See, I'm not sure I understand this. On one hand, you argue for the presence of using 700+ words as opposed to someone who may use, say... 200 words per post, by claiming that your character goes through details, small movements, introspection, and the like. But then you turn around and claim that if someone writes 3000 words, they're being a narcoleptic. Wouldn't the same logic apply to them? They too may have a level of detail, introspection, small movements, and such that you didn't consider at 700 words, just like you may write something the person who wrote 200 words didn't consider. It sounds to me like you're saying, "Oh, I think 700 words weeds out a quality of writing I don't like, but if someone writes considerably longer, I think they're a fool." In other words, it seems like you believe your writing length (which I don't know why anyone would equate length to anything other than length; it's not equivalent to quality, it's not equivalent to vividity, it's not equivalent to detail) is the ideal writing length, and if someone is shorter, you don't like it, and if someone is longer, you also don't like it.