20 Character Limit PSA

The way some vexforum users deal with the 20 character limit is an issue on here that’s annoyed me for a long time (and I’m sure many individuals across the board agree). It exists for a multitude of reasons, and is meant to improve the density and productivity of posts. I know some individuals are used to chatroom-type discussions, but forum discussions are not chatrooms. People read them after the fact to get information, so stop treating them that way.
For instance, let’s say someone has mentioned something you disagree with. Why would you ever answer “Yes” or “No” by themselves without elaborating, “No, because xxx”?
To those reading this that are often foiled by the 20 character minimum: If you’re about to create a post and you find yourself hitting less than 20 characters, think about why you’re making your post and what your post is really contributing. Are you giving helpful information? I applaud you for being able to make your advice so condensed it’s <20 characters.
No one should have to scroll through 50 posts in a thread simply caused by loose & misaligned bearings.

For what it’s worth,
{This sentence is longer than 20 characters.}


No, because xxx.

EDIT: Thanks for the flags, that is what the button is for, but I was just trying to demonstrate a method of bypassing the 20 character limit.

Of course, y’all’re right, being able to bypass the limit is pretty heckin’ bad, and it rarely adds to the coversation.


I think everyone rarely ever uses the bypass in serious public discussion, But I do agree we are bypassing the limit too much, myself included, and we should refrain from making useless posts just to show we can lol.


Yes, we know there are ways around the 20 char limit but the point of this thread was to identify that if your response is shorter than 20 char, you’re probably not saying something that useful. A yes or no accompanied by an explanation is a lot more useful than just a yes or no.


I generally agree with the points made here.

I would add that it’s uncommon, but happens occasionally, that a worthwhile and contributive post can be made in fewer than 20 characters. In those cases, I don’t see anything wrong with using phony html tags or whatever other trick to add some extra characters that won’t be rendered to pad out the post. In fact, I’d probably do it myself, since it looks a lot nicer IMO than {20characterlimitsux} or whatever this week’s popular visible padding is.

But, posting a message that appears to contain fewer than 20 characters just to brag that you know how, while fun, is not particularly worthwhile or contributive, and neither are the several dozen posts worth of discussion, amazement, and testing that inevitably result.


I’m sorry, but I failed to see the affecting posts in the axle misalignment thread.

As for the popular location for such bypassing these days, the thread dedicated to discussing the 20chr limit, there is always an option to just not read it.

I apologize if I come across abrasively, but the bypass is a useful tool. I know I use a form of it regularly in the Team Quotes thread to pull quotes from other threads, and then post them in a condensed way as a simple quote box, without additional text to read through.

Alas, as outlined in the other thread (which I’ll quote below), the minimum exists for a reason.

There is more discussion on the topic in the linked thread.

Nevertheless, as an adamant user of bypass “tricks,” I kind of feel attacked by this topic, though I do understand that it (hopefully) wasn’t the intention.

In my eyes, the problem is more with those who choose to type useless text as opposed to “invisible bypassers,” but, now that a couple of bypass tricks are out there in the open, I expect we’ll see more “useless” posts using an invisible bypass.

Still, I refuse to apologize for utilizing such “tricks,” simply because I believe that the ways I (and others, such as Xenon27) use the bypass aren’t as useless as (perhaps mistakingly) implied here.


In anticipation of backlash

I apologize again for the abrasiveness of this post. No user(s) is targeted specifically.

Reasoning behind abrasive style

Say what you will, but one reason I admire(d) the (now banned) @Anomaly is because of his rough and to-the-point posting style. Agreed, he (allegedly) went too far on some occasions, but that does not factor into my opinion of the style.


Depends on what your definition of “discussion” is - the thread is not very informative, the very thesis that the original poster is suggesting - that the limit is 20 characters is to encourage more meaningful and informative responses.


lets just all agree not to use the bypass to make useless posts just to be funny or to flex your bypass knowledge.


I support an agreement on this topic, but I propose that the “funny” posts should be kept to threads under chit-chat/rumor-mill category.

Again, the minimum exists for a reason. I suggest we respect the reasoning behind it, if not the limit itself.


In the case that the 20 character limit actually makes sense. Vex should prevent people from typing about nonsense: oisdfovjaosijfaiodshfiuashdfiuh
Or 20 chars.

1 Like

Any sort of monitoring software to check that would also ban “nonsense” words, such as DR4B, traybot, etc.
And there’s no way to keep up with whatever we come up with, so I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

At least the 20chr is annoying, encouraging worthwhile posts so that we don’t have to deal with it, or mess with bypassing it.


But the people from Vex Forum could make their own system which keeps track of it. So that it keeps in mind the vocabulary which people use when discussing robots.

OR, we could self-regulate so DRow doesn’t have to…


Is that the person who runs the Forum?

yes. DRow is the admin/overlord of the vex forums. Make too many meaningless posts and you’ll find him under your bed that night.


That constantly changes. We come up with new words all the time, and highly specified words and abbreviations. Even artificial learning software would have a lot of trouble keeping up with us.



I shudder at the thought!