I know you enjoy writing in an essay form, but Internet users generally want to read simple stuff.
Here's a paragraph from wikipedia:
Some walls of text are intentionally disruptive, such as when an editor attempts to overwhelm a discussion with a mass of irrelevant kilobytes. Other walls are due to lack of awareness of good practices, such as when an editor tries to cram every one of their cogent points into a single comprehensive response that is roughly the length of a short novel. Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful. Just remember: the longer it is, the less of it people will read.
(source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wall_of_text)
I like this definition because it notes that some walls are intentional. And I do think that sometimes it's pretty obvious when it's intentional. Here are some ways to possibly tell if the wall of text is intentional.
1) Repetition. Saying it over and over to fill space.
2) Another is organization. A poorly organized "stream of thought" style tends to be repetitious, wordy, and confusing.
3) Restricted explanations. Points aren't explained but expressed with no realization that their might be common objections to the idea of the words and thus, those objections are not even acknowledged.
4) Straying from the subject. After all if the idea is space, why stick to just any old subject.
5) Attacks. Usually the desire in writing the wall is to disrupt the discussion and one of the best ways is to shift it into attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.
6) Using common phrases and sayings picked up from the general discussion rather than presenting your own thoughts. "Rather be dead than Red" is an old one that comes to mind. Very common when I was a kid, but not so much now. And worthless as an argument for or against Communism.
Now, having said that, here is a list of things a wall of text might have that make it more acceptable.
1) Organized thought. Paragraphs are focused on a single idea.
2) Lack of repetition...not entirely because sometimes a thing has to be said a couple times in different ways to be clear, but in general repetition is at a minimum.
3) The post sticks to the subject with few to no aside comments.
4) The post avoids trying to guess or claim the motives of the other side are bad or good. In other words, it tries to be more impersonal rather than making it personal.
5) It avoids long explanations that are not needed (this is one I have struggled with in the past and may be this post itself! LOL!)
Thus, it is not the length, but the style and content that make a post into a "wall of text" in the negative sense. The chief culprit is the lack of editing and a belief that your writing is naturally clear and concise. Few writers have that skill and, in my opinion, if you didn't go back and read/edit what you wrote, you are probably closer to a wall of text than you think.
On the other hand, one does have to ask the responsibility of the reader. If you are attempting to discuss a complex subject but can't or do not desire to handle complex sentences, paragraphs or even pages, how complex can your understanding be? In other words, while there is definitely a need to be concise, responding a post by ignoring it because it's "too long" says either the writer has, in the past, posted many truly and/or intentional walls of text (see above for what might make it intentional), or is known to be a bad writer/editor. Ignoring a post because it longer than some magical word limit is probably a bit disingenuous, lazy, and even rude, especially if the subject is one where there is some depth.
Finally, my lament is exactly that. I lament that people are often too caught up in their emotional response to a subject to stop and carefully analyze what the other person has said and respond in a thoughtful manner. And I lament that they, too often, instead, attack the persons motives, their personal hygiene, and anything else irrelevant to the subject at hand. And I lament that, in defense of a pleasant experience, a forum of any type, has to restrict what can be discussed.
AJ