*** VOTE ON BABBLE PROPOSAL ***

Yes, M. Spector - The hard hitting investigative journalism, internationally recognized activism, and legacy inspiring essays that regularly appear on babble are going to change the world forever! So we shouldn't be nice to each other, because god knows that manners are reactionary fascist bullshit.

 

The internet - it's serious business.

not back down from presented misogyny?

;bigeyes:

Papal Bull wrote:

The hard hitting investigative journalism, internationally recognized activism, and legacy inspiring essays that regularly appear on babble are going to change the world forever! So we shouldn't be nice to each other, because god knows that manners are reactionary fascist bullshit. 

Many of the posters here provide far more indepth analysis of reality than anything we'll ever see in the mainstream media, regardless if it consists of links to other independently minded journalists, or through providing their own thoughts.  Very little of the issues of the day if any, will change or be understood in context through newspapers or TV anchors.  If we consider that much  of what we witness here from posters equates to bonafide citizen journalism, then it isn't much of a stretch to conclude that it is not the job of journalists to be nice.  We get enough of that embedded dynamic between MSM and power.  There seems to be an unwritten code in the mainstream as well, whereby for the most part, the respective scribes and talking heads do not challenge their collegues viewpoints and editorials because of professional courtesy, but put out their own spin which winds up sounding all to familiar from one to the next.  A few nasty snarks here and there, perhaps mutual dislike on various levels based on challenging ones turns of phrase , a small price in my estimation.  Far more stomach wretching is the hour by hour corporately driven propaganda.

Aye for me. 

 

 

Quote:

 And, if it's out of order, we don't vote on the amendment.

Absolutely. An amendment that tries to counter the original intent is out of order. For example - "Moved that we do "X".  Amendment: Change the word DO to DON'T - "moved that we DON'T do "X". Out of order. 

Unless someone challenges the chair.  Which I'm NOT doing. 

One group I was active in used to do decision making online (maybe they still do). Not exactly the same as babblers because it was a defined committee and everyone knew what quorum was and who got to vote. However, what they did was have a certain open period for discussion of the proposal (e.g. 5 days). Once that was done, there was a certain time frame for voting (e.g. 2 days). In this case, we're voting and discussing at the same time which makes it clunky and next to impossible to amend. 

But I appreciate Unionist's efforts to make this a better place to discuss the substance of issues with less focus on process and tone. 

No, not so clear cut but I think it's probably still "out of order". 

We could always consider using "Bourinot's Rules of Order".