Doormouse_Jessup wrote

WHEREAS it has been established that a standardized means for communicating motions hasn't been established and

WHEREAS a standardized means for proposals needs to be established, and

WHEREAS that observations can be included in the WHEREAS sections and

WHEREAS that additional proposals and conclusions can be included in "IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED" sections and

IT IS RESOLVED that the proper means for motions follow the "WHEREAS" AND "IT IS RESOLVED" model.

The fundamental thing I am trying to point out here is that the basics of what is being proposed (things like "order of the day", etc.) are established and outlined in Roberts Rules. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.


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.