I’m not trying to argue responsibility

Simply, I feel there is probably fair reason for that rule besides this situation, aka in the instance of attempting to defame or shame a committee member inappropriately (as opposed to here where it would ? Be appropriate ?) Basically, personal attacks are generally destructive and derailing to discussion. I feel confident this rule of order wasn’t established to avoid culpability in a situation like the one above. That’s a side effect.

Feeling as I do, that it is probably better that personal statements are prohibited from government/legal sessions, because of good reasons (cmon, think a little) - i first cant get too outraged by what happened and second cant advocate that personal statements be allowed. So in this scenario where I find myself, the answer is to find an answer - another path to the same or a similar end - rather than just get mad that someone trying to do something informative and whistle-blow-er-y got in trouble because while so doing, they also ran roughshod over the established rules of governance.

This ain’t calvinball here son and even if it were? Your name ain’t Calvin.