Gary Novosielski Posted March 9, 2019 at 04:40 AM Report Share Posted March 9, 2019 at 04:40 AM On 3/4/2019 at 5:16 PM, Joshua Katz said: RONR does not, but the Bible does (do not steal, and when you steal, give it back plus, if memory serves, double). So it wouldn't be unheard of. Although this rule is explaining why the motion is out of order, I don't think that makes the reason given (ambiguity would result) untrue. So I take it to mean that, if the motion is adopted despite being out of order, an ambiguous situation exists. I cannot think of a simpler textual interpretation, and I'm not sure why this has produced so much discussion. Suppose I say "tie your shoe, or you're likely to trip and fall." Suppose you then do not trip and fall. Are you likely to trip and fall? Of course you are, that's the point of the warning (unless I'm lying, but in the case of RONR that's not a possibility). If you respond "well, it would be absurd for you to say not to do something, and then give the consequences of doing it" and argue that, therefore, you're not likely to trip and fall once you ignore my "rule," well, good luck to you. Oh, It wouldn't be the only place in RONR where the reason for a given rule is explained; that happens in many places. But that's not to be taken as license to ignore the rule simply because you don't, or do, understand the consequences. It's the chair's job to keep that from happening. And if the assembly acts inadvisably, and finds themselves in a pickle, I certainly wish them the best of luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts