Paul, I assume you are referring to RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 25-28: "the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions, speak in debate, and vote, which are basic rights that may be curtailed only through disciplinary proceedings." Therefore, the assembly cannot make a motion "That Mr. X may not speak for the rest of the meeting." However, the lines immediately preceding that citation read "while generally applicable limits on debate and the making of motions may be imposed by motions such as the Previous Question" (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 22-24). Thus, it is in order to cut off debate for all members, rather than singling out an individual. Since the rule is generally applicable, it is a rule protecting a minority, not a rule protecting an individual member. There is a balance that must be struck between the rights of the minority and the rights of the majority, and therefore, "Only two thirds or more of those present and voting may deny a minority or any member the right of such discussion." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. xlvii) This general rule also applies to the Previous Question. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 192, line 24) Since this is a rule that protects a minority, not a rule protecting an individual member, it is suspendable by a 2/3 vote or by unanimous consent. While the chair was incorrect in failing to call for a vote, this does not meet any of the conditions on RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244, lines 10-23. Thus, the general rule applies - that the Point of Order must be made at the time the breach occurs. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 243, lines 19-20)