Rules are not unique to polyamory. The exact same instincts of control and ownership which are involved in monogamy are carried over into our polyamorous relationships. All of these requirements of when people have to meet, how much they are allowed to share before hand, how "close" they are allowed to become before taking certain steps, are simply methods of control. We are trying to control the actions of our partners and their partners through fear that, if we don't we will be harmed.
No, no, a thousand times NO!
Look, this may not fit into YOUR model of what polyamory is and YOUR way of doing things, but please don't presume to extrapolate that on the rest of the poly community and make such sweeping judgements.
A group relationship, for me, is a team. We are all working together in some way (some more closely with others, some more distantly) to make things work. There has to be a degree of co-operation, and an ability to problem-solve together so that life is just not chock-full of drama.
For one person to single-handedly bring someone in, and expect everything to work somehow magically, with this new person functioning seamlessly as part of that team is highly unlikely. You can increase the chances of that being successful if everyone is involved in the decision-making process to the degree they wish, rather than one person being arrogant enough to make decisions for everyone else in the group.
So agreements are put in place (which you can call rules if you want, but for us they are agreements) that everyone involved in the group has some input into whether someone new is going to 'fit". In practice, this usually means finding out whether there are any "show-stoppers" that the others can't see for some reason. It is a
co-operative, joint decision and we have all agreed on that process. And this means that it's everyone in the group, not just a chosen few.
Also, it's a two-way street - doing this before anything gets too involved allows the new person to meet everyone involved and know exactly what they are getting into, rather than keeping everyone hidden until folks are in deep and THEN realising that there's someone already in the relationship that is going to cause unmitigated chaos in their lives. Nobody deserves that.
If you see this is as control based out of fear, then, frankly, I wonder what paradigms you are living by.
These rules creep me out - it all just sounds like marriage.
OH, so you are anti-marriage?
I am curious as to what you define, then, as "marriage", because I know term means different things to different people - for some it's a legal thing, for others monogamy, and for still others, a group marriage. For me, it means long-term committed relationships - things that should neither be entered into, nor cast aside lightly, but done with forethought and agreement of all involved, rather than everything done on whims of the individual and everyone else being forced to accept it or move out...
You appear to see this sort of set-up as being too
dependent on each other, and this is harmful. It seems to me like you are advocating
independence for all involved, and that that would work best. (Am I right so far?) What I am advocating, instead, is
interdependence - the whole being greater than the sum of the parts - the ability for the group collectively to make a better decision than any individual in it.