Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

2

Xesau wrote

Welcome to Raddit, Doormouse_Jessup! To reference a forum, please use f/name_of_forum instead. Using r/ won't work ;)

On topic:

Against. Robert's Rules work in a speech-based parliamentary environment, but do not quite apply to a text-based environment that is f/parliament.

1

Doormouse_Jessup wrote

Correction noted.

I disagree. The initial, basic structure which was proposed with motions, etc. (the side bar) is straight out of Robert's Rules. Additionally, Robert's Rules have been used for quite sometime by a variety of organizations including (but not limited to) Labor, Communist, etc. not to mention actual, non-internet parliaments.

Points such as points of interest and points of privilege allow fellow members an opportunity for clarification.

The ability to Call the Question allows debate to end in the event a troll or similar disruptor attempts to sideline debate.

These mechanisms are within Roberts Rules. Having been in many conventions or similar situations, the first rule is to establish the rules. As the structure is presently defined, it would appear that debate would have the equivalent weight as a PoL or Motion. It is my position that if a deliberative heirarchy is not established from the outset, the purpose of the parliament will not be met. If Robert's Rules were to be utilized, a member could put forth a motion where a "proposal of law" is explained. Then, the motion could be debated and voted on. As I see it, the present structure of the parliament is not appropriately structured to make decisions. For example, a debate is a means to an end - to establish a consensus (within the context of a parliament) - not just to simply argue or discuss an issue. A parliament is a deliberative body and, as such, should adhere to a structure that encourages that purpose.

Having said that, Robert's Rules do not need to be adhered to specifically. As the rules, as I see it, have not been fully established, they can be appropriately be modified in such a fashion as to facilitate deliberation online. For example, organizations may limit debate for 5 minutes. Online, that might be translated to 5 days, for example. Voting could be based upon the upvotes but a deadline would need to be established. I may have a basic set that was used by one of my Unions (I'm a wobbly but am unwilling to disclose my other Union) that I could post as a basic example.

2

Xesau wrote

The initial, basic structure which was proposed with motions, etc. (the side bar) is straight out of Robert's Rules.

It's not. It's straight out of Dutch Parliament, which is a lot older than Roberts Rules.

As for the need to be able to call the question, it is practically non-existent. If a troll decides to disrupt the debate, that troll can be ignored, his message can be removed, or he may be banned. Giving a stage to these kinds of people is only counterproductive.

the purpose of the parliament will not be met.

This parliament has no purpose (yet). If that is bothering, put forth a motion.

Also: Roberts Rules only work when:

  • you can interrupt eachother
  • the group of people who can vote is known, to establish a majority
  • there is a chair present always throughout the debating

As you may see, all three of these conditions are impossible to meet in an online discussion.

1

tnstaec wrote

We should have a healthy skepticism of parliamentary procedures developed for/by the state. The consensus model has been preferred by the various horizontal mass movements of the last decade. It would be better to take a well-thought-out survey of different models that have been developed before formalizing one for Raddit.

And as other users have hinted, models that work well in face-to-face organizations won't necessarily work for an internet form.