Poll: Min char requirement?

[silverDistortioN]

okay, i've noticed that a few people... most specifically myself... have been getting kinda annoyed at the 15 character minimum. i'm a minimalist. brevity's gotta count for something.

anyway... the minimum doesn't really do much other than make us say things like "damn 15 char minimum" or "there's a min char requirement?" or something along those lines... which really messes up the flow of conversation, in my opinion.

i think it should be removed, personally.
opinions?

edit: damn... i feel like rewording my poll... wish i could make "the same" say "left alone." it just sounds better.

[DarkSoul]

I think the 15 minimun character requirement is very good. It keeps people from super spamming and makes them think of writing a real message or atleast something that has more meaning then Yes or No.

15 should stay in my opinion.

[Zedie9]

:) Sorry - but as things are, I vote for keeping it. However, if it were up to me, I'd arrange it so the character minimum disappeared once a certain Rank was achieved. That way, newbs would be encouraged not to spam (kinda ;)) while the regs wouldn't be restricted by, erm... regs (as in regulations ;)). Would such a thing be feasible? If not, I vote to keep the minimum, and have the Admin or Mods delete any post that spams to fill that minimum. :bouncy:

[Kilu]

Keep it. In beta testing it was still 10 characters, I said that it should be bigger. 15 is quite fine for me. Though it may destroy some of the more minimalist answers that loose their 'spice' or whatever when more is added, it still is a good thing.

[silverDistortioN]

what's it intended to prevent, exactly? a message with only an "lol" or "haha!"? and why did you feel like 10 was too little?

[Kilu]

yes, I would assume that the exact point is to prevent lolzors and the like. or 100TH™ posts that doesn't include anything else.

And I felt that 10 was too little because I like to read more than just couple words. Just a personal preference.

[Locke Cole]

If you can't say enough to fill 15 characters in your post, then its probably not worth posting. The minimum limit is to prevent things like single smilies being used as replies. This is not a chatroom, and posts should have atleast some filling to them, or else why are we bothering to read the threads?

"This is an example of 15 characters." - This sentence is actually 36 characters long, a 15 character post would have been "This is an exam". That in my opinion, is usually not even worthy.

If you're agreeing or disagreeing with someone for example, don't just say "yes" or "no", explain why. Even if its brief, it should easily pass 15 characters.

Heck, "silverdistortion" is 16 characters, simply your name meets the minimum requirement.

I was being nice too, I was going to set it to 50, :p

[silverDistortioN]

well, just to refresh your memory, those kinds of posts usually went:
100TH™ post! booya!
which is more than 15 characters. besides it's in the rules.

so... i would like to propose... instead of setting a minimum character requirement, i suggest that we simply stick something in the rules. "please don't post useless replies such as '100th post!' etc. without posting something worthwhile. Try to contribute to the thread in some way." something like that.

oh wait! it already is in the rules!
whoopsie daisy.

[Kilu]

I was being nice too, I was going to set it to 50, :p
And I think that was one of my suggestions maybe. Or maybe I though that 50 was too much, but 20-30 would be good. Can't seem to remember. Well, if it bothers anyone or me (mostlikely me) the post is still in the test area so I can check it. Hooray :)

Wouldn't it be cool if every second of your life was recorded in your head or something, and if you would forget something, you could just rewind and check what was it that you forgot :):offtopic:

[Kilu]

well, just to refresh your memory, those kinds of posts usually went:
100TH™ post! booya!
which is more than 15 characters. besides it's in the rules.
depends on the poster.

oh, and sorry for the double post :p Silver replied as I was writing my own post.

[silverDistortioN]

"This is an example of 15 characters." - This sentence is actually 36 characters long, a 15 character post would have been "This is an exam". That in my opinion, is usually not even worthy. i'm arguing that it is possible to have posts under 15 characters that are worthwhile. yes, if you type up drab sentences like that, they're not going to be worthwhile. but there's no safeguard to keep posts interesting.

"this is an example of 15 characters. this is a pig. this is a house. this is an automobile. this is a computer. this is a chair. this is a donkey."

that's well over 100 characters. (yeah, there's not much of a point in that other than to disprove your logic.)

in fact, i'd go so far as to contend that even single smiley posts can be equally meaningful. but i think 5 would be a good compromise so i can post my 10 char funny lines (who probably no one other than myself laughs at...)

