Submitted by Richard Harrison
Sometimes during a discussion, it becomes pretty clear that no decision that everyone can live with is going to be made, even if it does get to a vote. There are several things that can be done at that point, and depending on how the meeting got there, the facilitator or a member from the floor can suggest which one to go with.
Remembering that a failed motion can only be revisited under special circumstances (see the section "The Passed is the Past ... Unless"), no one who makes a motion wants to see it defeated if it was presented without all the arguments in its favour made or the arguments against it answered. And no one wants to defeat a motion on incomplete evidence.
So if all a discussion about a motion needs is more time or information before the decision about it is fully informed, that motion can be either Tabled or Postponed at the will of the meeting. These two actions have the same result in the short-term: discussion about the motion stops. In the longer term, they are different.
Tabling a motion sends it off the agenda for an indefinite period of time -- maybe forever. But a tabled motion (Or, in Robert's actual words, "a motion laid on the table"), can be returned to discussion at any time in the meeting in which it was tabled -- again, at the will of the meeting. It's a kind of suspended animation with no fixed return-to-life hour within the meeting. However, the motion must be taken off the table in the next meeting, or it vanishes.
To table a motion, a motion to table needs to be made, seconded, and passed without debate with the simple majority of 50% plus one. There is one side-note here, and Robert’s Rules takes quite a bit of time with it: tabling is meant to help a group organize a discussion; it shouldn’t be used to cut off debate or consideration of a question. In such a case, the facilitator is tasked with calling the motion out of order.
Postponing a motion is putting it into suspended animation with a fixed time for its return. So a motion to postpone has to include a date or time for the discussion to resume -- even if that discussion is only to further postpone the motion to another time in the future. It requires a mover, seconder and, under normal conditions, after a debate on the merits of postponing, a simple majority vote. (In some cases, a motion needs postponing because it has become too large an issue to be discussed in the time allowed. In that case someone might move to postpone the motion and treat it at the next meeting as special motion – something to devote more than half the meeting to. And in that case, the vote required is 2/3.)
Sometimes it's clear that a motion doesn't have the support of the meeting or some argument against it is so persuasive that even the person who made it no longer believes it's right. I think it's possible to argue that that is discussion demonstrating its best properties. In such cases, out of respect for the meeting's time and thought, the maker of the motion might want to withdraw it from discussion. With the consent of the seconder of the motion, the motion is withdrawn, discussion on it ends, and the meeting can move on to other matters.
I've seen all three exit points for a discussion used in meetings, and each of them saves the meeting from discussions that are no longer grounded in the motion itself or could have led to those sorts of debates where everyone, even their winners, loses the goodwill of the meeting or the group.