Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules

Forum rules

(1) Posts are to be made in the relevant forum. Users are asked to read the forum descriptions before posting.
(2) Off topic posts are limited to active members who have actually posted on-topic in one of the chess-oriented sections in the past. Any user whose first post does not relate to chess will be banned permanently. Posts in the Introduction section do not count.
(3) Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users. Be tolerant at any time. Flaming or abusing users in any way will not be tolerated.
(4) Discussions on political and religious topics are not allowed. Posts containing elements thereof will be redacted or deleted and a temporary or permanent ban may be placed upon the user.
Discussions on politics in chess organisations and the way politics affect chess are allowed.
(4a) Drug use references are not allowed and discussions on drugs are not allowed.
(5) Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members have something to report they are welcome to bring it to the attention of moderator either by a PM or in this thread: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html
(6) If you wish to report a PM please forward the PM to a moderator and leave a post here: http://www.chessforums.org/forum-new...moderator.html. Don't hesitate to report a PM if you believe it violates the forum rules, even if someone else has already reported a (similar) PM by the same user; having more reports makes it easier for the moderators to take action.
(7) These rules apply to forum posts as well as private messages (PMs).
(8) Members should post in a way which is consistent with "normal writing". That is users should not post excessive numbers of emoticons (smilies), large, small or coloured text, etc. Similarly users should not SHOUT or use excessive punctuation (e.g. ! and ?) in topic titles or posts.
(9) Members should use an appropriate, descriptive title when posting a new topic. Examples of bad titles include; "Help me!", "I'm stuck!", "I've got an error!", etc. Examples of good titles include; "New Game: Perseus - SomeOtherPlayer", "Two Knights Defense: Fritz Variation and sidelines", etc.
(10) Spam is not tolerated here under any circumstance.
(11) Continuously linking your own website to promote it is not allowed. You may use your signature (which will come up beneath all your posts) for this purpose.
(12) Members should refrain from posting without adding to the discussion. Posting just to increase postcount is not allowed.
(13) Combine your comments into one post rather than making many consecutive posts to a thread within a short period of time. This can be done by clicking the 'edit' button next to your post.
If your last post, which is the last in the thread, is very old you may use the following trick to make sure it's bumped up to the new posts. Click on the 'edit' button of your last post. Copy the content of the post. Click delete and delete your last post. Paste the content of the now-deleted post in a new post, add what you will and click 'submit reply'.
(13a) You are not allowed to make consecutive posts. If you post more than once without a reply from another user, all posts after the first will be deleted.
(13b) Exceptions may be made for specific types of threads.
(14) Warez are intellectual property (software/music/movies/tv-series/tv-shows/etc) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that breaks its copyright and/or license. You are not allowed to give/link to/ask for/advocate/provide information for obtaining and the use of warez.
Bittorrent links are not allowed.
(14a) The following international treaties apply:
-Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Berne Convention) (Berne, 1886)
-Universal Copyright Convention (UCC) (Geneva, 1952)
-Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (Marrakesh, 1994)
-World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (WIPO Copyright Treaty) (Geneva, 1996)
(15) Books published before 1920 are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez. Books published after 1920 with permission from the author are considered free of copyright and e-books thereof are not warez provided it can within reason be established that permission has been given. All other books are considered copyrighted and e-books thereof are considered warez.
(16) Usernames that contain obscene or vulgar language or denigrate individuals and/or organisations are not allowed.
(17) Users may only delete their own posts on the grounds that they constitute a severe breach of these rules. Even when this is the case, the editing of the post to effect repairs must at all times be considered first.
The emptying of posts (substituting the content by non-content) is explicitely considered a breach of this rule.
Deletion of whole batches of posts harms thread continuity and the forum as a whole and the Moderation team will take action; in the most extreme case an account may be permanently banned to preserve the posted.
(18) Administrators (Admins) and Moderators (Mods) reserve the right to edit or remove any post at any time. The determination of what is construed as indecent, vulgar, spam, etc. is up to them and not to forum members.
(19) Aforementioned Admins and Mods reserve the right to edit this list of rules at anytime.
See more
See less

Limiting Postings/Quotes to 200 Words?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Celadonite
    started a topic Limiting Postings/Quotes to 200 Words?

    Limiting Postings/Quotes to 200 Words?

