count filters exist, and have been studied by yourself, yet any sort of clue as to their whereabouts is not only not provided, but also ruled out under the inappropriate topic rules...

I have not, at any point, claimed that a study of minimum letter counts on message boards has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I have claimed that the psychological theories and principles behind the decision to keep it have been studied, observed, tested, put into practice and published time and again.

[darkninjaoflight]

I would suggest that these examples could justifiably be reported as spam and, perhaps, unjustified bypassing of a filter, and that having the 10-char limit may embolden people to report them appropriately. In these cases, the limit could motivate the authors to actually justify their statements and, in the event that they decide to just "pad it out", justify someone reporting them.

Reporting posts for being under 10 characters? That seems like it goes way, way too far...and for what? Paying special attention to under 10 character posts...that's just a huge hassle for admins for very little reward. They'll keep coming and nobody save for a special few will care that they're there. 10 character messages will continue to be as useless as 7 character messages. Really, short posts never hurt anybody. 10 characters is particularly long for this though, why not 5 or even less?

[kopout]

Fun fact, the sentence "Thank you." is exactly 10 characters long. No more no less.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I did get rather carried off on that tangent, it's difficult to express what I was attempting to get accross, and largely based in semantics I fear, so I had kind of dropped it as confusing and off topic... I know there is a first time for everything.
My post was a general response, I just addressed it to you as the most recent poster, it seems incorrectly.
On the chance you do come back: I have just realized some of the things I brought up in response to other posters, particularly that "most recent post" in which I quoted Serpentine, actually are more against that last point you made. I just compartementalized those sections in my head and really hadn't given any thought to those other than the bits of my "context is important" posts. So maybe you weren't so incorrect in your addressing of me anyway. :smalltongue:

(Uugh. I think that phrasing may be overly confusing. :smallyuk: But I'm too tired to figure out how to simplify it right now. I probably wait until tomorrow to post a better version, but I'm afraid I'll forget. Maybe I'll fix it later.)

[Serpentine]

Reporting posts for being under 10 characters? That seems like it goes way, way too far...and for what? Paying special attention to under 10 character posts...that's just a huge hassle for admins for very little reward. They'll keep coming and nobody save for a special few will care that they're there. 10 character messages will continue to be as useless as 7 character messages. Really, short posts never hurt anybody. 10 characters is particularly long for this though, why not 5 or even less?No, reporting the specific examples you gave as being practically meaningless, failing to add anything to the discussion, and failing to provide any extra information (as detailed in the Forum Rules section on "minor spam", a "Please Don't", but one with a specific reference to the possibility of an infraction), and in addition bypassing a filter without good reason. Indeed, one of the exact lines in your example was specifically mentioned in the aforementioned rule. I think, and obviously Rawhide and the other mods do too, that the 10-chars rule may, in this specific example, incite the hypothetical posters to say more on "why they think V is a girl" and "why that person is wrong". It might not, too, but the fact that they have blatantly bypassed a filter to do something against the rules may also embolden other posters to report it and perhaps cause the mods to talk to them and, hopefully, change their posting habits so they don't make such inane comments in the future.

[skywalker]

Reporting posts for being under 10 characters? That seems like it goes way, way too far...and for what? Paying special attention to under 10 character posts...that's just a huge hassle for admins for very little reward. They'll keep coming and nobody save for a special few will care that they're there. 10 character messages will continue to be as useless as 7 character messages. Really, short posts never hurt anybody. 10 characters is particularly long for this though, why not 5 or even less?

I've never reported a post for being under 10 characters. It's such a judgment call whether or not a post contributes, IMO.

And reporting people for saying "first page" etc, that just seems silly. I know we technically can, but I've never seen anyone get modded for it (and I read the OOTS discussion threads a lot). I respect the right of mods to edit those posts if they like, but it seems rather silly to go reporting them.

[Rawhide]

[...]but I've never seen anyone get modded for it (and I read the OOTS discussion threads a lot). [...]

That's because the entire post is deleted.

[SensFan]

"To be honest, I'm with Charity on this one. I don't really see the point of the filter."

--

Now, is that really any more useful a post than quoting any one of Charity's posts and writing "QFT"? If yes, please tell me how it is. If not, then is the above 'post' really against the sporit of the rules?

[Occasional Sage]

"To be honest, I'm with Charity on this one. I don't really see the point of the filter."

--

Now, is that really any more useful a post than quoting any one of Charity's posts and writing "QFT"? If yes, please tell me how it is. If not, then is the above 'post' really against the sporit of the rules?

At the very least it's expressed in complete sentences. There's a world of difference between ditto marks or "QFT", versus the simple two sentence agreement, in the amount of thought displayed in the post. While there is no "value added" to the discussion with either, the level of the conversation is kept higher.

It's analogous to me replacing the paragraph above with "Yes, it's smarter".

