First names vs other descriptors

[Guest Hanging_around]

In a meeting where many violations of the Rules of Debate and Decorum are already taking place, (and have been, for a very long time) in a group that has not been following or been prompted much (yet) to take the Rules of Order seriously, how important is it to implement the suggestion/rule of not to use first names (or names at all?) rather than another descriptor? How important or beneficial can this be?

Right now, nobody calls the president "Mr President" they call him by his first name, and do likewise to each other as well. I feel that in these meetings, the casualness and general attitude that Robert's Rules only have to be 'sort of' followed has led to the meeting conditions that are currently happening (many rules broken, personal attacks launched, etc).

Along with stricter enforcement of the rules in general, would taking the step of enforcing the 'no names' rule help such a group to de-personalize their thinking and interactions?

Would taking things into that realm of formality be beneficial, and can anyone give any examples of how it has helped bring an unruly group any of you have observed to greater order?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I don't see how following the rules would hurt in such a situation.

[Guest Hanging Around]

I don't see how following the rules would hurt in such a situation.

Thank you, any suggestion as to how to help this transition go smoothly?

From using names to not using names?

[Edgar Guest]

Thank you, any suggestion as to how to help this transition go smoothly?

From using names to not using names?

 

Your questions seems somewhat ironic since you've chosen not to identify yourself by either a first or a last name.

 

Should we refer to you as Mr. (Ms.?) Around or, more familiarly, as Hanging?

[Guest Hanging Around]

Your questions seems somewhat ironic since you've chosen not to identify yourself by either a first or a last name.

Should we refer to you as Mr. (Ms.?) Around or, more familiarly, as Hanging?

I would think it would seem perfectly natural to remain nameless...

[Dan Honemann]

Have you attempted to determine whether or not other members of your group feel the same way about this as you do? If you have, and other members agree with you that something needs to be done, what efforts have you (collectively) made to convince more of your members to join with you in doing something about all these rules being broken, personal attacks being launched, etc.?

[Richard Brown]

How many members usually attend the meetings of this organization?

 

It seems to me that the size and the preference of the group should be a factor.  Generally, at least in my experience, larger groups operate with more formality than smaller groups.   In small clubs and in many board and committee meetings, the members remain seated and often refer to each other by using first names.  This seems to me to be a situation where one size doesn't necessarily fit all.   Personal attacks, however, should not be tolerated.

[Guest Hanging Around]

How many members usually attend the meetings of this organization?

 

It seems to me that the size and the preference of the group should be a factor.  Generally, at least in my experience, larger groups operate with more formality than smaller groups.   In small clubs and in many board and committee meetings, the members remain seated and often refer to each other by using first names.  This seems to me to be a situation where one size doesn't necessarily fit all.   Personal attacks, however, should not be tolerated.

5-7 people typically.

I feel that calling someone by their first name does not put respect for their role in the meeting in the proper place (like the President, for example), and when things are casual, it can lead to the rules of decorum being breached quite often, at least that is what I have seen. Also rude remarks spoken aloud as well as a mocking tone when dealing various members including the president have been a common occurrence at almost every meeting, which I find unacceptable.

I just feel a measure of actual formality might bring things into the right space.

 

Also, what this group wants to is to not really have to follow the rules of order, they never have had to before, and they probably will not be very happy with finally having to uphold what is dictated in their by-laws, so what they want, I'm not sure is very important ultimately.

Having a productive meeting without intimidation, rudeness, and personal attacks is what is important to me personally.

[Josh Martin]

Also, what this group wants to is to not really have to follow the rules of order, they never have had to before, and they probably will not be very happy with finally having to uphold what is dictated in their by-laws, so what they want, I'm not sure is very important ultimately.

How is it not important? You can't force the society to follow the rules by yourself. Unless you can get more members on your side (ideally, enough to get a majority vote), then your cause is hopeless.

[Edgar Guest]

5-7 people typically.

 

You might find this recent thread, which also seems to deal with a group of 5-7, instructive. For all I know, it might even be the same group.