    I'm wondering how many would find their forum experience re-invigorated if we set a function to limit posts responses/quotations to, say, a maximum of 200 words per post?

    There's some worry that people may be getting "put-off" by walls of text/quotations being generated in response to their questions/comments/ideas/opinions. Overwhelmed, as if by an Avalanche tumbling unexpectedly over them.

    What's the general mood? Who feels what about this? Not a right/wrong question, but an honest search for possibly establishing boundaries which would promote the common-good and provide the most pleasant forum experience for the majority of people.

  • Perseus
    replied
    Originally posted by Octal View Post
    <snip> and we can start mailing them rigged boxes that will throw tomatoes in their face if they don't shorten their posts.
    Very eeeenteresting.. *scribbles down note*

    Leave a comment:


  • ketchuplover
    replied
    Originally posted by doulos View Post
    Celadonite,

    I hope no one sees you as the bad guy. You threw out the suggestion. We answered (some with longer responses than others), and life goes on.

    Meanwhile we all work on our chess
    Chess is working on me

    Leave a comment:


  • Rimuel V2
    replied
    Originally posted by Octal View Post
    Why not just directly ask someone to shorten things up when they write too much?

    THIS, was what I had in mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Octal
    replied
    @Perseus:

    I'm talking to you without quoting.

    Originally posted by Perseus View Post
    [...]"do I really need to quote the entire post?"[...]
    Do I? Probably not.

    @Celadonite:

    I don't use emoticons so sometimes playful (not hurtful) humor isn't as obvious as I'd like it to be.


    Why not just directly ask someone to shorten things up when they write too much? Yawning in a conversation tends to work. In public speaking events rotten vegetables always have their duty.

    We probably can't repair the psychological damage after it's been done to the question asker, but the repeat offenders can be notified and we can start mailing them rigged boxes that will throw tomatoes in their face if they don't shorten their posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Perseus
    replied
    Originally posted by Celadonite View Post
    Truly not critisizing either you or your opinion duolos! I am responding, though. <snip>

    Too bad I'm the one who had to bring this up, I'm sure if another had brought it up it would have had a far better hearing <snip>
    Keeping the quoting somewhat limited is perhaps a more sensible thought than a word limit. Again, up to the poster but worth considering; "do I really need to quote the entire post?"

    I don't consider it a problem necessarily, but the poster (if his post is very long) will risk others (such as me) not reading much of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • doulos
    replied
    Celadonite,

    I hope no one sees you as the bad guy. You threw out the suggestion. We answered (some with longer responses than others), and life goes on.

    Meanwhile we all work on our chess

    Leave a comment:


  • Skwerly
    replied
    So often it's just this way...

    Leave a comment:


  • Celadonite
    replied
    Originally posted by Octal View Post
    I had to chuckle when the longest posts in this thread are advocating this idea.
    Glad my time's not wasted, then. Since you had a good laugh, I can retire a happy man, my sole purpose in this marvelous universe resolved.

    One thing I guess y'all don't realize. As moderators we hear from people. Even I hear from people, as hard as that is for a pinhead to imagine.

    Recently, I heard from people re "too-lengthy posts".

    So--as any good fool would--I start this thread, to see if some happy-resolution can come about. One that'll please the people.

    Well, just as it should be in this Most Perfect of All Worlds, none of the people who contacted me with their gripes bother to post to this thread, so here I stand looking like the Fascist Idiot you all imagine me to be--hanging like a Pawn with its pants down, butt of jokes, ridiculed and scorned.

    Buncha bull-tickee, as we used to say as kids. Shame on them, shame on you.

    Oh, yeah...

    So, have a good old laugh, and rejoice as idiots are wont to do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rimuel V2
    replied
    My thoughts exactly, Octal.

    Look, Cela, instead of asking more "what if" questions, we should just start doing our correlative research on this. The way to get results is to do something, not talk about it. Also, contrary to popular beliefs, what people say they would do are not always consistent with what they actually do.



    56 words.
    Last edited by Rimuel V2; 10-21-2013, 03:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Octal
    replied
    I had to chuckle when the longest posts in this thread are advocating this idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • Celadonite
    replied
    Originally posted by doulos View Post
    Do what you must. Was merely my opinion on the matter.
    Truly not critisizing either you or your opinion duolos! I am responding, though.

