D.Llama Posted March 9, 2016 at 05:54 AM Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 at 05:54 AM A motion to limit debate, for no longer than 30 minutes, is made on all pending motions - and carried .Pending are the main motion and the motion to postpone indefinitely . A motion is then made to amend the main motion . Is the motion to amend in order ? If it is- is it subject to the motion to limit debate to no longer than 30 minutes ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 9, 2016 at 08:50 AM Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 at 08:50 AM Yes, a motion "To Amend" outranks the pending motion, "To Postpone Indefinitely." Yes, any motion made while the clock ticks for a limit of debate will continue to tick off seconds from the time period. Put another way: A motion To Amend won't extend a 30-minute limit of debate. At the end of 30 minutes, the chair will announce that debate is closed, and all the pending motions (analogy: stacked up like cafeteria trays on a spring-loaded cart) will be popped off the stack, and voted on, in ranked order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted March 9, 2016 at 01:55 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 at 01:55 PM It would not, however, be in order to move to commit or to postpone to a certain time, although I don't think that rule is often followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 9, 2016 at 06:52 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 at 06:52 PM Thank-you both . Mr. Potzbie - would the response be the same ( re amend ) were the motion to close debate carried rather than the motion to limit debate . That is- would the motion to amend be in order ? If not- what do you consider the RONR rationale for that ? Much Obliged . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted March 9, 2016 at 10:58 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2016 at 10:58 PM Closing debate is done by calling the previous question. This motion ranks higher than to amend, so amend would not be allowed, if the previous question is on the table. If the motion to call the previous question is not passed, then the motion to amend would be in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 10, 2016 at 06:02 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 06:02 PM 19 hours ago, Transpower said: Closing debate is done by calling the previous question. This motion ranks hire than to amend, so amend would not be allowed, if the previous question is on the table. If the motion to call the previous question is not passed, then the motion to amend would be in order. I'm struggling to determine which would be less rude -- to simply delete this post or to point out that it is irrelevant and all mixed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 10, 2016 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 06:16 PM On 3/9/2016 at 0:54 AM, D.Llama said: A motion to limit debate, for no longer than 30 minutes, is made on all pending motions - and carried .Pending are the main motion and the motion to postpone indefinitely . A motion is then made to amend the main motion . Is the motion to amend in order ? If it is- is it subject to the motion to limit debate to no longer than 30 minutes ? 23 hours ago, Guest said: Thank-you both . Mr. Potzbie - would the response be the same ( re amend ) were the motion to close debate carried rather than the motion to limit debate . That is- would the motion to amend be in order ? If not- what do you consider the RONR rationale for that ? Much Obliged . I don't understand the second question. A motion to limit the debate on all pending questions to 30 minutes is a motion to close the debate after 30 minutes, and amendments will be in order at least until the 30-minute period has expired. At the end of that period, amendments will be in order if — and only if — the motion to limit debate did not provide "that the vote then be taken", but any such amendments will be undebatable. (See RONR 11th ed., p. 194, l. 24 to p. 195, l. 5.) If you're asking whether amendments are in order after debate has been closed by an order for the Previous Question, the answer is obviously not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2016 at 07:23 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 07:23 PM 1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said: I'm struggling to determine which would be less rude -- to simply delete this post or to point out that it is irrelevant and all mixed up. This is an unfortunate response and does not at all speak well to those who should know far better . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 10, 2016 at 07:25 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 07:25 PM 2 minutes ago, Guest said: This is an unfortunate response and does not at all speak well to those who should know far better . OK, so we have one vote for "simply delete this post". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2016 at 07:33 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 07:33 PM A continuation of the same approach - not very helpful ! Editorial staff should try to rise above such comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 10, 2016 at 07:52 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 07:52 PM 15 minutes ago, Guest said: A continuation of the same approach - not very helpful ! Editorial staff should try to rise above such comments. So instead of acknowledging my efforts to answer your question, you're just going to gripe about the manner in which I choose to steer readers away from nonsense? That doesn't seem very enlightened to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2016 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 08:28 PM Not at all- efforts appreciated and that's for sure - yours and all others . But the ,earlier on , raising the notion of using "deletion" as a measure of response ( when no offence is meant by a question- or is offered to anyone) seems somewhat unproductive and harmful to all potentially interested users . If a post is "irrelevant or all mixed up " then the response should be to point out where the error lies . But expression of what is considered the "less rude" does not at all aid the person who in good faith asks- even a confusing question . That manner of response simply drives those who are respectfully looking for direction, away from the site . However, it certainly would be a different matter respecting those who are somehow seeking to abuse the site or any persons making use of it . I would not know, of course , but I cannot image the late General Robert be anything but the most patient and courteous of hosts and I would speculate that he would prefer to see all things related to Roberts continue on in that fashion . But this is a matter of taste and tone and certainly it is for those who power the wheels of the Forum to decide on approach taken . Thank-you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2016 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 08:41 PM Mr. Gerber : I do expect I owe you some apology - and make that now , for I see on further review that it was the " Mr. TRANSPOWER" response that attracted your reply of maybe should "delete " ,and not the question initially posed at the start of this thread . However , what I have expressed above stands re General Robert -even as an unauthorized agent for the " Mr. Transpower" contribution . That is so because the Forum ( and any helpful Forum- such as this one ) should always emulate the " high road" in my view and not anything but .Thank-you . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 10, 2016 at 08:51 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 08:51 PM 7 minutes ago, Guest said: Mr. Gerber : I do expect I owe you some apology - and make that now , for I see on further review that it was the " Mr. TRANSPOWER" response that attracted your reply of maybe should "delete " ,and not the question initially posed at the start of this thread . However , what I have expressed above stands re General Robert -even as an unauthorized agent for the " Mr. Transpower" contribution . That is so because the Forum ( and any helpful Forum- such as this one ) should always emulate the " high road" in my view and not anything but .Thank-you . Apology accepted. And you're right -- the delete button is something to be used when appropriate, not something to be flaunted by the moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2016 at 09:06 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 09:06 PM 30 minutes ago, Guest said: Kudos Mr . Gerber - faith fully restored ! In 2005 I bought you a lunch in Manhatten- but that was a long way back.and unlikely to be at all - recalled. In addition , since that time you have become one of the RONR illuminati - with all so much more to remember . But please do allow - Kudos for you - on that score as well ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 10, 2016 at 09:27 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 09:27 PM 14 minutes ago, Guest said: 51 minutes ago, Guest said: Kudos Mr . Gerber - faith fully restored ! In 2005 I bought you a lunch in Manhatten- but that was a long way back.and unlikely to be at all - recalled. In addition , since that time you have become one of the RONR illuminati - with all so much more to remember . But please do allow - Kudos for you - on that score as well ! I surely do remember having a meal with you, including the complaint you expressed then that the last sentence of the disclaimer inside the front cover of RONR In Brief is not quite legitimate. ("Outrageous" is what I think you called it, but I wouldn't swear to that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2016 at 09:33 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2016 at 09:33 PM LOL "as my children text" - I'm coming to Manhattan with my son in June - Mets- Fathers day game and sights of the City - if possible, would be fun to make other "complaints" directly to you (at lunch/coffee) in your new editorial role for RONR . Be WELL ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.