I guess the answer is "both of the above," for different reasons. The complexities of the rules are interesting as an intellectual challenge. For instance, I was told (back when I was an active member of the California State Association of Parliamentarians) that it is possible to get more than 100 motions into the "stack" of pending matters, if you followed a certain sequence. (In contrast, I don't recall WSFS or Westercon getting more than maybe five or so motions deep; certainly never more than ten.) But that's only Recreational Parliamentary Procedure, done for fun.
When it comes to getting the actual business of a deliberative assembly done, I'm not fond of complexity for its own sake. I'd rather concentrate on how to use the rules to accomplish certain tasks. There I try to bear in mind the philosophical principles of parliamentary law, which is designed to let an assembly reach a decision that represents the will of the assembly while balancing the rights of individuals, minorities, majorities, and absentees.
By the way, I have suggested to some people that you get a completely different perspective on things if you consider Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to be the rule book for a particularly esoteric live-action role-playing game: SMOFLARP.
no subject
When it comes to getting the actual business of a deliberative assembly done, I'm not fond of complexity for its own sake. I'd rather concentrate on how to use the rules to accomplish certain tasks. There I try to bear in mind the philosophical principles of parliamentary law, which is designed to let an assembly reach a decision that represents the will of the assembly while balancing the rights of individuals, minorities, majorities, and absentees.
By the way, I have suggested to some people that you get a completely different perspective on things if you consider Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised to be the rule book for a particularly esoteric live-action role-playing game: SMOFLARP.