Hmm, interesting question.
You weren't too bad, you did a lot to explain the game mechanics to people who didn't click through and read the link, even when said explanation didn't directly contribute to the point you were trying to make.
Being concise is difficult in that you're trying to efficiently explain something, while also not leaving out important details necessary for you to be understood (i.e. keeping the inferential distance short).
Knowing what the audience knows often helps in terms of what can be left out.
What I generally do is write something, then revise it to make it shorter, which typically involves:
trimming out unneeded grammatical constructions (like "you did a lot towards the goal of" -> "you")
rearranging syntax to make the statement more clear (in general, the subject of the sentence should come first, as well as the inferentially closer parts of the statement)
general futzing about with the words until you think they're arranged better
Knowing a specific term for something also makes it easier to express without needing to reexplain all of it every time you use it.
Today's post, The Martial Art of Rationality was originally published on November 22, 2006. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. It is the first post in the series; the introductory post was here, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.