Interruptions and timekeeping (follow the Ed)

[Gary c Tesser]

Following up on discussion thread of OP Rev Ed, http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/21593-interruption-to-debate-time/

 

I was going to follow up on Mr Honemann's post #6, which says that RONR says what Nancy N., in post #5, expresses as her preference, that the timekeeper should stop the clock (arguably on direction of the chair, or his own spunky initiative).  Since I myself don't see where the rules say so, though I'm glad to learn that they do, I was going to then ask where the book says so, or which lines to read between. To my regret, the irrepressably irrepressable OP, The Edness One, requested that the thread be closed, and it was.  So I'm asking, please.

[Josh Martin]

Following up on discussion thread of OP Rev Ed, http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/21593-interruption-to-debate-time/

 

I was going to follow up on Mr Honemann's post #6, which says that RONR says what Nancy N., in post #5, expresses as her preference, that the timekeeper should stop the clock (arguably on direction of the chair, or his own spunky initiative).  Since I myself don't see where the rules say so, though I'm glad to learn that they do, I was going to then ask where the book says so, or which lines to read between. To my regret, the irrepressably irrepressable OP, The Edness One, requested that the thread be closed, and it was.  So I'm asking, please.

 

You won't find it in the book itself. Such details are covered in the Timekeeper's Guide article on the CD-ROM edition.

[Guest Edgar]

Let's end the discussion now.

To my regret, the irrepressibly irrepressible OP, The Edness One, requested that the thread be closed, and it was.

 

Who knew that was even an option?

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

Not only was it closed, but my thoughtful and carefully crafted response was truncated from the end.

[Gary c Tesser]

Not only was it closed, but my thoughtful and carefully crafted response was truncated from the end.

 

Do you think you might could maybe reproduce it somewhat, please?

[Dan Honemann]

Following up on discussion thread of OP Rev Ed, http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/21593-interruption-to-debate-time/

 

I was going to follow up on Mr Honemann's post #6, which says that RONR says what Nancy N., in post #5, expresses as her preference, that the timekeeper should stop the clock (arguably on direction of the chair, or his own spunky initiative).  Since I myself don't see where the rules say so, though I'm glad to learn that they do, I was going to then ask where the book says so, or which lines to read between. To my regret, the irrepressably irrepressable OP, The Edness One, requested that the thread be closed, and it was.  So I'm asking, please.

 

What is it in RONR that makes you think that if a speaker is interrupted for some reason while speaking in debate, the clock should not be stopped?

[Gary Novosielski]

Do you think you might could maybe reproduce it somewhat, please?

I fear the wrath.

[Gary c Tesser]

What is it in RONR that makes you think that if a speaker is interrupted for some reason while speaking in debate, the clock should not be stopped?

 

That would be the absence anywhere of any reference, or implication, to stopping the clock. -- with the possible exception of p. 295, lines 11 - 12, since -- um, maybe -- we must infer that if the person with the floor chooses to allow the interruption, which is taken out of his own time, then the clock has been stopped until the moment that he makes that choice.  But that's an awfully stretchy extrapolation, and I doubt it is inferred by most of even the most careful of readers, nor especially extrapolated to all, or even any, other interruptions.

 

Or we could again lean on the last four words on p. 299.  But while they are ever fresh to pollyannas like Dan and me, it may strain the patience of the more cynical or, um, literal.

 

OH, and look, you scared the poor New Jersey kid.

[Dan Honemann]

That would be the absence anywhere of any reference, or implication, to stopping the clock. -- with the possible exception of p. 295, lines 11 - 12, since -- um, maybe -- we must infer that if the person with the floor chooses to allow the interruption, which is taken out of his own time, then the clock has been stopped until the moment that he makes that choice.  But that's an awfully stretchy extrapolation, and I doubt it is inferred by most of even the most careful of readers, nor especially extrapolated to all, or even any, other interruptions.

 

Or we could again lean on the last four words on p. 299.  But while they are ever fresh to pollyannas like Dan and me, it may strain the patience of the more cynical or, um, literal.

 

OH, and look, you scared the poor New Jersey kid.

 

Rather than looking to the reference on page 299 to the demands of justice, I'd suggest that greater attention be paid to the references on pages 139 and 449 to the employment of a little common sense in the interpretation of rules.

 

When a speaker has been interrupted while speaking in debate (which may happen for a number of reasons), he is obviously no longer speaking in debate. The notion that the clock nevertheless continues to run against him, just the same as if he was still speaking, is simply absurd. Members are allotted a certain amount of time to speak in debate, and a member is not speaking in debate while waiting for another member to state his point of order, or raise a question of privilege, or whatever. It is, of course, for this very reason that it was necessary to specifically provide that, if a speaker consents to yield to another member for a question, the time consumed by that other member in asking the question will be charged to the speaker (p. 388, ll. 18-20).

[Gary c Tesser]

 a little common sense

 

Leaning on that for a while, now, are we.