4.2 Upgrade Complete.

[Trevelyan]

Yeah, the limit seems pretty high.

I just, y'know, can't see the point of implementing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet. If multiple people started hitting the limit every time they tried to write a blog, that would indicate that there's a problem.

But five pages of argument about a hypothetical inconvenience to a hypothetical person that may or may not happen at some unspecified point in the future during the writing of a hypothetical blog . . . this is surreal. I can't even point and laugh at it, man.

[Dark Pulse]

Yeah, the limit seems pretty high.

I just, y'know, can't see the point of implementing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet. If multiple people started hitting the limit every time they tried to write a blog, that would indicate that there's a problem.

But five pages of argument about a hypothetical inconvenience to a hypothetical person that may or may not happen at some unspecified point in the future during the writing of a hypothetical blog . . . this is surreal. I can't even point and laugh at it, man.

Precisely correct, Victor Ortega.

[Trevelyan]

Precisely correct, Victor Ortega.

You have already tapped out.

[Mike1984]

So make it shorter or wait.

The discussion is legitimate; the reason, I feel, is not. Everyone else but you can keep it under 25k. To you, this means I should raise limits. I say "Give me examples of things that would go over that" and what you said basically boiled down to "I can't do my arguments under that limit."

It is not easy to just shorten a discussion when you have a point to make. Indeed, given that you yourself preferred to raise the limit rather than do so, your argument is quite clearly not valid.

Well then, it's time to pick and choose your arguments, or wait a little bit between posts. I'm not raising global limits for one person anymore. That was the mistake I did - thanks to you - on blogs four times in a goddamn row. Anytime global board policies are being shaped by one person, that's bad.

The mistake I did was to even raise it in the first place. You called me on that, and you have a point there; that was wrong of me to do and I should've never raised it up like that in the first place. That's why I cut it back down (admittedly to a number still higher than it was originally - something you seem to be ignoring in all of this was that it was originally 10k, which people were still able to fit their blog posts under just fine) and why, without a more compelling reason than "One person can't make his arguments fit under this limit," it's not going to change.

Why?

There is nothing at all wrong about policies being shaped by one person if that person happens to be on the extreme end of something. The board should be as useable as possible for everyone, not just the majority. Sure, there are occasions where you genuinely do need to ignore the minority in that way, but you have not yet explained why this is one of them.

I state why I feel it shouldn't be changed, and you come out with the "Ah, there's the usual DP-fuck-you policy."

In a word: Bullshit.

Actually, I was referring to the point (earlier than that statement) where I said (to Kyte)

I didn't say that it was "anti-me", I just don't like the idea of having rules automatically enforced. Automatic enforcement is inflexible and can't be bypassed when it is clearly non-sensical.

and you responded with

C'est la vie.

How is that not rude and dismissive? And that was when I was being entirely polite.

See above.

And see what I said above. You started treating me like crap before I did so to you.

If you were willing to treat me like a person who works hard to keep a community going, and not alternately a faceless bureaucrat (at best) or an absolute "tyrant" who's sole point in making rules is to piss one person off (usually), you'd probably get a lot further with me too.

That's not what I claim, but you do not listen to me, and you quite simply do not seem to care about individuals, only the entire group.

I'm tired of it, Mike. Period. I don't care if you like me or not, but with you, it seems I either have one of two choices:

1. Do whatever you're demanding to make the problem go away, no matter how ridiculous it may be for the board, or
2. Don't do it and be called a tyrant within 25 posts, guaranteed.

But what I asked for is not in any way "ridiculous". Asking for the limit to be infinite would be, asking for it to be higher than 25,000 characters is not.

"I'm very poor at meeting limits" isn't a valid case, when everyone else has no problems doing so. This argument only holds weight when other people are having trouble with it too. Nobody else is. Therefore, this isn't valid; it's a sign that you can't keep things short and simple, which is not my problem.

So, once again, it boils down to "you don't do things my way, so tough shit"....

Again, give me an example of when you would need to go over 25,000 characters. For all this talk of "I can't do it in under that!" you're not proving examples of what would make you go over!

The discussion I had with you, for one thing.

Just saying "I can't do that" isn't going to work. If you want limits raised, there has to be a better and more sufficient reason than this. Again, nobody else on these forums has a problem meeting that. You're asking me to change a global, boardwide policy to accommodate one person, and then when I ask you to give me a compelling reason, it's "Because you should, since I can't make mine that short."

