Steeves Posted May 22, 2013 at 10:18 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 at 10:18 PM I am truly trying to understand the questions and responses posted in this thread.At times the responses seem to conflict. I have read and re-read everything suggested. I have served as a Sergeant-At-Arms and Parliamentarian since high school on various boards. How does locking a thread help me or anyone? Should I have started a new thread? .http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/19098-parliamentary-abuse/ Respectfully. Steeves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted May 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM I think posting your bylaws was the 'kiss of death" for the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 at 10:48 PM I am truly trying to understand the questions and responses posted in this thread.At times the responses seem to conflict. I have read and re-read everything suggested. I have served as a Sergeant-At-Arms and Parliamentarian since high school on various boards. How does locking a thread help me or anyone? Should I have started a new thread? .http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/19098-parliamentary-abuse/ I suspect our esteemed moderator concluded that the thread was rapidly veering into Bylaws interpretation, a situation that I suspect I did not help with my comments about the rule pertaining to meetings. You can try making a new thread so long as you contain your questions to RONR. As for the conflicts, I suspect that's because many of us (myself included) were unclear on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeves Posted May 22, 2013 at 11:03 PM Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 at 11:03 PM Thank you 1st Church and Mr Martin. I posted the bylaws for the convenience of those that were responding/reading the thread. I also stated I was not asking for interpretation of the bylaws. http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/19098-parliamentary-abuse/?p=100375 I felt frustrated when I got a response "depending on what your bylaws state", and I would post the bylaw, which in several cases, only added more questions. If someone had asked me to take it down, rather then Guest_Edgar (bless his heart) making a passive comment on the board about locking the thread, I would have done so. Guest_Edgar could have sent me a message. Unless he can't, because he is only a guest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeves Posted May 22, 2013 at 11:08 PM Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 at 11:08 PM I suspect our esteemed moderator concluded that the thread was rapidly veering into Bylaws interpretation, a situation that I suspect I did not help with my comments about the rule pertaining to meetings. You can try making a new thread so long as you contain your questions to RONR. As for the conflicts, I suspect that's because many of us (myself included) were unclear on the situation.Which is why I posted the bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeves Posted May 22, 2013 at 11:10 PM Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2013 at 11:10 PM LOL!Even the joke I made was deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 23, 2013 at 01:15 AM Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 at 01:15 AM Which is why I posted the bylaws. The bylaws are not what I was confused about, but the facts of the situation. In particular, the original post sounded like the general membership had adopted a motion to remove the board member in question, but later posts brought this into question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted May 23, 2013 at 05:37 AM Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 at 05:37 AM Probably 1stCurch's "I think posting your bylaws was the 'kiss of death" for the thread," Post 2, says it. But I do think that the rest of the posts here make legitimate points.Steeves:"I felt frustrated when I got a response "depending on what your bylaws state", and I would post the bylaw, which in several cases, only added more questions."Understandable frustration ... but, although this is the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum, we limit our parliamentary forumism (or forumocity or forumicity, take your pick; or, perhaps more formally, forumlocution) here to discussing the Rules in RONR, except, for example, when, as Mr Martin flagitiously suggested on the thread (pointing with monstrous injustice to my really innocuous Post 29), we think we can get away with it.I myself would have preferred, instead of locking, that the post containing the bylaws have been deleted, with a simple statement saying that it had been deleted and reminding posters to stick to RONR. Wouldn't have been much trouble, barely more effort than locking the entire thread, but I but the moderator was somewhat out of his head worrying about maybe being awakened from now on by his 40-or 50-year-old grandchildren jumping up and down on his bed at 5 or 6 every morning shouting Grampa! Grampa! and wanting to read to him the RONR forum overnights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeves Posted May 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 at 11:42 AM Thank you all!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.