While I love the idea and I applaud you for taking the time to do that, it seems a tad impractical.
---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > My Copy of RONR11 would also suggest that it is a point of > order, given that it is a custom > > of the Assembly. > > > > ----Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > >> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > We >>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:16 AM Benjamin Schultz < > ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote: > need >>>> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin < > ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > more >>>> > sides >>>> > in >>>> Minor point of order for new folks: > this >>>> > thread >>>> We've historically promoted bottom-posting for replies > (with editing of past > so >>>> thread pieces allowed). Unfortunately not > well-supported by current email > let's >>>> clients. I mildly prefer bottom-posting for things like > judicial threads with > think >>>> counter arguments. Ultimately, I don't mind either way, > but the combination of > out of >>>> different people using both bottom and top-posting makes > these longer threads a > the >>>> bit challenging to follow :) > box. >>> > >>> > -G. >>> Nitpicking point of procedure: > >>> > >>> You raised a point of personal privilege, having to do with > ease of or impediments to > >>> participation, instead of a point of order, a breach of > procedure. At least according > >>> to RONR10, and Agora by custom follows S&N. > >> > >> Given that it affects everyone, wouldn't it be a point of the > privileges of the assembly > >> (a point of privilege affecting the assembly, depending on > where you look)? That's what > >> my copy of RONR11 seems to suggest, although I may well be > misinterpreting it. > >> > >> -Aris > >
