[EM] Comments re Robert's Rules of Order

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:55 PM 8/4/2005, RLSuter at aol.com wrote:
>Some questions you need to answer. (1) assuming that Lomax is
>more familiar with RONR than Suter, does that disqualify Suter
>from commenting on RONR? That's what you seem to imply.

I didn't see any such implication.

Sometimes, amazingly often, really, people do not realize what a discussion 
list is. If you post something on a discussion list, it invites comment. If 
it is an open list -- as this is -- everyone is "qualified" to comment, to 
argue, to debate, to criticize, or to agree.

However, this kind of qualification does not say *anything* about the 
intrinsic qualification of the writers. On the internet, in particular, 
many cues are missing that you would see in person. That's good and bad.

If someone such as Mr. Suter posts something which others, who have years 
of study and experience behind them, see as being based on a shallow 
impression and little experience (whether they are right or wrong), it is 
utterly unsurprising that this would be pointed out. Does this mean that 
Mr. Suter is "disqualified" from commenting? Absolutely not.

Discussion lists give everyone the opportunity to be foolish in public, and 
thus, if they desire it, to learn from their foolishness. Displaying one's 
ignorance in public, in fact, is the fastest way to learn. Unless the real 
purpose of writing in public is to establish oneself as smart and 
deep-thinking, rather than to learn. In which case the writer is likely to 
resist education to the bitter end.

And we see both kinds of responses all the time.

I came onto this list a relative election-methods newbie. I've received 
quite an education here, and I am still *far* short of an expert. This does 
not stop me from voicing my opinions here; for if I am right, everyone 
benefits, and if I am wrong, *everyone also benefits*, for if I have a 
wrong opinion, it is likely that others do as well. Many of these others 
will be too shy to express their opinion, so by allowing myself to pipe up 
in a public forum, I benefit them as well as myself.

When the traffic in this forum gets to the point that the expression of 
ignorant opinion here is a significant burden, there are ways to deal with 
this problem; indeed, the whole FA/DP concept is an answer, for which see 
the wiki

http://beyondpolitics.org/wiki

In short, however, an FA/DP-like solution to the problem would be to create 
another list, a beginner's list. Or maybe more than one such list, if there 
is enough beginner's traffic to warrant it. There would then be what might 
be called an expert list. This list would be moderated, though there would 
be a community of experts (and advanced students) who could post directly 
to the list without moderation. Anyone else could read the list, anyone 
else could even post to the list, but the post would be subject to 
moderation. Note that there would be many moderators, plus any member of 
the list who has direct posting privileges could forward a post *if that 
member agrees it is appropriate for the list.*

I have certainly not described all the details, most notably how one comes 
to have privileged status, for details see the wiki above and think of a 
privileged member as someone who has attained a certain level of trust in 
the community, or who is accepted by the community of people who already 
have this level of trust.

It is a hierarchy that is built from the bottom, not from the top....

>(2) Lomax writes a lot more words than Suter. Are you saying
>that all of Lomax's words make sense and none of Suter's do?

Why ask such silly questions? Quantity of words have nothing to do with 
sensibility or cogence. I write a lot because I have a lot to say. Someone 
else either has nothing or little to say, or has the ability to edit 
quickly. I've actually been a professional editor, but that does not make 
editing easy. It takes quite a bit of time.

Someone else who said what I have to say in fewer words is either a better 
writer or has the leisure to edit or has the luxury of an editor. I'd 
greatly prefer any of these options to my present condition. And none of 
this makes what I have to say more sensible or less sensible than what 
others say.

>(3) Is it possible that you haven't read Suter's words very carefully?

Possible but unlikely. Far more likely that Mr. Suter is the pot calling 
the kettle black. Quite often he has shown that he hasn't read what was 
written to him.

I'm not Linus Pauling and I'm not Richard P. Feynman, but I did sit in 
their classes. Suppose someone like one of them were to see some writing of 
mine and were to, without revealing their status, write a detailed 
critique. What an opportunity it would be! Yet, if I were offended that 
someone actually had the audacity or arrogance to criticize my writing, I 
would be very likely to lose the opportunity.

It's up to you. Learn or continue to die.

>(4) Is it possible that your biases in favor of RONR are preventing
>you from carefully considering Suter's words?

Sure it is possible. It is also quite unlikely. If I turn on the light 
switch, it is possible, indeed not terribly uncommon, that the light will 
not go on. But I don't usually think much about it. I'll think about it if 
a sign appears, such as the room remaining dark.

I also trust that this is a large public space. If someone is saying 
something here that I'm missing, and my criticism shows that, it is 
*highly* likely that someone else will jump in an show me the error of my 
ways. So far, that hasn't happened on this issue, though it has certainly 
happened many times. This is the value of public communication, indeed.

Bill Wilson, founder of AA, once wrote, "We are all crazy, but we are not 
all crazy at the same time." So, if we can trust each other, those who are 
not crazy can help those who are crazy get through the periods of craziness....

>  (5) Is there any
>chance in hell that Suter may be at least partly rignt and you
>and/or Lomax may be at least partly wrong,

About what? Certainly I have acknowledged, many times, that RONR is not 
always the best method for a particular application. And I have never said 
that it is the best general method, only that I don't know of a better one. 
So about what would I be partly wrong. Mr. Suter has not actually said. 
Instead his line of approach has become a general attack on what he sees as 
an arrogant position. It's in his head!

>  or are you so
>absolutely certain about the near infallibility of RONR

Nobody has called RONR "nearly infallible." Merely quite good.

>  that you
>refuse to consider that any but very minor occasional revisions
>of RONR will ever ever be needed, no matter what voting method
>researchers and meeting process researchers and creative
>meeting organizers may ever discover?

Once again, I'll remind Mr. Suter of what I wrote before: he is advancing a 
straw man argument. Since he has not responded before to this charge, could 
it be because he does not know what a "straw man argument" is?

What if Mr. Suter is ten years old? Would we not all be amazed at his 
perceptiveness and powers of argument?

Certainly I know nothing about Mr. Suter personally. But if he is my age, 
and he is not already well on the way to losing it completely -- and he 
doesn't write as if this were the case -- shame on him. Wake up, Mr. Suter! 
You don't have a lot of time left.