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Could we at least get the rule removed from the PBP forums? Dice rolls are a bear when you forget the 10 char rule.

[Last_resort_33]

"To be honest, I'm with Charity on this one. I don't really see the point of the filter."

--

Now, is that really any more useful a post than quoting any one of Charity's posts and writing "QFT"? If yes, please tell me how it is. If not, then is the above 'post' really against the sporit of the rules?

It's not, essentially you've done the same as putting white text, however, you did actually have to THINK about the fact that you were writing more than 10 characters, which would nudge one towards the idea of, rather than simply agreeing with someone, expanding on it and highlighting particular points of interest.

As an aside, it is actually a lot more pleasant to read.


Could we at least get the rule removed from the PBP forums? Dice rolls are a bear when you forget the 10 char rule.

Ok, I agree on this, PbP wouldn't generally get spammed up, as the conversations are (generally) relevant to the story.

[Rawhide]

Yes, there is a great lot of difference. For one, you've actually participated in the conversation (rather than simply using an incredibly annoying and pointless acronym that is actually against the rules) and have raised (or kept raised) the standards of the conversation.

I, for one, would totally disregard what you had said as pointless if you had simply said "QFT".

---

Unfortunately no, there is no way to implement it on a per forum basis.

[Totally Guy]

How many PCs and NPCs working together does it take to make a forum post?

At least 10 Characters!:smalltongue:

[Rawhide]

How many PCs and NPCs working together does it take to make a forum post?

At least 10 Characters!:smalltongue:

You are such a character.

[Last_resort_33]

You are such a character.

You're not in his gaming group!

We love ya really glug!

[kopout]

Fun fact, the sentence "Thank you." is exactly 10 characters long. No more no less.
Apparently no one else likes fun facts :smallfrown: :smallwink:

[SensFan]

Apparently no one else likes fun facts :smallfrown: :smallwink:
Thanks .

[Rawhide]

Thanks .

Now that's what I'd call a cop out.

[skywalker]

That's because the entire post is deleted.

Nevertheless, I have seen posts that say "I can't believe I made first page!" and then go on to talk about something else. These seemingly don't get deleted.

Is that against the rules?

[Roland St. Jude]

Nevertheless, I have seen posts that say "I can't believe I made first page!" and then go on to talk about something else. These seemingly don't get deleted.

Is that against the rules?

Yes. No matter how one tries to phrase it, if the comment is about how they made the first post or first page, it gets deleted with a Warning. Posts like the one you mention ought to have been deleted with a Warning, but I suppose it's possible that some slipped through the cracks.

I'd say the average is two or three of those shout-outs per new comic thread. There's usually one or two such posts within minutes of the Giant starting the new thread and he takes care of those himself before logging off. Then there are usually a couple more over the course of the first page of posts, that someone else deletes.

The current gray area that people have moved to is: "I can't believe I was here when the new comic was posted!" I let the first couple that I saw go, thinking it was genuine, but my sense is that it's the new "first page!" brag, so I've started to delete those, too.

[Kroy]

Actually Charity... All it demonstrates is that... people are sheep.

Sorry I'm a bit late. May I sig?

[Trizap]

h i

[Trizap]

Yes. No matter how one tries to phrase it, if the comment is about how they made the first post or first page, it gets deleted with a Warning. Posts like the one you mention ought to have been deleted with a Warning, but I suppose it's possible that some slipped through the cracks.

I'd say the average is two or three of those shout-outs per new comic thread. There's usually one or two such posts within minutes of the Giant starting the new thread and he takes care of those himself before logging off. Then there are usually a couple more over the course of the first page of posts, that someone else deletes.

The current gray area that people have moved to is: "I can't believe I was here when the new comic was posted!" I let the first couple that I saw go, thinking it was genuine, but my sense is that it's the new "first page!" brag, so I've started to delete those, too.

next it will be "cool I'm posting in this thread" then it will "I'm posting in this forum"
eventually it will become "I'm posting on the internet!"
then "I'm on planet earth"
then "hey cool I'm in this universe"

it won't stop.

[Roland St. Jude]

next it will be "cool I'm posting in this thread" then it will "I'm posting in this forum"
eventually it will become "I'm posting on the internet!"
then "I'm on planet earth"
then "hey cool I'm in this universe"

it won't stop.

I call that job security. :smallamused:

[Mystic Muse]

I call that job security. :smallamused:


I call that utter futility:smallamused:

while getting rid of the rule would help in PBP I can honestly see why the mods want this rule. even if there's no difference between "I completely agree with demonic dude." and quoting demonic dude and simply writing "QFT" I'd much rather read the first sentence than an acronym that some probably don't even know what it means. speaking in acronyms doesn't often work well.

although the "I got first post" rule is kind of arbitrary. but hey, it's the giant's decision not mine.

