4.2 Upgrade Complete.

[Kyte]

You know, when Xam posted his mega textwall chapter, we told'im to trim it down and split it into two chapters. Nobody wants to read preposterously long chapters.

[Mike1984]

You know, when Xam posted his mega textwall chapter, we told'im to trim it down and split it into two chapters. Nobody wants to read preposterously long chapters.

Perhaps, but it should be down to the author. Further, sometimes it's not a "chapter", but an entire fic (e.g a one-shot).

[Kyte]

Long one shots can and should also be split into logical sub-units for readability.

[Xamusel]

@Kyte: You mean that over 34k word chapter?

I didn't split it into different chapters, but I split the amount of words into four different posts due to the complaints, which I think made it better off at the time... don't know if that'll be different due to the upgrades.

[Kyte]

Yeah, that chapter. I didn't really keep track of the end result, only that it needed to get cut 'cause it was way too textwally. Upgrade should've done nothing.

[Xamusel]

Let's hope so...

DP? You have anything you'd like to add?

[Dark Pulse]

Not really. I mean, I do think that chapters that huge should be kind of split off. Really, anything over 10,000 words is probably getting "a bit too long."

I know in my current work, I basically settled on 4,000 word chapters after awhile (but with 75 chapters overall plus an epilogue). In the future, I plan to have meatier chapters (more in the 8-10k word range) but as a result, less chapters in the actual work.

Really, the blog should be used to tease content, because as I said, people who are doing serious writing probably already have a forum thread for the fic at any rate. That's what I'd do, though of course, each author is different. You could still certainly tease a chapter well within those limits though, just not post the ENTIRE thing.

[Xamusel]

...Ouch.

Well, I'm not gonna argue the point about that, in any case.

[Cruor]

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.

Technically, (I've been browsing through the argument) Darples said that it becomes a problem when backing up files. And then Mike replied that that would only be a problem that happens with the blog posts that are over the 25k character limit and that it shouldn't really extend the backup unless the limit was really reached. Ah fuck, I worded it badly, here's the posts.

Blogs take up space too just like posts do. Because they have a smaller limit, the table is smaller, which makes it quicker to process, which makes things move on to the next step of backups faster.

That, and nobody should need more than 25,000 chars in a blogpost. I've yet to see a legitimate post (i.e; something not us arguing) that goes over that limit, but if you'd like to point me to a few legitimate cases of it, that might change my mind. Emphasis on "might" as pointing out a few cases is not an automatic, guaranteed "You must change it now because I proved it."

Is that true?

Surely it's the size of the post that matters, not the theoretical limit. If all the posts are small, then

This is what the whole argument technically amounts to. Its just that Mike and Darples have been saying 'NO U' for the past few posts. Well, they have stopped the insults so yeah, they are prolly arguing for the sake of arguing lol.

Oh, and then there was Dark saying that he doesn't want to do a change based on one person because he doesn't want 10 people all coming up to him asking for their own changes. Which I find to be a valid reason for a leader/admin.

Note: this post isn't directed towards Dark and Mike. Its for the people who haven't read the argument and come into the thread and and not reading the huge walls and starts complaining.

[Tobias]

I have just keeping an eh on this post a far better argument against any supposed tyranny of DP.

Also some possible post jujitsu by mike. I occasionally wonder if mike actually knows how polite, reasonable and paying he makes DP look when he makes the argument repeatedly spewing words like tyrant and/or nazi and doesn't get so much of a warning for it, but just doesn't care because it means he gets to take free shots without penalty. Basically playing us all.

[Mike1984]

Oh, and then there was Dark saying that he doesn't want to do a change based on one person because he doesn't want 10 people all coming up to him asking for their own changes. Which I find to be a valid reason for a leader/admin.

No, not really.

Saying "I'm going to ignore people who ask me for things unless they have a sufficiently large petition" is a terrible way to handle administration. OK, if he has an actually valid argument against it or it took significant effort, then fine, but to just dismiss my opinion as irrelevant without thought just because I am only one person (when he is also only one person) is just outright rude, to be quite frank.

I have just keeping an eh on this post a far better argument against any supposed tyranny of DP.

Also some possible post jujitsu by mike. I occasionally wonder if mike actually knows how polite, reasonable and paying he makes DP look when he makes the argument repeatedly spewing words like tyrant and/or nazi and doesn't get so much of a warning for it, but just doesn't care because it means he gets to take free shots without penalty. Basically playing us all.

Or, in other words ,"waahh, we're getting criticism, how dare someone criticise the authorities!"

Sorry, but the fact that DP (and, more to the point, the rest of the mods) have enough basic decency to not punish people for criticising their total unwillingness to listen does not make him a wonderful person. That is the minimum basic requirement for not being a complete and utter asshole.

Nothing I have said here would get me a warning if it were aimed at a normal member, so why the hell should admins and mods get special treatment?

[Tobias]

Because generally speaking tyrants don't try to act like decent human beings or allow themselves to be treated harshly even if such action would be tolerated if directed towards a different member.


Thats what makes them tyrants. You basically just defined DP as a fairly decent guy.

[Mike1984]

Because generally speaking tyrants don't try to act like decent human beings or allow themselves to be treated harshly even if such action would be tolerated if directed towards a different member.

That's not necessarily true, it depends how you define "tyrant". Plus, I have not called him a tyrant, I called his system "tyranny by majority". Which, if you look it up, means exactly what I am saying it does. A system where the majority get their way and the minorities just get trampled over.

I do over-exaggerate, admittedly, but the fact that he lets me speak doesn't make him entirely ignoring me on principle any less shitty.

Thats what makes them tyrants. You basically just defined DP as a fairly decent guy.

No, I defined him as being not a total asshole. The two are not the same....

[Tobias]

No, you called him a total asshole. You just did, and actually have been defining him as a pretty decent guy for a few days now.

Actions speak louder then words, no?

[Mike1984]

No, you called him a total asshole. You just did, and actually have been defining him as a pretty decent guy for a few days now.

No, I didn't. And, no, I haven't.

Actions speak louder then words, no?

Yes, and his "actions" involve repeatedly ignoring me, so....

[Lianru]

That's not necessarily true, it depends how you define "tyrant". Plus, I have not called him a tyrant

And, yes, I know you're just going to jump in with the same old, tired, "well, it's my forum" crap, but that just proves that you are a tyrant. Because only tyrants take the attitude that people should have to justify the freedoms they have, rather than the other way around.

.

[Mike1984]

Well, OK, perhaps I did....

The basic point is correct, though, even if I'm being a little over the top with the language used.

[Satehi]

Since this thread is now the 'complain about your personal troubles' thread, may I ask if it's possible to, as a guest, disable the banner (I don't want to gain a reputation at school as this weird guy who surfs a website with a scantily clad loli kthnxbai) as well as avatars and signatures?

Something like that would really help me with surfing BL at school.

[Mike1984]

You can just change to the default background. Not sure about avatars and signatures, though....

[NuitTombee]

Simplest way would be to not browse the site with the "scantily clad loli".