"Robert's Rules of Order" has been cancelled. Welcome!

I favour a special technical fix to the problem of people interrupting during reasoned and civil discourse: everyone involved gets outfitted with a special little shock device that delivers a painful but harmless jolt if they speak out of turn. The device gets administered by a genuinely impartial AI that immediately detects the speech patterns of all participants -- their sonogram having been cooperatively supplied, of course -- and delivers an instructional shock to those who have not yet been entrusted with permission to speak but fain even do so. 

This realisable initiative directly implements watching-the-watchers and reduces representational inefficiency; there is no technical barrier to it whatsoever. It is said by the people of this time that there are “free speech zones”. Let there then by discourse zones which cleave to a higher standard than can obtain in unsupervised utterance, with such a temporary and voluntary loss of liberty as would approximate that in an ordinary working environment. No draconian imposition need accompany the initiative, anymore than necessarily results in the course of customary restrictions on individuals in cell-groups of society such as private employment or military service. 

I favour the application of this device to all televised media discussions reaching a minimum threshold of states/provinces/regions wishing their discussion to be thought serious -- and also to all parliamentary debates -- so that the media receives firm and diligent attention at last! at last! in the administrative order. Moreover, no one enters parliament without putting their civil-discourse-bracelet on, with removing it automatically resulting in a felony charge.

Indeed, there is no need even to put people on trial when the evidence is directly perceptible and assiduously recorded data. The number of times people get shocked for talking over others becomes, of course, a matter of public record; and if there are too many of them, they are excluded automatically from all representative bodies, including corporate boards and PTAs. 

The negation of conversational behaviour has never before in human history been so susceptible to direct control as now.  An entire strand of communications behaviour, such as talking-over or engaging in gossip, can simply be deleted. A person such as a gossip or a shrew or cultist could actually be directly administered wherever the shrew-etc-finding algorithm noticed their signature pattern. Of course, one is not advocating the universal extension of this procedure but only signalling the operational parameters at hand. The matter is rather to affect designated discourse and representation than to implement direct control of the citizenry, just as a social credit score for society's public servants need not be a general score for all.

Let me tell you, we would have some of the most civil public discussions in the last ten thousand years. People would still lie like crazy, act variously bestial, have disparate views, slouch, etc. But they would be subdued whilst they were about it. Robert's "Rules of Order" is BROKEN. It cannot manage lawless beings properly, so that they can be trusted; existing standards of discourse cannot be trusted for such sensitive matters as mass media and representative bodies. 

We have an everything bubble, a financial and robotic and ecological and demographic and migrational and foreign policy and energy and everything-in-general crisis at our doorstep! And certain types of uncivil discourse should seriously no longer prevail in public discourse. We cannot afford them who are in penury, being at the apparent threshold of imperfect storm.