Again, why should I have to justify raising your arbitrary restrictions. Anyone reasonable would see that the person who needs to justify them is you, as with any arbitrary rule.

That's not how it works. It's up to you to make your arguments less tangential. And for the record, I did look and quotes are indeed not counted, so that means yes, you have all 25,000 chars to yourself.

Which means, therefore, that you yourself are an example of someone who couldn't fit under the very same limit....

On a human level, no, but considering that I do generally run the forum, keep it upgraded security-wise, and have paid money to give this place more functionality, it does mean I have done a bit more in a community sense. Does that mean you should kiss my ass? Certainly not, but it does mean you should at least appreciate all the hard work I've done and will continue to do for this place, instead of making my job harder because you don't like the choices I've made.

Yeah, sure, but when you continually treat me like shit and act as if you're a million times better and more important than me, what do you expect me to think?

You've also yet to provide a reason other than "I can't meet that limit and I'm unwilling to try because to me that means that I'll be forced to cut words." Until you do, this limit is probably not changing, since the other factors that would make me consider it more - multiple complaints, etc. - aren't there. This is thus a one-person issue, and I'm not going to be shaping global, boardwide policies due to one person.

And you have yet to provide a reason why it should be that low....

The point I admitted on was "You raised it when it was convenient to you." That much is true - I did raise it due to that argument, but that was the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do would've been to trim my argument down more. That's why it got re-reduced, and why without a very compelling reason, I'm not going to raise it again.

But that's my point. Even you found the limit too low, and you raised it accordingly. So, how can you claim with a straight face that it is not?

If it's rarely hit, why bother raising it? It's already high enough!

Because it doesn't matter if you do raise it, and it will help in the few cases where it is hit.

Because in real life you can't talk someone's ear off for five hours. Furthermore, shorter posts mean having to do less reading to get to the main thrust of the point for whoever posted that.

This is not real life....

Then please, by all means, present them! The sole reason I've seen you give isn't compelling enough for me. More reasons might stimulate more discussion on it, or someone else saying "Hey, that's actually a good reason." Those are the sorts of things I can certainly take into account as reasons why it should be raised.

Well, I've yet to write any blog posts, but if I did I suspect there is a chance of them going over that limit. My discussions have actual weight to them.

Blogs aren't meant to be held to the same amount of content as posts. They're shorter things, more for fun.

Yeah, sure, but there are a few occasions where that was not true, and I see no reason not to carer for them.

Which I did. I'm still waiting on a reason other than the single reason you've prevented thus far.

Well, then, what about my freedom to post more than 25k character posts? Why should I be denied that?

What justification do you have for that limit, other than it being a number which you like?

Which I did - nobody else has problems keeping it under 25k chars, only you. One person does not change a global, boardwide policy, just because they can't keep things to the point and instead feel the need to be verbose.

In what way is that any kind of argument for it being 25k? Give me one reason why 25k is better than 50k.

For the record, the original limit was 10k, and nobody had problems keeping it under that, but I re-set it to 25k... which, if virtually everyone could make 10k, I think even fewer people will have a problem with 25k.

Again, that does not justify setting it to only 25k. It's an entirely arbitrary limit, and your only argument for it is "well, it's what I want it to be, and I'm in charge".

And if you go over, it does tell you how many chars you used, so you know how much you need to trim.

Have you ever tried trimming a 25k character post? It's fucking difficult....

Yeah, the limit seems pretty high.

I just, y'know, can't see the point of implementing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist yet. If multiple people started hitting the limit every time they tried to write a blog, that would indicate that there's a problem.

But five pages of argument about a hypothetical inconvenience to a hypothetical person that may or may not happen at some unspecified point in the future during the writing of a hypothetical blog . . . this is surreal. I can't even point and laugh at it, man.

If it required DP to spend hours fiddling with the system or finding a mod, I would entirely agree. But, it does not. It requires him to change one number in the admin control panel (which he only just lowered, in fact). There is no reason why he cannot just do it, other than him being unnecessarily instringent, and working on a point of principle that he will only ever act for a majority, even if acting for the minority does not in any way inconvinience the majority.

[Lianru]

I really think that the simplest solution to this problem is
1. Don't worry about it until you actually do get a 25k post,
2. In the rare event that one of those pops up, just wait out the 10 min. to post it. It's not that big of a deal, it's only 10 minutes, and
3. If you argument is going that long, you could probably find a way to express yourself the same way in less words anyways. Being concise is a good quality.