    I take it you didn't bother reading the "spoilerized horror"? There's actually some excellent signal in it, mixed in with tons of horrible noise. An artistic exaggeration upon some of the more loquacious posts I and others have created over the years.

    I did find your previous post interesting, as I have everyone's posts here so far. The conclusions that this suggestion, if implemented, would destroy community is exactly the inverse result of what I'd expect...I'd expect such implementation to facillitate clarity and transferral of pertinent information. I'd expect it to foster community when nobody was buried by Avalanches of responses, but could receive their information in bite sizes: less conceptual/contextual choking, I would assume. More nourishment, less fat.

    Kind of the difference between a nicely presented plate of food being set before you and having a whale carcass dumped on you by a construction-crane. One nourishes you and you can come back for more if you want, but the other just flattens you.

    Too bad I'm the one who had to bring this up, I'm sure if another had brought it up it would have had a far better hearing and would have been viewed by all with far less of a jaundiced eye.

    Oh, well!

    As a thought-experiment, since names were named in an earlier post by Rimuel: would the idea have been more amenable if Cmonster had suggested it?

    Amenable or not, it's obviously NOT going to be occurring. I've failed to convince anyone of its utility and promise--my fault. Perhaps in a couple years the concept will be resurfaced by another and its merits re-considered more favorably.

    Until then, "Bon Appetit!" to us all Too much of the information tranference on this Forum these days seems to me alot like going to the County Fair expecting to enjoy a single piece of home-made pie but finding oneself instead impressed into a commercial hot-dog eating contest pitted against both clock and competitors. No nourishment, lots of indigestion. I know I'm not the only one feeling this, thus this thread's creation. Changing analogies, the quality of info transferral here these days too-often mirrors chessic-culture at large. Quantity of games/words more important than quality of games/words, and accumulating points more important than the achieving of insights into the actualities of the dynamics of both game and attendant culture.
    Last edited by Celadonite; 10-20-2013, 11:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • doulos
    replied
    Do what you must. Was merely my opinion on the matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Celadonite
    replied
    Shouldn't the point of community, at least this one, be the fruitful transference and development of ideas relating to chess? The inquiry as to member's feelings regarding limiting posts to X (yes, "200" was just a number off the top of your unworthy moderator's head!) number of words/post isn't/wasn't an attempt to stifle free-speach, but to facilitate it, along with it's complement Free-Thought. The Recipient should be as Free to reflect (without having spent a half hour or longer reading) as the Sender is free to Send. Over-load of information transference (disregarding the quality of the Signal-to-Noise Ratio, good or bad) can as easily hamper the development of understanding as fostering it.

    I can see that limiting the posts a person might make per diem would go a long way towards injuring the purpose of this community. It seems to me, though, that a judicious limitation of words per post could only facillitate the purpose of this community...the signal to noise ratio would likely rise while the ratio of Noise to Signal would, of necessity, drop per post. Information transference would be expedited, wouldn't it?

    Nobody that I'm aware of has as-yet complained about the 800-plus word limitation the PM function of the forum has in place. Did you guys even know about that?

    Another smoothing of communications which a limit of words-per-post might produce is that the Writer would have to pause and "take a breath", allowing the Recipient to read and respond...discussions would tend more towards a multilateral dimension, rather than becoming monolithic declarations that might only tangenitally transfer the actual information the Querist was seeking.

    However, consider the Noise-to-Signal ratio something like the following possesses. There's a trainload of Noise obscuring some very pertinent signal. The effect may be poetic at moments, but horribly tedious and unnecessary. I've spoilerized the bulk of it to keep the Annoyance-Factor to a minimum.

    This is, of course, a reductio ab absurdum. However, I'm sure both myself and others have felt fully as discombobulated after having trying to finish a legitimate multi-thousand word post as I feel reading the horror spoilerized within.

    Some wise soul once said "Less Is More".

    "Signal to Noise"; a Ratio of Conscilience Arising Between the Brusque & the Absurd as Turn-Indicator Towards a Non-Rhetorical Paralepsis?

    ~OR~

    "Nobody Finds the Right-Move Because They're Too-Busy Looking After Their Pieces"

     click to show
    .
    Last edited by Celadonite; 10-20-2013, 09:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • doulos
    replied
    I don't particularly care either way, but I am of the opinion that when you start putting in limits as to # of words allowed etc, that you're well on the way to destroying the point of community.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X