POLL: Minimum limitations for posts

[Kurt Zisa]

I voted 200+ characters with some exceptions. It lets you get your point across and gets rid of the posts that just contain a single smiley and nothing else. Go for it!

[Alpha]

I voted 200+ characters with some exceptions. It lets you get your point across and gets rid of the posts that just contain a single smiley and nothing else. Go for it!

^ 137 characters (no spaces).

See the problem? It is possible to get a point across with few words. I'll say it one last time: blanket solutions to specific problems are inappropriate.

And I'm still confused as to what the problem is.

[Michael Swayne]

I may be asking a really stupid question. But...

Do the new posting limitations apply for posts made in Social Groups?

I mean, as far as I know, I don't think the Mods/Admins will want to scour the Social Groups discussions to make sure the posting requirements are met. I try to keep a good grasp on the Noobies, but an official ruling would clear up some confusion, especially since FoN is focused on the newer members.

I am okay with the limitations being enforced on the Groups and with them not being enforced.

[Rowan]

At least 100 characters might give the trolls a bit of a challenge...

[LocoColt04]

Michael, since the character limitations won the popular vote, no staff interference will even be required. There is a way to have the forum enforce this automatically - and certain forums will be exempt from that requirement. We have already decided that the three sections listed in the opening post will be exempt. If you can think of any other forums that don't need the requirement, let us know. I'm not going to be turning this on right away anyhow.

As for social groups, they are not posts in "forums" so they wouldn't be affected by the auto-counter.

Alpha, the counter WILL include spaces, but it won't count double/triple/etc spaces. 100 characters is so ridiculously easy to hit.

[che]

Okay now we need a character counter so we know how far we have to go to make the minimum.

#creatingmoreproblems

[Furore]

Do we really? A few sentences seems to hit the nail on the head, even just two seems to generally do it.

This'll likely just stop spam responses.

[Ryu-Kentoshii Hirokima]

I Agree With Putting Up A Character Counter, So We Know How Many Characters We Are Writing As To Not Write Just Under The Limit And Then Get Warned For Posting Under The Limit Or Something. It Just Might Make Things A Little Easier. Whatever LocoColt Wants To Do I'm Fine With. It's Up To You Loco. Put Up A Character Counter Or Leave It.

[LocoColt04]

But you won't get a warning for writing posts that don't hit the mark. The post will literally be refused by the server, and it will kick you back into the editing screen.

Last time there was a character counter (200 minimum forum-wide, by the way... and something like seven years ago) it showed a little display under the editing box, but it was only in full-reply mode that it did. I don't know if there's a way I can make it show in the quick reply screen.

[Ryu-Kentoshii Hirokima]

Okay, So, If We Write Under The Limit, We Get Sent Back To The Editing Screen To Add More Information Or Something In Order To Reach The Minimum Characters Required To Send A Post?

Also, Will You Be Putting A Character Counter At All? If So, I Hope You Can Get It To Work For Quick Reply As Well As The Full Edit Box. Maybe You Can Ask Fuzz To Help Out With That, Unless He Is Not Sure About It.

[LocoColt04]

Actually, Merlin's the guy I really need to get a hold of for this. He's been away for a while, but I'll see if I can prod him. He's our resident vBulletin guru and knows the ins and outs of the programming end like no other.

I can code my share of add-ons, but would rather not break anything vital.

[che]

Instead of adding all these rules can we just get to the root of the problem and ban people we don't like to see post?

[seanb]

I voted for 200 Characters No Exceptions.

me 2

[Taco-Calamitous]

Instead of adding all these rules can we just get to the root of the problem and ban people we don't like to see post?

How would you determine who would be banned and who wouldn't be? Would someone nominated someone to be eliminated, and then we take it to a vote? Who would get to vote? Everyone? A committee?

Also, technically, that rule has always been there, it's just that it isn't very well enforced anymore. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Ryu-Kentoshii Hirokima]

Instead of adding all these rules can we just get to the root of the problem and ban people we don't like to see post?

I Don't Think Banning Someone Just Cause You Don't Like To See Them Post Or Whatever Is A Good Idea...Cause Then That Could Also Backfire On You. Maybe Someone Doesn't Like Your Posts Either, And Don't Want To See you Posting...Then They Could Try To Get You Banned...The Same Way You Tried To. You See Where I'm Going With This? If You Don't Like Someone's Post Or Whatever, Then Ignore Them, Or Don't Read Their Post...It Is That Simple.

[che]

You guys completely got my point. Good job. It's one reason why this new rule, and most other rules are dumb.

^not sarcastic.

[SOLDIER #819]

Instead of adding all these rules can we just get to the root of the problem and ban people we don't like to see post?

Pretty sure that's been a thing since TFF's inception!