In other words, don't be too hypothetical, because it doesn't help. Theoretically, you could reach a post with any number of characters, but can we extend the post limits to infinity? Probably not.

[Kyte]

It's change the number and then put up with the consequences of changing that number. He already told you those consequences.

Also: "C'est la vie"? Dismissive? You're out of your goddamn mind. It means what it means. "That's life". Not everyone gets what they want. That is life.

Also what Ruru said. If people tried to solve for every hypothetical then nothing would ever get done.

[Mike1984]

Also: "C'est la vie"? Dismissive? You're out of your goddamn mind. It means what it means. "That's life". Not everyone gets what they want. That is life.

How the hell is responding to an argument with "that's life" not dismissive...?

Also what Ruru said. If people tried to solve for every hypothetical then nothing would ever get done.

Yes, but a) this is not "hypothetical" (it happened already) and b) it's trivial to solve.

[Five_X]

Is the post character limit really only 25k characters? That seems incredibly unlikely.

[lantzblades]

You're the only poster I can think of

I realize that due to my own policy of short chapters to assist readers I might appear to not have a desire to have higher limits or reach said limits but I do and would. just saying that mike's not the only poster.

[Mike1984]

Is the post character limit really only 25k characters? That seems incredibly unlikely.

For blogs (and blog comments), not for forum posts.

[Five_X]

For blogs (and blog comments), not for forum posts.

Oh, for that? Carry on, then. If you can trim an essay, you can trim a blog post. Or put it into the comments or whatever. Simple enough. 25k characters makes for about... 3000 or so words? Decent enough.

[Mike1984]

Oh, for that? Carry on, then. If you can trim an essay, you can trim a blog post. Or put it into the comments or whatever. Simple enough. 25k characters makes for about... 3000 or so words? Decent enough.

I can't trim essays, though. I usually spent longer trying to do so than I did writing the damn things in the first place....

[Dark Pulse]

Why?

There is nothing at all wrong about policies being shaped by one person if that person happens to be on the extreme end of something. The board should be as useable as possible for everyone, not just the majority. Sure, there are occasions where you genuinely do need to ignore the minority in that way, but you have not yet explained why this is one of them.

So just because one person says "I don't like this," people should just bend over to accommodate them?

I'm sorry, that's not how things work. Otherwise I'd be running in eight different directions every time anyone wants anything changed. These sorts of things might seem like an innocent request to you, but they set precedents, and it's not fair if I do something for you, only you, but then not someone else. Things like the user profile tab-switching and the RSS icon affect everybody... and realistically, the post limit is right now affecting one person.

Otherwise, people will just go "Well, you raised the post limit when he asked for it, why won't you do this for me?"

How is that not rude and dismissive? And that was when I was being entirely polite.

Because you freely admitted that you wanted to bypass the rules, which you shouldn't be doing. Rules aren't there "at your convenience" or "when you deem them to be." You don't like the doublepost stuff, but there are some people who have BAD habits of double or even multiple-posting, so the greater good of reducing that trumps your ability to "work around" limits.

And see what I said above. You started treating me like crap before I did so to you.

C'est la vie = "That's life" (or if you prefer more direct French, "It's life") and in this case it basically meant that I had no sympathy for your reasoning since you clearly stated you just wanted to bypass the limit because you felt it shouldn't apply to you, which is really the same point you've been arguing for the last 100 posts or so. My view on this particular point is very unlikely to change, considering nobody else is having issues with it; ergo, c'est la vie, so if you want change, please find another reason, or more people willing to claim this is an issue.

That's not what I claim, but you do not listen to me, and you quite simply do not seem to care about individuals, only the entire group.

Most places don't change their policies based on one person either, for the reasons I mentioned above. The ones who CAN do this either have lots of staff or lots of money, and we have neither.

But what I asked for is not in any way "ridiculous". Asking for the limit to be infinite would be, asking for it to be higher than 25,000 characters is not.

Until 50,000 isn't good enough. Then 75,000. Then 100,000. Then eventually, "Why have a limit at all?"

So, once again, it boils down to "you don't do things my way, so tough shit"....

Love how you constantly interpret this like that. No, it means "Nobody else has problems with it." Furthermore, you yourself admitted you're very poor at concise arguments. That doesn't mean I should raise the limits so you can argue a very verbose argument; it means you should really refine your arguing skills, since again, nobody wants to read a 5,000 word post if they could sum it down to 1,000.

The discussion I had with you, for one thing.

Something that isn't argument-related, since arguments with you are almost guaranteed to smack limits unless I keep my points short, like I am.

Again, why should I have to justify raising your arbitrary restrictions. Anyone reasonable would see that the person who needs to justify them is you, as with any arbitrary rule.

Because everybody else is able to get it under the limits just goddamn fine, Mike! Therefore there is no problem with the limit as it is except for one, specific case - you. And with you, it's going to be only a matter of time until whatever new limit I set it at - unless I set it ridiculously fucking high - is going to be "too low" once again, leading you to complain yet again, and making me want to bash my head into my keyboard.

Your argument holds weight if there are other people who are having a problem with it, but so far, you are the only one fighting tooth and claw over this. Nobody else seems to have a problem with it, and some of them don't even care probably. There is no myriad of users complaining about the limit - there is one. Therefore, the system works as a whole except for that one, so that one person is the one who must try to prove, justifiably, why the limit should be increased.

Arguments are not something meant to happen in blogs, so to try to minimize it from spiraling out of control, like it did last time, those limits are going to stay in force unless you can present some sort of non-argument situation, because that's the only one I ever see it potentially running against the limit, and my main goal is to cut down the walls of argument texts that any rule that you don't like inevitably turns into.

Which means, therefore, that you yourself are an example of someone who couldn't fit under the very same limit....

It also means that I should have argued better. More points were being made, not less. From now on, if my argument is too long, I'm going to trim it down, though I'm not sure if you can do the same.

Yeah, sure, but when you continually treat me like shit and act as if you're a million times better and more important than me, what do you expect me to think?

I hardly think I'm "better" or "more important," but I do feel I should at least be given a little gratitude for keeping this place going. After all, at the end of the day, I have to try to keep a whole community happy, and that means juggling every user who posts to some degree.

You are, frankly put, abusive to anyone who is in a position of authority anytime something is done that you don't agree with - we both know how you talked to Hymn and Altima, and the latter is someone who you consider a friend. That's inexcusable. I damn well don't talk to my friends that way (unless it's blatantly obvious I'm joking) and really, just because I'm an admin, it doesn't mean I have to sit here and take your abusive statements. Most admins on most forums would say "Here's the banhammer, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out," and despite the fact we're not going to do that, you're going to just keep calling me a tyrant, power-greedy motherfucker?

I'm not standing for it anymore. I can't stress enough that I've had it. So from now on, the second your posts revert to that bullshit, I'm going to ignore your posts for a little while. I'm here to serve the community, but that doesn't mean the community has a right to be offensive and insulting to me if my view doesn't agree with theirs.

And you have yet to provide a reason why it should be that low....

You keep returning to this for some reason, and I can't fathom why. If anything, 10k is enough for most blogposts so if anything, it could still go LOWER, but lower isn't the argument. You're trying to convince me why it's supposed to be raised, Mike.

But that's my point. Even you found the limit too low, and you raised it accordingly. So, how can you claim with a straight face that it is not?

Because it was wrong to raise it just so we could argue. It means that we're not making good enough arguments. A good argument says what it needs to say in less words - not more. A person's arguments tend to start very broad, then narrow down to specific points. Once the points are known, the position is established, and from there the fat can be trimmed. An example of this is of you continually bringing up "Why do you have it set so low?" That's not the argument, Mike, the argument is "Why should it be raised?"

Because it doesn't matter if you do raise it, and it will help in the few cases where it is hit.

Makes the table bigger. Makes it less efficiently compressed. Makes it take longer to back up. Annoys people because there's yet more long arguing posts, and now it's infesting the blog too.

This is why people are afraid of me getting the wiki, Mike, because they don't want to turn the discussion pages into ridiculously long pages of arguing with you.

This is not real life....

It sure is. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean I'm some character, who is preprogrammed into a role and simply acts it out. I have a psuedonym but I'm a real person, same as you, and so that means that I have my own thoughts, rules, mores, and what have you. Since I'm in a position of authority, that means that you automatically like me less (as you generally did not have problems with me on the old boards before those were pulled down) but it doesn't give you the right to call me a tyrant just because I don't agree with your views and so won't change the board rules, and when I give you my rationalization as to why, you just basically expect me to deal with it and do it anyway.

