OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


ChristianKl 8 May 2015 12:37 PM
62%

In what kind of contexts have you seen formally induced length restrictions to improve content?
Twitter doesn't seem to me like the place of deep discussion.

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 8 May 2015 01:16 PM
54%

Memetic content I have seen be very up to the point that is the idea. In those kind of context it's also easier to identify who are saying essentially the same things and who is genuinely saying new things. For long text for example scientific articles you need an hour or so to even check whether it contains any thought yet alone new thoughts. It requires more active receiving. Usually half of a long text is totally predictable. A more to the point communication says only the unpredictable thing and lets the listener fill in the predictable parts. Thus it works badly on passive and hostile receivers. You can do this when you are not expected to be a selfcontained whole but part of a discussion.

Quality discussion usually has both depth and breath. Short message length makes breath hard but you can string together breath from a lot of thin slices. However if you have much of great breath sources it is way harder to condense it into more depth. Therefore while you eventually want great breath it is the depth that is the more valuable part. When you pierce together small fragments it is more harder to track who is saying things. It doesn't form a regulated whole. But if we are into the discussion to find strong arguments or working solutions who came up with them should be relatively unimportant (there are some issues with false flags but active listeners have less faith based and more comprehension based quality controls, it also helps that because each part is individually fitted to the picture there is no smuggling details as part of an overall package (Faith based quality control needs to track who says the thing so that we can verify that it is a trusted source)).

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 9 May 2015 03:59 AM
62%

I asked you for a concrete example of a hard limit and you don't provide one. Given that there happen to be a lot of online communities, failure to provide one invalidates the idea that you have the experience that hard limits are useful.

Instead you argue that it's valuable for texts to be concise. I don't disagree that conciseness is valuable.
On the other hand that doesn't mean that hard character limits are a good tool for an online community. Hard limits are blunt. They don't encourage people who are under the limit to be concise. It would be possible to provide a tool tip that encourages the user to be more concise when they go over a certain character count.

It's also ironic that your text breaks the character limit of 1500 characters that this forum had when I posted the above post. Do you think it would have been better if the forum would have forced you to cut part of your post?

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 9 May 2015 09:23 AM
56%

I have found it useful that I have run into the 4000 character limit. I wouldn't have objected if it stayed at 1500. The issues is that for example no twitter user compains that their 1000 charcter message doesn't fit into the 140 charcters. When people see that the peg is square they don't try to stuff a round one in.

I guess my real experinences are more from board like 4chan where there is no hard limit but a soft tendency for 1-3 lines of reply instead of 1-2 paragraphs. Well I don't know whether other users declaring tl;dr is a hard limit or not. It still feels substantially different and I have come to like the short versions better than the long versions.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 9 May 2015 10:05 AM
62%

I have found it useful that I have run into the 4000 character limit.
Which of your posts did run up against the 4000 character limit?

Well I don't know whether other users declaring tl;dr is a hard limit or not.

It's no hardcoded character limit.

Additionally I don't think that the goal of replicating 4Chan culture is worthwhile.
It makes much more sense to copy culture of places like StackExchange and LessWrong. Both of those places have no hardcoded character limits.

Blogging platforms like Tumblr or Medium also don't have hardcoded limits.

Especially for a website that's supposedly supposed to be minimalist, it needs a good reason to change that norm and create a hardcoded limit.

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 9 May 2015 11:35 AM
58%

Atleast two replies regarding cultures of strong freedom of speech on the "rational disclosure of minority views" article

http://www.omnilibrium.com/replies.php?id=430
http://www.omnilibrium.com/reply.php?id=437

I would like a more explicit argument why copying those communities are better. They have more conversation stoppers and less practical solutions to managing disruptive speech. So it's not all upside even if the overall effect would favour them. One of the reasons we have this website is that LessWrong deems that it can't function as the platform we are trying to do. That is LessWrong thinks its practises do not work well for what we are trying to do.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 9 May 2015 11:57 AM
62%

In general the default should be to copy existing solutions where people invested a lot of intellectual effort into designing those solutions.

There a lot of prior art and it makes sense to think deeply about why decisions get made they way they do.

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 9 May 2015 01:55 PM
54%

Effort put forward is not the same as amount gained. It's also reasonable to study why time tested solutions have been naturally selected even if their creation wasn't that expensive or intensive.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 10 May 2015 11:43 AM
60%

In the linked thread you simply cut your post into two to evade the limit. That makes the whole text more difficult to follow.

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 11 May 2015 03:08 PM
58%

The second message is a reply to a reply the first message got. The character limit forced it to be interactive.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 11 May 2015 05:14 PM
64%

Ah my mistake, I think this forum really needs better threading...

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 9 May 2015 09:28 AM
54%

I didn't understand that you were asking for concretedexamples. I was more answering about explicit shortenning where people call out other peoples communications length specifically. That is when communication of other people is intentionally shortened. While this is more of a mix of formal and informal processes. I have seen more poeple to ask be up to the point and people drawing things out to be more obtuse.

stars0
Reply