Could the creator of the thread not just go by the number of thread views to replies?i am being slightly facetious, and playing a bit of devils advocate. sometimes i just like to argue a losing argument to test the vigour of people.
i have never posted tl;dr , but i argue that maybe instead of not allowing posters to do so, may be a disadvantage to a poster as he would not be privy to the possible negative aspects of his post .
it seems to me that banning people for posting their opinion about a posts longevity is a free speech issue more than a need to keep things tidy and in order. and with that said, i would advise that people continue with thier succinct abbreviations just as long as nobody gets hurt in the process.
Might be a sensible idea to ban :/, +1234 etc. In for a penny in for a pound dude.
Nope, just gonna ban people.
Totally disagree. With ':/', which I use often, its representing a dissapointed, suprised or disagreeing negative reaction to a post.Yeah if tl;dr is banned then :/ should DEFINITELY be banned as it's almost identical. Just spam without a meaning, but gilly uses it a lot so no chance.
Could the creator of the thread not just go by the number of thread views to replies?
Totally disagree. With ':/', which I use often, its representing a dissapointed, suprised or disagreeing negative reaction to a post.
tl;dr means absolutely nothing other than 'look at me troll'.
I suppose, but to me it reads as ' omgwtfbbq!'. I find it quite rude, I would much rather people typed what you just wrote.Well, it also means 'OP has written a stupidly long post, what a knobber'.
I'd ban more than this if I had my way.