I'm not going to change how I am for you, just because you want me to - after all, I can't make you change like how I want you to either. This standoffish attitude you have isn't going to do anything. You need to, simply put, learn how to negotiate with people. "My way or the highway" sorts of things don't work on me, or for me. And while I'm sure you'll say me not changing the limit is exactly that, I again point to the fact that nobody else has these problems, so for 99.99% of all of our forum users, the limits in place work. They don't work for one person, and since that person is unwilling to try to make his arguments less verbose, why should I have to expand it (and keep doing so every time he hits that barrier, because let's face it, it will happen!) just because he wants it? No, the better route in the end is to keep it fairly simple, and if he can't cope with it, then unfortunately, he's going to have to learn how to, just like he had to learn how to walk, talk, and use the toilet.

Well, I've yet to write any blog posts, but if I did I suspect there is a chance of them going over that limit. My discussions have actual weight to them.

Fine, but again, that limit is anywhere from 2,500 - 5,000 words. You can say a lot in that amount, but you can say even more if you keep it to-the-point and on-topic. Ranting and raving just wastes words and are 100% filler.

Yeah, sure, but there are a few occasions where that was not true, and I see no reason not to carer for them.

Neither do I - which is why I reset the limit to 25k instead of 10k. 25k chars should be enough to get most things across without turning the page into HOLY FUCK SCROLLING CHALLENGE, especially on mobile devices.

Well, then, what about my freedom to post more than 25k character posts? Why should I be denied that?

What justification do you have for that limit, other than it being a number which you like?

As has been said before: Table size, readability concerns, mobile users, and nobody wants to scroll through a huge post of yours just to get to the next point of the discussion that they're interested in.

In what way is that any kind of argument for it being 25k? Give me one reason why 25k is better than 50k.

See above.

Again, that does not justify setting it to only 25k. It's an entirely arbitrary limit, and your only argument for it is "well, it's what I want it to be, and I'm in charge".

Wrong again. It's a number I came upon after thinking about what sorts of blog posts most blog posts will be. Generally speaking, blogs are very short posts - even the longer ones might barely scratch a thousand words, which is (using a rough approximation as I do of assuming words are 5-8 characters long) of 5,000-8,000 characters.

Next, I think about longer points, or someone posting part of a fanfic chapter. Admittedly, that might be double or triple that, so we'll say 2,000-3,000 words. That's 10,000-24,000 characters. At that point, I decided it'd be nice to just make it divisible by five, and so 25,000 chars became the final number. Anything longer should probably either go into a forum post, or be trimmed.

It's not like I'm picking numbers out of a hat here. I'm trying to predict the content, and furthermore, you almost never post blog entries (unless you're mad at us it seems, because I've yet to see an entry on you that isn't that). I go by the typical users, not the extreme users, and so in that sense I come up with numbers that work for virtually everybody. Raising limits should be a last-resort thing - not a first-resort. First-resort should be making your argument leaner and meaner, because that makes it better.

Have you ever tried trimming a 25k character post? It's fucking difficult....

Considering I never make them since I can keep my points pretty on-target? Nope.

I realize that due to my own policy of short chapters to assist readers I might appear to not have a desire to have higher limits or reach said limits but I do and would. just saying that mike's not the only poster.

Alright then, so it's at least more than one person. This makes it hold some weight, but again, this is a character limit that allows (at worst) approximately 3,000 words, and generally speaking probably closer to 3,500-4,500, with a rough max of 5,000, before the limit is hit and it tells you to trim stuff.

How long are your chapters, usually? Most people don't write chapters past that length, and admittedly, if they do, they've probably already got a topic in the fanfics forum.

[RadiantBeam]

Can't we all just agree to disagree? No?

[Counterguardian]

I've never really liked the concept "agree to disagree". It only works when there's a difference in opinion on a fundamental premise.

This is a matter of (for the most part) ethics in management here.

I can't trim essays, though. I usually spent longer trying to do so than I did writing the damn things in the first place....

I have that exact problem when I'm trying to target specific sentences and cut out superfluous words. I find that it makes it much better for me when I actually start targeting concepts spread over several paragraphs and look into how I can cut it in half.

Reading your posts reminds me of doing my English finals (mandatory for everyone) for my tertiary exams in high school. We had an essay component that required to to a language analysis on a current news article, and everybody tries picking it apart one sentence at a time to meticulously analyze it, take two hours doing so, then realize they don't have enough time for the other two essays. And the thing is those people, 88% of the nation, never knew when to stop to think "can I just cut it down instead of going with my instinct to do it all?". It never occurred to them that addressing the issue broadly in terms of concept and using specific examples only to illustrate may have been a better option for succinctness, time-effectiveness, sophistication, and ultimately better marks.


