Debate was over an hour, and some of the no votes from SD17 occurred because people were confused and were not going to vote "yea" on something that confusing. The SREC and several of the more experienced delegates did there best of educate those that were confused, but I estimate at least 20% of the SD17 no votes were because of that reason alone.
Regarding the Roberts Rules, like I posted before, I will let the experts on RRO fight it out (I am NOT one of them).
I thought it was extremely close (in fact, I think they took the voice vote twice). What I didn't understand was this extreme aversion among delegates to take standing votes. I mean, the sighs were palpable when anyone suggested it. This rule in particular was important, whether one was for or against it in its amended form. It takes 30 seconds -- I told the SD15 leadership that I was unhappy with the sneaky manner of the process even more than the outcome.
Also unfortunately, I agree with jf55510 that the wording was imperfect. The ultimate function of a good chair is to explain what is being voted on, and when s/he is uncertain, to defer to the parliamentarian or to a member of the rules committee (this was never done) to explain the intent and ramifications of any change. Our SD15 chair and rules member were both eminently gifted at both. It's a shame that Sen. Shapiro, either b/c she had her agenda or because she was insufficiently skilled in parliamentary procedure, muddled the debate more than clarifying it.
BTW, SD15 was mostly for keeping the term limits. ("You're telling someone they can't vote for someone -- that's undemocratic," said someone in the caucus.) We voted largely for the Rule 43 compromise. I personally was against the motion to combine 40-42 -- I thought the items were different enough to consider separate without creating an inconsistent outcome since they do address different positions.