So today we had a pretty extensive practice focusing on [@mention:577352400502155145] Cert. Prep kudos to [@mention:527948166491091727], [@mention:577211662873788485], [@mention:498251187806746638] and Dathane Turner for making this happen
> "what's the harm?" or "what's the objection?"
A but of a nuance but important After the question of "Do you see any reason this Proposal [...]" when someone says "Objection" it's better to ask "what's the harm?" or "what's the objection?". I personally like to focus on the harm as it is the Tension underlying the Objectors Objection thus more essential but at the same time to Secretary need to note down the Objection in the scratchpad. Maybe it would be best to ask both questions at some point?
> misbehaving during A&C
We had a situation when the Proposer got irritated and "thanked" for "sh**ty feedback" during the A&C. For one it might have been a signal the Proposer has not been protected enough and it is always good to keep reminding via time-out's that in Reaction Round we need to direct our reaction at a space not at the Proposer which might help to manage the tensions. Should the facilitator intervene in such instances? In my opinion, no as he facilitates the process not the people. Similarly when someone want's to babble during Reaction Round he gets enough time for him to feel inadequate and start self-reflection.
> uncertainty if something is an NVGO or not
We had an Objection coming from one of Participants that the Proposal as it is is an NVGO. The Facilitator was not sure and he ruled that it is not. Who should make that call? Section 3.4.1 of the Constitution says "Secretary Interpretation Trumps", does that mean that when not sure the Secretary should decide and thus not allow (invalidate) an NVGO-based Objection from the Participant?
Thanks in advance and have a great day!