Posting Policies

1.0 AMR versus Commons. AMR has no posting policies. Commons is moderated. All posts go to AMR initially, but only some are good enough to get into Commons. Only posts that are relevant to the Commons mission will be allowed through. If you want a message to go to Commons, make it substantive and Wittgenstein-relevant, whether pro or con. Consider a post to the Commons to be like receiving a recognition of some sort. Below are some additional standards that would exclude a post from being considered in Commons.

1.1 Endless Cut Ups . If there is a thread that is too "ongoing," the ongoing part of it may stay in AMR. Also, if a post is theoretically Commons-worthy, but is written in a way that cuts up another person's mail, it may not be presentable enough. We like paragraphs. And we really like writers who know how to compose them.

2.0 Interference . Discuss only the idea, not person. Never talk about your poster's character, habit, credentials or capacity. Talk only about the idea being stated. For example, never say "You cannot understand anything!" Say instead, "That idea is once again flawed." Never say, "You keep raising all of these irrelevant diversions." Say instead, "the matter is once again immaterial." If you do come to believe that your discussant has a ridiculous or deficient propensity to offer poor contributions -- and even if you are correct -- you only have two options available. (1) Avoid discussing with the person altogether (abstinence). Or (2), address ONLY why the IDEA is foolish. Never extend your point to say anything about the person's capacity or propensity for understanding something (even if it is true).

Note that this is a rule of relevance, not morality. We are not trying to create a "Mary Poppins" environment. People are allowed to be intellectually dismissive and harsh with ideas. Such is the nature of intellectualism -- it can be blustery and arrogant. But we simply have not created this forum to make assertions about discussant behavior or capacity. This is an irrelevant line of inquiry. Also, it only leads to replies that are like in kind, which makes for a very poor discussion environment in the long run. That's really the key to the rule: does your comment invite a substantive reply or does it box the person into making a jab in reply? Avoid jabbing.

Note: This rule applies only to your discussant and list members, not to members of other lists, lists or things themselves, or to big-name philosophers. If you want to say, e.g., "Derrida is a fool" -- by all means do so.

2.1 Dissing Without Showing . You are not allowed to "diss" a discussant's idea without supplying a summary showing of the problem. Examples of dissing: "That's stupid!" "What nonsense!" "That's the dumbest idea I have ever heard." Statements such as these are not allowed unless they are accompanied by a summary showing of why the idea is ridiculous. So the format of the diss must be: "For reasons [a] [b] and [c], the matter you have asserted is nonsense." Or, "That's the dumbest idea in the world, because [a] [b] and [c]." This gives the other person room to argue one of two things in reply: (1) that [a] [b] and [c] are not sufficient to diss the idea; or (2) that your dissing is itself stupid for reasons [x] [y] and [z].

2.2 Curmudgeonry . Curmudgeonry occurs when someone becomes overly negative or ill-mannered toward an opposing set of ideas, and they offer repeated posts only to "hit" or "swipe" the idea whenever it appears. The key here is that the behavior is REPETITIVE and SWIPING. Example: On more than one occasion, someone posts, "There are those dumb ideas again, which we know are absurd and nonsense, and which I wholeheartedly disagree, and that we all know so-and-so would never endorse." What then accompanies the curmudgeonry is something inadequate to establish any of the propositions the curmudgeon asserts. It is the specious accompaniment, however, that makes dissing-without-showing inapplicable. In essence, this rule is dissing-with-poor-showing, done on a repeated basis, with built-up negativity toward a view that is thought to be a sort of "enemy view' in the curmudgeon's mind. Note: the post can be repaired by simply removing the curmudgeon part. Or it can just remain in Wittrs-AMR, which has no standards. And note also that the curmudgeon is free to establish even his curmudgeonry with a substantive and rich offering showing support for the curmudgeonrous idea. This probably should be done in separate thread since it will amount to a kind of "proof" rather than a hit or swipe.

2.3 Proselytizing . Proselytizing is closely related to curmudgeonry. The difference is that Proselytizing is the view the curmudgeon likes. I would strongly argue that anyone who proselytizes something must, by definition, be a curmudgeon for the thing that opposes it. Proselytizing occurs when someone repeatedly asserts a position without showing "discussion potential" on the matter, meaning the matter operates as a kind of faith that controls him or her. Once again, the key is REPITITION and an inability to discuss. We all have faiths. We all have passions. The question is whether these things can be discussed without resort to dissing-without-showing, curmudgeonry, rhetoric, fiat in assertion (a priori), "the world is against me" sort of thing. The status of “proselytizer” is only given by examining a string of posts (never a single one). If a post is rejected for “proselytizing,” the member has to offer a more substantive account of the position or be content with the view staying in Wittrs-AMR, which has no standards. Note: if the proselytizer does offers a more substantive account, it should be its own thread. [Note: one of the key things that makes one NOT a proselytizer is that they cease discussion themselves when they see it is unproductive (won't convince anyone). Proselytizers and curmudgeons are always, it seems, looking for the last word].

2.4 Deadlock . Occasionally, a discussion may become "deadlocked." If people continue to beat a dead horse, those posts may stay in Wittrs-AMR.

2.5 Unhelpful Discussion . Occasionally, a post may be offered that is simply unhelpful. It may be cryptic. It may be too enthymematic. It may be too rushed. It will therefore stay in Wittrs-AMR unless the author wants to attempt a better version of it.

2.6 Correcting English Grammar. Do not correct the English grammar of another person on the list. Email groups are such that people type on the fly. Spelling is irrelevant anyway.

3.0 Trash Quoting . Do not leave huge segments of your discussant's mail in the body of your reply. Leave only what is necessary. Pay particular attention not to leave a huge block of message below your signature. If that stuff is not being replied to, please delete it before sending. The reason for this policy is that it makes reading the message board problematic. The message board will already place your message below the one you are replying to, so there is no sense to repeat large segments.

3.1 Cross Posting . Cross-posting from other lists (outside of Wittrs) is generally now allowed. The preferred practice is to compose a fresh email for us. Therefore, you can important a discussion from another list, but you must write a fresh one to us that tells the group what the discussion is and why it is being offered.

4.0 Banning (sort of). Violations of the rules result in being confined to Wittrs-AMR (naughty naughty).

5.0 Public Archive. Wittrs has a public archive. You can't delete your posts from many of our fora. Please keep this in mind whenever you elect to contribute something.

6.0 Membership. Wittrs-AMR does not have a membership requirement. But the only people are allowed in Wittrs-Commons are those who: (a) are inspired by, knowledgeable of, or curious about Wittgenstein; and (b) see Wittgenstein as a polar star in the intellectual universe. Part (b) simply means that one finds Wittgenstein's ideas to be important and substantial to intellectual culture, even if they happen to disagree with them or see his thoughts as mistaken. So the only way you are permitted to be here is if you fit (a) and (b). (Please note that we make exceptions for people who are just curious about Wittgenstein. Such persons obviously could not meet (b)'s requirements). The only people who we exclude from membership, therefore, are people who dislike Wittgenstein personally or believe his ideas foolish and irrelevant, or who don't know anything about his ideas and are content staying that way. That's why we are called "Wittrs." We formed ourselves as a group because we believed that Wittgenstein-learned and appreciative people make a more insightful discussion environment (when talking about anything at all).