My point is, being concise isn't and shouldn't be that much of a burden for you. It'll even help get your points across better instead of having people dismiss it out of hand because they can't be bothered reading all of that. And I'm absolutely certain I'm speaking for most of the forum here when I say that.

[Mike1984]

So just because one person says "I don't like this," people should just bend over to accommodate them?

I'm sorry, that's not how things work. Otherwise I'd be running in eight different directions every time anyone wants anything changed. These sorts of things might seem like an innocent request to you, but they set precedents, and it's not fair if I do something for you, only you, but then not someone else. Things like the user profile tab-switching and the RSS icon affect everybody... and realistically, the post limit is right now affecting one person.

Otherwise, people will just go "Well, you raised the post limit when he asked for it, why won't you do this for me?"

You wouldn't be "doing it for me", as such, you'd be doing it because there is no reason not to set it higher in the first place.

Because you freely admitted that you wanted to bypass the rules, which you shouldn't be doing. Rules aren't there "at your convenience" or "when you deem them to be." You don't like the doublepost stuff, but there are some people who have BAD habits of double or even multiple-posting, so the greater good of reducing that trumps your ability to "work around" limits.

Sorry, but rules should be bypassable. You have mods to handle cases where they shouldn't be.

C'est la vie = "That's life" (or if you prefer more direct French, "It's life") and in this case it basically meant that I had no sympathy for your reasoning since you clearly stated you just wanted to bypass the limit because you felt it shouldn't apply to you, which is really the same point you've been arguing for the last 100 posts or so. My view on this particular point is very unlikely to change, considering nobody else is having issues with it; ergo, c'est la vie, so if you want change, please find another reason, or more people willing to claim this is an issue.

Yeah, I know what it means, but your response just indicated total contempt for me and my reasoning.

Most places don't change their policies based on one person either, for the reasons I mentioned above. The ones who CAN do this either have lots of staff or lots of money, and we have neither.

Again, if one person makes a reasonable argument, you should. Not because of that one person, but because they have an actually good reason.

Until 50,000 isn't good enough. Then 75,000. Then 100,000. Then eventually, "Why have a limit at all?"

Well, I've never seen anyone hit the 100,000 character limit for posts, so I don't see the problem.

And, I understand the need for a limit, so I wouldn't argue that.

Arguments are not something meant to happen in blogs, so to try to minimize it from spiraling out of control, like it did last time, those limits are going to stay in force unless you can present some sort of non-argument situation, because that's the only one I ever see it potentially running against the limit, and my main goal is to cut down the walls of argument texts that any rule that you don't like inevitably turns into.

But, where else could that argument have happened? The limit for PMs is even lower.

I hardly think I'm "better" or "more important," but I do feel I should at least be given a little gratitude for keeping this place going. After all, at the end of the day, I have to try to keep a whole community happy, and that means juggling every user who posts to some degree.

Yes, you deserve gratitude, but not to be immune from having your decisions questioned.

You keep returning to this for some reason, and I can't fathom why. If anything, 10k is enough for most blogposts so if anything, it could still go LOWER, but lower isn't the argument. You're trying to convince me why it's supposed to be raised, Mike.

Only because you're the admin and, thus, make arbitrary defaults. Really, it should be you who should be convincing me (or, rather, yourself and the other admins, I guess) why it shouldn't be higher.

Because it was wrong to raise it just so we could argue. It means that we're not making good enough arguments. A good argument says what it needs to say in less words - not more. A person's arguments tend to start very broad, then narrow down to specific points. Once the points are known, the position is established, and from there the fat can be trimmed. An example of this is of you continually bringing up "Why do you have it set so low?" That's not the argument, Mike, the argument is "Why should it be raised?"

No, that simply does not hold. If you set an arbitrary limit on something, you should not then expect me to have to explain why that limit is wrong. You should explain why it is right.

Makes the table bigger. Makes it less efficiently compressed. Makes it take longer to back up. Annoys people because there's yet more long arguing posts, and now it's infesting the blog too.

Do those things apply in general, or only if a post actually went over 25k? Because the second would (as you pointed out) rarely happen, so I don't see it making a significant difference.

Basically, does it matter what the limit is, or just what the actual post sizes are? Because if the limit matters, you have a very good argument. If it's just the post size, then I don't really see it as a significant issue, because posts will rarely go over 25k.

