If it means writing texts *in* the conlang rather than

> just *about* the conlang the term seems ill-chosen to me, as my
> second hypthesis as to its meaning was 'someone who justs writes
> lexica and similar and not texts in the conlang'. Also I doubt we
> need such terms; they smack of social stratification/value
> judgments among conlangers based on how/how extensively they use
> their langs or use as opposed to other activities.

I agree the term "conlex" sounds like the development of a massive
dictionary without a grammar to go with it, or perhaps an effort at
relexing a natlang. Rather strange, indeed, but I'm not sure what the
proper term would be.  Conwriters?

I can't speak for the facebook group but I don't believe the creation of a
term for conlang "users" implies judgement on other conlangers who are not
interested in developing a language for translating large volumes of text.
Instead, a term for conlangers who generate large volumes of text in their
conlangs seems no different, value-wise, than terms for conlangers who try
to model linguistic evolution in alternate histories, or who develop
sophisticated phonologies, or who produce experimental sketches.

I would probably qualify as a "conlang user" since I keep my diary in
Angosey, but I don't feel that it makes Angosey (or me) superior to
conlang(ers) utilizing smaller lexicons.  Generating lots of Angosey text
is how my creative process works, and how I solve problems in vocabulary
and grammar.  As a result, probably 90% of the text is "obsolete" because
the language has evolved away from it.  Not terribly efficient!