[Rawhide]

although the "I got first post" rule is kind of arbitrary. but hey, it's the giant's decision not mine.

Far from it. Who wants to go to a forum and all you read on the first few pages is "FIRST!", "SECOND!", "N00B!", etc.? I know I sure don't, it adds nothing to the conversation except to brag about how small your manhood or equivalent is (yes, small). And to be honest, I see absolutely no point in people doing it and am really sick of it when I see it on other forums and blogs/etc. From the social side, it is not a race to be the first person to post in a thread, or even to be on the first page, it gains you nothing except the irk and ire of those who have to read these comments time and again - they really have no place here. From the technical side, if everyone is racing to get the first post and/or on the first page, what do you think will happen to the server everytime a new comic is posted if it's already struggling?

[afroakuma]

The real "first post" sport is being able to be first in the thread with a meaningful comment, or note of enjoyment, or the like. The only way they can stop that is to somehow make the entire first page already exist. :smallamused:

In other words, if you're first and you said something, you're still first and everyone knows it. Congratulations on your .00237 seconds of fame among the "I wanna be first" crowd.

[Jimorian]

For what I imagine is the perfect example of what moderators experience with "First!" and other inane comments, search on College Humor Internet Commenter Business Meeting. Language alert which is why I'm not linking directly, but the last moment in particular always cracks me up.

[NerfTW]

Ooh, I remember that video. It was hilarious. I loled IRL. :smalltongue:

[Mr. Mud]

I actually remember posting something like:

Great Comic Mr. Burlew, I loved what [character... I think Miko?] did! I wonder where the plot will go from here. Maybe to [here]....

And awesome! First Page :smalltongue:

I never remember that comment being deleted, nor did I receive an infraction. Is this acceptable?

I might have rephrased the first page bit a little differently, but regardless...

[NerfTW]

You realize the mods aren't sitting there reading over every single post ever posted looking for infractions?

They can just not have seen it.

[ericgrau]

And it's also in the rules to not assume something is okay just because they didn't give you an infraction. They might have missed it or may have only bothered warning you with only one instance of the offence.

As for the specific example above, that's a lot less inane than saying "first page" by itself and I wouldn't be surprised if a mod didn't bother. At least not that one time. Maybe if it happens again.

[Zeb The Troll]

I actually remember posting something like:


Great Comic Mr. Burlew, I loved what [character... I think Miko?] did! I wonder where the plot will go from here. Maybe to [here]....

And awesome! First Page :smalltongue:
I never remember that comment being deleted, nor did I receive an infraction. Is this acceptable?

I might have rephrased the first page bit a little differently, but regardless...No, this is not acceptable.


Minor Spam
Minor spam refers to posts that do not add to any discussion; often, one word posts will fall under this ruling (outside of SMBG games which require one-word responses of course). For example, quoting another users post and putting "QFT" or "quoted for truth," or a similar agreement, without adding any additional information of your own would fall under this rule. Posting any page or response claim - for example, "first page! or "first response!" would also fall under this heading, even if you include other discussion in your post. Posts of this type will be removed or edited, and the poster may be issued an Infraction.Emphasis mine.

[Mystic Muse]

Far from it. Who wants to go to a forum and all you read on the first few pages is "FIRST!", "SECOND!", "N00B!", etc.? I know I sure don't, it adds nothing to the conversation except to brag about how small your manhood or equivalent is (yes, small). And to be honest, I see absolutely no point in people doing it and am really sick of it when I see it on other forums and blogs/etc. From the social side, it is not a race to be the first person to post in a thread, or even to be on the first page, it gains you nothing except the irk and ire of those who have to read these comments time and again - they really have no place here. From the technical side, if everyone is racing to get the first post and/or on the first page, what do you think will happen to the server everytime a new comic is posted if it's already struggling?

sorry I wasn't clear. I meant what is the point of deleting the whole post just because somebody says "I got first post!" if they actually make a good point or contribute to the conversation? if mods can scrub comments can't they just delete that part? while I realize this is more work for the mods isn't it just as much work to delete every comment like this?

[Roland St. Jude]

sorry I wasn't clear. I meant what is the point of deleting the whole post just because somebody says "I got first post!" if they actually make a good point or contribute to the conversation? if mods can scrub comments can't they just delete that part? while I realize this is more work for the mods isn't it just as much work to delete every comment like this?

No. It's significantly less work to just delete a post, especially when there is more than one of them. And it sends a clearer message by removing not only the "first page" comment, but the whole post that the poster thinks carries some magic power in the first place. It eliminates any reason to say "first page!" for them and for others because if you do - your post disappears. If you have something to say great, just say it and let your post wind up where it may. Don't say "first post!" and then go back and edit in some comment later.

Sheriff of Moddingham: Frankly, I think this thread has been played out to the end. We have the rule we have for reasons that were carefully considered and now extensively discussed. Thread locked.