This is why people are afraid of me getting the wiki, Mike, because they don't want to turn the discussion pages into ridiculously long pages of arguing with you.

Well, if they're reasonable, then it won't.

It sure is. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean I'm some character, who is preprogrammed into a role and simply acts it out. I have a psuedonym but I'm a real person, same as you, and so that means that I have my own thoughts, rules, mores, and what have you. Since I'm in a position of authority, that means that you automatically like me less (as you generally did not have problems with me on the old boards before those were pulled down) but it doesn't give you the right to call me a tyrant just because I don't agree with your views and so won't change the board rules, and when I give you my rationalization as to why, you just basically expect me to deal with it and do it anyway.

The difference is that, on a forum, if you don't like my post, you can just ignore it. That is not true in real life.

Also, whilst you being in authority has a lot to do with me disliking you, it is due to the way you handle that position, not the fact that you have that position itself. My opinion towards Elf and Altima proves that (OK, so I do get angry at them sometimes, but I would consider them to be "friends").

Further, I was not overly fond of you prior to you becoming an admin (I recall having a very long and angry argument with you about Sakura). The difference is that, when you don't have any power, I can ignore you if you annoy me. You gaining power makes that a lot harder, and gives you the ability to impose your views on me in a way you could not previously.

The thing is that I am generally tolerant of people with opposing viewpoints (although I might sometimes dislike them), but as soon as they attempt to impose their views on me (which being a moderator necessarily entails), I become far less so. Therefore, people I can get on just fine with as a normal member might come to annoy me as a mod or admin.

I'm not going to change how I am for you, just because you want me to - after all, I can't make you change like how I want you to either. This standoffish attitude you have isn't going to do anything. You need to, simply put, learn how to negotiate with people.

No, but the difference is that you can impose your way of thinking on me, whereas I cannot do the converse.

"My way or the highway" sorts of things don't work on me, or for me. And while I'm sure you'll say me not changing the limit is exactly that, I again point to the fact that nobody else has these problems, so for 99.99% of all of our forum users, the limits in place work.

But that is what you are doing here.

Neither do I - which is why I reset the limit to 25k instead of 10k. 25k chars should be enough to get most things across without turning the page into HOLY FUCK SCROLLING CHALLENGE, especially on mobile devices.

Most things, not all things.

As has been said before: Table size, readability concerns, mobile users, and nobody wants to scroll through a huge post of yours just to get to the next point of the discussion that they're interested in.

Well, table size is a reasonable argument. The rest are pretty dubious, though, particularly given that the value is higher for the forums.

It's not like I'm picking numbers out of a hat here. I'm trying to predict the content, and furthermore, you almost never post blog entries (unless you're mad at us it seems, because I've yet to see an entry on you that isn't that). I go by the typical users, not the extreme users, and so in that sense I come up with numbers that work for virtually everybody.

Again, this is the issue. Why should the numbers work for only virtually everybody, when they could easily work for absolutely everybody.

Raising limits should be a last-resort thing - not a first-resort. First-resort should be making your argument leaner and meaner, because that makes it better.

Sorry, but that's just untrue. Perhaps it is better to be more concise, but it should not be enforced in this way.

[Lianru]

Mike? Darples already explained why he wants lower limits, I think he wants you to explain why you want higher limits other than "why not". That gives him a reason to consider it in the first place.

[Mike1984]

Mike? Darples already explained why he wants lower limits, I think he wants you to explain why you want higher limits other than "why not". That gives him a reason to consider it in the first place.

Well, I've already given my only reason, which is that people might want to post something over 25k characters. I don't see what other reasons could exist, really. If that's not enough, then it's not enough, I can't really do anything about that.

[Kyte]

Hypotheticals don't get you stuff. If your only argument is "But what if someone needs more?", then you don't have an argument.
Plus, if someone does need more, he can raise the issue and it can get discussed accordingly. But not before.

[lantzblades]

How long are your chapters, usually?

when I get serious 10,000 to 15,000 words. I usually keep the chapters to a fraction of that due to the readability of 10,000 words versus 1000. but still 3000 is pathetic for serious action or drama fiction. the same goes for blog stuff relating to those works (hey people have asked for extra stuff and the blog is the place to go to avoid spoiling stuff) 3000 words will not explain 30 odd years of history.

Hypotheticals

it's not hypothetical, i do need more space.