[tripofmice]

this kind of broad situation is hard to fix; usually a particular thought has a particular solution. Similarly, using a synonym lookup may hold you back. Look at what you want to say, not what individual words you'd pick without any constraints.

[Programmatic]

But a mutual thought of a non-abstract individual aids in a lot of situations.

[schoen]

Most difficult is accounting for, and introducing into a chat, folks wholly unknown to anybody you talk to.

A trick is to try to say how you know of such folks, finding a path or paths along which you can form a link, such as "my dad's mom's son" or "my pal's husband's pal" or "a woman who knows my boss from an old job" or "I know of a particular lady's writings from a class I had at school".

This social platform's author own account within said platform shows an additional gimmick or option, viz., translation, insofar as you'd normally hail said author as "[small gray animal with a tail]", but within this platform's constraints as "[said animal, only in Latin]".

This is not so hard for participants whom you call with words common to kinds of things, kinds of animals, jobs, and so on, but possibly difficult for folks lacking a commonality of naming of this sort (viz., with "nomina propria").

(Sorry if "viz." is illicit on account of what it actually stands for... you can just think of it as "in particular" if you want.)

[nebabyte]

I was okay with using "imo" and "lol" in words in this discussion as full forms also lack taboo glyphs, and I concur that such with said glyph is tantamount to a violation.

[schoen]

A good point and strong advocacy, though @mus, who thought up this particular handiwork and built it from scratch (not all of lipography, just this journalistically-fascinating lipography discussion forum), and also said in this discussion, supra, "this kind of broad situation is hard to fix" and so on, was so bold today as to post "300" in a toot purporting to follow lipographic norms. Ipsa dixit!

But if you say "300" in words and not digits, you would say two words both lacking suitability for that forum. So I ask, possibly oratorically: by what logic is "300" OK if "viz." (or "BRB") isn't?

[milesrout]

Words do not contain glyphs during annunciation. A man pronouncing a word is not a man pronouncing glyph 1, glyph 2, glyph 3 but sound 1, sound 2, sound 3.

So 300 is okay: I do not recoil from a foul glyph in it.

[schoen]

If you think so, don't you find "BRB" and "viz." OK too? My post's dad-post (though not by you) calls for avoiding such short forms on account of matching long forms' violations of lipographic norms.

[skdfhksdf]

no doubt about it.

[isaacremuant]

That was funny. I had a bit of a laught. Thanks for that, guys.