My stance is for the anti word count one.
My argument, as stated in the Opening Post, was that there tends not to be a need for a word requirement.
Think about all the papers you had to write for classes. (english, history, etc.) For those who always wrote enough, or too much, having a word count requirement and not having one changes absolutely nothing. If there's something that you want to say, you'll say it even if it is way over the word count reqiurement. This post is shaping up to be like that. That is, unless there is an upper limit, which doesn't factor in here. I will note that I will never read the longer explanations that don't pertain to how a card works above a certain level of detail into how the card was conceived as it doesn't factor into how the card will work. In short, it's more or less flavor text for those of us who want to know.
Back to the paper, for those who had trouble actually writing enough for what the teacher required, I bet most end up adding fluff that doesn't actually contribute much to the central argument of the paper itself. Perhaps you added some extra background information, perhaps you expanded a bit on some ideas. But overall the amount of actual content hardly changed. Alternately, how many people change the margins? The text size? Added a page of footnotes? Clear reasons for the lack of a need for a word count.
For example filler, I had an English teacher hand all of us in the class a copy of a 1 page short story. I don't think I have it anymore, but it was GOOD. And its quality showed in both the A that it received, and, more importantly, the fact that there was a 3-5 page requirement for the story.
See what I did there? How much did that story matter to the point I was making? Did you need another example past that of the paper that teachers require you to write? If you didn't read that last paragraph, would you not have understood my argument?
This feeling of needing to write more when there's not much more to write is the exact feeling that occurs when there's a (relatively) high word count requirement for things. It is understood that this requirement is considered to be needed for blocking people from spamming low content stuff, but there's no need for it to be 250. 100 would be enough. One argument to the contrary was that people would post filler for the 100 word count. How is that different from a 250 word filler? The higher requirement only serves to block potential participants.
And that brings me to my next point. While I don't know if anyone actually didn't post a user card simply because they felt they couldn't write 250 words, I will say that I considered not entering solely because of the 250 word requirement. It wasn't that I didn't have an idea I felt was good. It wasn't that I thought I couldn't balance it. It was the word count requirement. And this leaves me to wonder how many people are discouraged by word counts every competition.
I'll take this time to make a second example, this time necessary. (in my opinion) Consider if I had typed out my argument in 2 paragraphs instead of this entire page. Assume that it was what was noted in the OP plus a couple of extra points. You'd still see my point of view no? How necessary was it for me to type all this? If I had typed mostly filler instead of actually trying to make points, how likely would you be to actually read this entire post from start to finish?
I'll add more as I think of them, thank you.
P.S. All of that said, I AM for a 100 word requirement. Sort of as a compromise.
TL;DNR
There's no need for a high word count requirement. For those that can write, it's not a problem. For those that have trouble, it ends up being low content compared to word count. Word count may also stop people from participating in competitions cause they can't write a lot. Not having much to say ends in fluff. Also, points can be made concise and to the point like this TL;DNR paragraph.
