Greetings!

As a Candidate for Parliament, I propose that we adopt the use of Robert's Rules of Order (which maybe found online in PDF format), as the means for conducting governmental business in groups? 

I agree with Ms. Lockhart that the Parliament use Robert’s Rules Of Order. I propose that the Parliament be polled after all the seats have been filled in order to find MPs who are familiar with the Rules. Then, vote for a parliamentarian.

I like much of Robert's Rules yet I believe that with being a strongly online community that there are some parts of it which should be changed in order to keep up with the times.

I honestly feel that rather than have something designed for groups of people meeting in person a system should be developed with built-in functionality to handle the rules of our engagements. I feel that a wholly digital nation with people operating in 13 languages from 200~ countries should keep in mind that not everyone is going to be speaking English. A system that has these options and voting mechanics (or an app) that allows us to propose things / call for recess would be useful. 

Furthermore, it could be possible to build in a majority voting system. Let's say, for instance, someone wanted to call a recess - the cohort votes on the proposal and the majority rule passes. 

I suppose that my principle point is that our 'gut reaction' shouldn't be to go for something that is established we should first think "will this meet our needs as a digital nation. Is there a better way for us" Asgardia isn't destined to be an imitation of government, but an innovation of it. 

I agree with Ross for the most part, which is why I think that a voting system that is more secure needs to be developed, such as something similar to a secondary verification process used in blockchain cryptocurrency transactions.

I disagree with Mr. Cheeseright.  I believe at first we should use an established system of order.  While we will not be meeting in person, the Rules are still effective. In the future, the system can be changes to fit the Parliament's needs.  

since this was already discussed for a few days I see my points have already been made - I vote no, because I believe only some of robert's rules suitable, so we should not use all of them.  I believe that together we can improve roberts rules for a digital/space age.

update: I now also see that Robert's Rules could help to establish an elitist parliament, in that it will be an advantage to those who have used it before - I would beg the people to remember the constitutions intentions are that anyone can be in the parliament, I feel Robert's Rules support a bias and should perhaps be mixed equally with many other forms of discussion, and perhaps not even used at all.... this topic requires much much more discussion and I urge all others vote "no" since now the ones who voted can no longer change - what kind of archaic system is that, that you cannot change your mind, what are we computers or humans who make mistakes?

Update 2: don't make me rethink my stance on our censorship Sven - though they are actually very intelligent points

I too will make my vote public at a NO because I want the people to know what I voted and why:

A) It is antiquated

B)I have used it before and also dislike the name Robert

D)I don't like things always having a planned structure when opening things to debate, freeform is more emotionally pure to my Higher Self

5)I don't want to leave out our great Arabic mathematicians

$)Not everything has to make sense in order for it to work 

After having read Roberts rules, I do not find them fitting to the upcoming Asgardian parliament. Those rules are fine for a grassroots assembly, not for an "electronical parliament". 

The german pirate party is using software to manage their electronic meetings and delegate assemblies. I can contact them for further infomation, if someone is interested.

I agree rules of order are necessary and will vote in the affirmative, though I find the Citrine rules a bit more concise and less prone to procedural abuse to quell debate. I'd also like to encourage those voting no, that the point of Robert's Rules and Citrine Rules are to establish ways of managing a large meeting, such as may occur via Skype or on the forum to allow all members chances to speak on issues without monopolizing time. Clearly the fact that we primarily interact online would mean the rules would need to be adjusted for our method of communication, however, I feel this goes without saying and isn't sufficient reason to vote against them. Also keep in mind these rules don't tend to apply to issue that go to committee where they may be discussed more freely without a rigid structure.

To the Question :  

Should we use Robert's Rules of Order to conduct the Business of Government?

I vote  NO

I would prefer a newer way of managing engagements.

Towards this end, i think we should take into consideration that there should be a submission mechanism to each person to offer their proposals in whatever language they feel comfortable with, a way for it to be translated to a common / other languages and ability for a response from valid participants to that proposition.  

Multiple proposals must be allowed to be in parallel and each one has an isolated lifetime from any others and may end in a decision or not, via a simple majority vote.

We should forget about the current limitations of having "lunch breaks", "tea breaks", etc as we are all electronically linked from all time zones and participants can join , partake and leave at any stage of the life cycle of a proposal or discussion.

Kind Regards

Ben Dell

I agree - the nature of political business should be constructed around web connectivity. We can't expect everyone to be able to match time zones, for example.

I agree with Ben Dell,Sven,Chris ...Ialso think that at the beginning of the discussion it would be good to refer to the rules of Robert, or the relative link. It is not prudent to suppose that every one knows them. Please inform us. thank you.