Robert's Rules of douchebaggary

May 01 2012 Published by under [Education&Careers], [Et Al]

Yes, we are all very impressed. You've clearly spent a lot of time memorizing Robert's Rules of Order and delight in "running" a meeting according to said document. Given your 15 minutes to shine, you're not going to let discussion of a matter not directly related to the proposed amendment of the friendly amendment happen on your watch. Oh. No.

So stifle productive discussion with a call of Out of Order! Crush proposals that do not follow The Rules. If only they let you use that gavel you so awkwardly and inappropriately brought with you, there would be no dissenters. This is not a discussion centered on productively moving new policies forward. It's a fucking meeting!

7 responses so far

  • Wait, really?! They don't outgrow that type of childishness after undergrad?!

  • aprofessor says:

    I dunno, man -- frequently I wish for MORE use of Robert's rules, not less. The whole 'herding cats' problem of faculty in a meeting . . .

  • Mordecai says:

    Have you considered mic checking him?

  • Hermitage says:

    It can be just as painful being in a meeting with someone who ruthlessly administers Robert's Rules of Order as being in a meeting with no rules at all. Thankfully grad students have no effective hierarchy, so I can be like 'dude wtf get on with it,' when shit hits the fan. I QQ to envision the day I achieve my n00b dream of being a n00b prof, where I will have to stfu while the grownups pontificate.

  • Lab Rockstar says:

    That sounds awful. Nothing chaps my ass like useless meetings run by Vogons. Except maybe useless meetings that turn into dick-measuring contests.

  • proflikesubstance says:

    This was not a meeting that required excessive control, it was rolling along just fine prior to the Roger's Intervention. When rules of order facilitate things without being obtrusive, that's one thing, but when their observance makes the meeting useless it is a whole other animal.

  • andy says:

    or even better, when the meeting dissolves into arguing about how to interpret the rules - not how should *we* interpret them for our needs (which people actually could agree on) but what is the *correct* interpretation

Leave a Reply