[Locke Cole]

One way or the other, the 15 character minimum isn't going anyplace. As I said, if you can't add 15 characters to the discussion, dont post :p I would consider that posting for rank, no matter what it said. I have yet to see a fair example of a post which would need to be less then 15. If you can show me one, I'll gladly change my views. I don't see why this is becoming such an issue.

[silverDistortioN]

"can someone find me a picture of a man in a long coat holding an axe staff?"
"...a fireman?"

anyone remember that? that was pretty damn funny. people said it would have been even better if he had posted a pic instead of saying that... which, to my knowledge, counts as 0 chars.

[Kilu]

True enough. But that is too rare :) And I think img link counts as characters :p MWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA. text inside quote tag doesn't.

[silverDistortioN]

no, it doesn't, cuz i tested it before posting that.

(off topic... do my cuzes sound too juvenile?)

[Kilu]

http://personal.inet.fi/musiikki/mika/wesker.jpg

[silverDistortioN]

oh, wait... i know... it's because you don't use the WYSIWIGGY editor... and i do.

[Kyari]

I don't mind a 15 character minimum. I don't really read posts shorter than that anyway. But if you guys want to lobby for it removed, go right ahead.

[silverDistortioN]

and by "you guys" i take it you mean... me.

[Kyari]

Yeah, you and anyone else that crops up.

I think I mentioned this on the old forums . . . 'you guys' is a PEI euphomism. It applies to men, women, or general people of any number - even if that number happens to be 1.

[BAMAToNE]

I'm the person who voted for an increase (well, the first anyway), heh. And that was before Locke made his post this afternoon. I would like it to be around 20-30 as well, Kilu. It's not a huge deal for me, though.

[Locke Cole]

"can someone find me a picture of a man in a long coat holding an axe staff?"
"...a fireman?"

anyone remember that? that was pretty damn funny. people said it would have been even better if he had posted a pic instead of saying that... which, to my knowledge, counts as 0 chars.
Personally I don't remember that, but in the same notion, it doesn't sound like it was contributing much usefulness to the question either. Yes, humor is good for a forum, but I'm sure you could have molded it somehow to fit the limit. Its already 12 characters, add 3 more dots, add a smiley, change it to something like "...a pic of a fireman?". I dunno. It sounds more like you're trying to be difficult to get your point across, alas its not coming as valid to me.

Yes, it may prevent the -rare- occasion that a post such as the one above is wanted, alas, I bet it will do as much good stopping new users from posting things like "lol" or :) as an entire message. We have had that problem in the past, however it wasn't often either. The 15 character limit is a vBulletin default setting. I could remove it, but alas that would do nothing more then solve this post... not to mention, now that we've made the limit the center of attention for this thread, I'm sure removing the limit would prompt atleast someone to abuse the fact its off. People are just like that.

[silverDistortioN]

i'm not trying to be difficult! to me, it seems that you're trying to be difficult. i'm trying to say it's more than possible to contribute meaning to a thread without meeting the fifteen character limit AND it often, in fact, takes away from the meaning of the the individual post if more words are forced in just because they have to be.

you seem to be implying that the limit should stay because it's possible to force yourself to make a sentence longer. (the same advice could be given to any abusers.) what i'm getting is that the short posts are okay as far as contributive meaning goes... but simply aren't long enough, so we have to add words, effectively meaningless since we can obviously express our thoughts more concisely and say the same thing... just because there's a *possible* danger of "lolerz" coming in.

were single smiley posts that big of a problem in the old threads?
here's the question we must answer... is the annoyance of having to stuff our messages whenever they need to be stuffed worth the security of not seeing a post that lacks significant meaning? (i have a feeling that that's not the right question... considering there are plenty of other ways to be meaningless. but it seems to be the problem for which this is supposedly the solution.)

and by the way, that fireman quote... Zedie's the one who said that, if my memory serves correctly.

[Locke Cole]

is the annoyance of having to stuff our messages whenever they need to be stuffed worth the security of not seeing a post that lacks significant meaning?
Stuffed.. you make it sound like 15 is a lot. Just to make you happy, the limit has been reduce to 10. Here's my advice, if you can't hit the 10 character limit with your reply, don't post that reply. Simple, no stuffing required. I will not lower it further.

