Criticism is an important part of debate and discussion. But, our goal is to learn collectively so criticism should reflect that goal. It should be both constructive and respectful.

-- StephenClarke - 25 Jan 2008

N+1: An author should indicate, where relevant,
A. What stage of completion his post is at (e.g. early draft, late draft, final), and
B. What form of critique he prefers (e.g. none until edited, answer the questions only and/or put other critiques on a new thread, suggest improvements).
N+2. Respect those requests.
N+3. As soon as JustinColannino is no longer editing this document, someone can assign a value to N and delete N+3.

-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

I think that most of the non-Gradman norms so far pretty much boil down to what most of us would consider (construct as, sure) common sense.

However, I disagree with Andrew's drafting protocol (though as a practical matter I am sure people will respect such requests if they're reading carefully enough). The RSS and e-mail update notifications--even WebChanges--are a lot more useful if you draft your work in its own place (your computer, another web service, the Sandbox, or where-have-you). Why not wait to post until you're ready for people to reply?

-- DanielHarris - 25 Jan 2008

Some folks WANT a burger and fries without a soda, an HP without ink cartridges, a lift ticket without insurance. If you'll predict whether my half-baked ideas have a future, I'll withdraw the ones that don't, and save us both the misery.

For example: now I won't tell you what rule N+4 was. (Hint: it violates rule 3)

-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

Rule N+5: No prior restraint.

-- AndrewGradman - 25 Jan 2008

I was not actively listening. In the land of active listeners, apparently I'm a revolutionary AND an illegal immigrant--a Lenin, who came to exploit a captive audience. I figured the TWiki would listen to me more actively than the classroom, and I thought the classroom sovereign had forged my passport.

It's scary to know that someone's going to refactor my words, I'm not gonna lie. It's painful for the writer to read what the readers were actively listening to. My flourishes will never survive translation, and they'll probably obfuscate my ideas as well. Lenin would have spoken more carefully had he known how his spokesmen refactored his words, but he got lucky and died.

I'm tempted to revise with that in mind. But I won't, because refactoring will be as much of an active listening lesson for the writer as for the refactorer, and I came to law school to learn to write.

-- AndrewGradman - 26 Jan 2008