Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
Even if it didn't actively encourage misuse of the site, time spent on a feature like this would be far better used elsewhere. <details> tags are already sufficient to implement a "spoiler" ...
Answer
#1: Initial revision
by
Karl Knechtel
·
2024-06-18T07:41:58Z (4 months ago)
Even if it didn't actively encourage misuse of the site, time spent on a feature like this would be far better used elsewhere. `<details>` tags are already sufficient to implement a "spoiler" within an answer. If for some reason it were necessary to mark comment content as a spoiler - for example, discussing a candidate puzzle solution - keep in mind that *comment threads are already hidden by default*: they're collapsed behind the thread title. The appropriate course of action is to use a separate comment thread and title it in a way that gives suitable warning. Content that needs to be marked this way shouldn't be dropped into an existing comment thread anyway. Regarding debugging: *comments have a much shorter character limit anyway*. A long log simply isn't going to fit into 1000 characters, so it couldn't be posted in a comment. Comments that fit the line limit aren't going to need collapsing for space unless they're abusing line breaks (which is probably flaggable anyway).