[Kyari]

Y'know what? I'm gonna have to side with Silver on this one, as a matter of fact. Referring to the fireman thingy, I think it's funnier than a lot of other things you could have put in there. Posts, like any books or speech, have a comedic timing of their own; if you read it for too long it loses a bit of its luster, I personally feel. And sometimes 1-smiley posts are exactly what you need in those quick back-and-forth discussions.

I understand it has potential for abuse. But . . . well, really, I have seen very few, if any, people on the old forums actually abuse it. About the same amount, in fact, who would require it. And we've got plenty of 'regulars' here to deal with the people who would abuse it.

I'm not in any way for turning these forums into a bunch of people who post one-liners all over the place, and nothing else . . . but . . . I dunno. Seems like such a little thing if you ask me.

[TheDragonKnight]

well i have to say i think it should be put up, not lowered, 15 is insanely low, hell even 30 is pretty damn low, take the 5 word story add on thread from the old fourms, even 5 three letter words would have nearly gotten you twenty characters, and im pretty sure its not possible to make a sentence like that.

fourms are for a posting content if you want to trade smileys and lol's with someone use the chat room thats what its for. i personally beleive if you cant hit around 50 characters with a reply chances are your not contributing anything very useful, while i admit its possible to contribute much lower than 50 if you cant hit 15 you definatley arent being helpfull.

Take your fireman post for example, instead of simply making the joke you should have then continued with some usefull like asking for clarifaction if you weren't sure.

I am a member of a few PBeM RPG's online nad i have to say if someone posts under 100 characters its not only bad form but almost always not worth reading as something that small can do very little to advance a storyline or any character development.

Ok im long winded so ill sum up 15 limit is a joke if its a problem to you yor not opsting enough, i think it should at least doubled for quality control, and so far the arguments ive seen for lowering the limit or removing it dont hold water with me.

[Locke Cole]

*Round 2, Fight!*

Anyways, if you feel 10 is still too low, your best way to convince me that its going to interfere with posts would be to post links to posts on our old and now archived forums, of posts which would have been denied having the 10 cap enforced. There are over 3 years of archives up now, I'm sure somebody can find one. I just feel such a small post seems so unhelpful to the thread's development. I may have a different view then some of you, who were definately more active then me on the forums in the past year or more, but I do think its not too much to ask either. There were many settings and options which are different from the old forums, that I had to make decisions on. I tried to use logic to make choices which would help the new forums, not hurt them. Being the admin, the one who has to make the final decision, is not always a fun job, but its one I do gladly, and in this matter, I welcome you to challenge it.

[Firefly]

Anything that discourages spam is okay by me.

[Kilu]

The thing is, that only a minority of posters can actually make spiffy comments with only couple of words. Unfortunately some of the people who can't, think they can (because they think lollorz is funny O_O ) which may result in annoying short posts. I won't be naming anyone (because I'm polite) but non-witty people are the majority.

I wouldn't go molding any rules because minority says so, even if minority has a point.


I hope that makes sense :)

[silverDistortioN]

i just wanted to let my voice be heard, and since Locke has decided to compromise, there's not much point in me continuing to debate.

...unless you guys enjoy it that much. ^.^

[Zedie9]

:D Silver has a point... I do remember the fireman post (since I made it ;)), and yes, it was an obvious joke (albeit one I never expected to be so popular :wonder: ). I would have looked for a picture to accompany it, but in all honesty, I was both in a hurry and being lazy. *shrug* But anyway, back to Silver's point: I remember another post long ago, where someone posted a long, rambling bunch of blather (or at least, I remember it that way ;)). BigJim posted the perfect reply to the endless text before him: :roll: . So short posts are sometimes useful, although I think the character limit is a good thing at especially low ranks. I say that because in my opinion, at least from my experiences on the old boards, newbies are more likely to spam - especially if said newbie has fixed a goal on become a certain rank. So I again offer this solution to the debate, if it is at all feasible: Have the character limit, but remove it at a higher, prearranged Rank. In that way, newbies are in theory blocked from spamming, while regulars are rewarded with an extra 'privelege'. :spin:

[TheDragonKnight]

well regardless of the fact that locke has it at 10 and anyone must agree that 10 is insanely low. ive heard that making the limit go away or change at a higher rank would be a big hassle, a much larger hassle than insuring you post a minumim char weather its 10, 15, or higher.

but i agree the topic is farily dead the limit is at 10 and unles you produce a meaning full example of a post under 10 it aint moving, and im pretty sure thats not possible.