Quoting T!M:

Quote:
Yves: you and I most certainly have exchanged PM's. I understand it looks better if you deny that, but it's just not true. Assuming that Ken can check back longer than the 30 days that we can, I'm 100% confident that he'd be able to confirm that.

Please Ken, can you confirm that ? Possible I forgot PMs one or two years ago or more, but I doubt that.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:
...due to the limited length of the contribution notes field.

There's a limit to the contribution notes field?

I know they get cut off from being displayed on the voting screen, but if you just press you can see the complete notes. It's easy to mention that as the first sentence of the contribution notes, should you need more space than what is displayed on the voting screen.

Or is there really an actual limit? I've seen some pretty freakishly lengthy contribution notes...

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting T!M:

Quote:
...due to the limited length of the contribution notes field.

There's a limit to the contribution notes field?

I know they get cut off from being displayed on the voting screen, but if you just press you can see the complete notes. It's easy to mention that as the first sentence of the contribution notes, should you need more space than what is displayed on the voting screen.

Or is there really an actual limit? I've seen some pretty freakishly lengthy contribution notes...

I haven't come up to a limit yet at least. And I had some long ones what with Birthyear documentation and such.

Quoting Formerly known as...:

Quote:
I've not come across a limit but I seem to remember reading someone editing several times and then couldn't do it any more.

The room available for editing existing contribution notes is somehow much, much less than the room one has for initial notes.

(I read the topic thus far, but I'm just spitting out thoughts. So, many will overlap other's ideas here.)


This situation, though more extreme, falls just as easily under the "don't take 'no' votes too personally" category for me (which we are always trying to emphasize to newer members.) Biting your tongue can do wonders to end (though not to resolve) the situation.

A person votes against you a few times, votes in a very rash fashion, or you otherwise see a negative pattern in this particular person's behavior. In the here-and-now, calling the person out may seem to hold a purpose, but I find it inappropriate to respond in a purposely negative manner (which includes but is not limited to calling out a person specifically) because it ends up as the only part of the argument that the general public sees. This tuns the contribution note into a double-edge sword. You get the last word in, but who's to believe you when they have no proof of the rest of the argument? Others looking back then can only see that you were responding in a negative fashion which can work against you in a way.

It's different on the forum since, even though it results in longer topics that pull off-subject more than staying on, the basics of what all are saying can be read in the future. While the reason's seem obvious for allowing you to edit your contribution notes, that does not specifically mean that calling out a person was one of those originally-intended reasons. This could be also why Ken did not include the ability for anyone who votes 'Neutral' to leave a comment or for the contributor to leave any comments at all during voting.


Lastly, forgetting about the "rules" issues for a moment, consider something else: a by-far majority of people use the program in general than visit the forums. Those people may use the contribution notes as a way to look back before making a contribution themselves. It is also likely (as I have done it myself) that people read the notes just out of curiosity. My view of the 'forum' verses 'contribution notes' is comparable to a 'Congressional hearing' verses an 'approved or disproved law" (minus the vote count) and should be treated as such (more "officially") because, once the contribution vote has ended and the submission was approved or declined, the rest holds no bearing to the general public.

As an example of what I mean by this: it's doubtful that you have read in the final draft of any political document something similar to, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . . even though Chief Justice Johnson hated the idea and voted against it for no reason."