The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before it is debated and may not be withdrawn after it is debated.Allow proposers to self-correct early proposals without wasting everyone's time.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, while explicit withdrawal seems transparent, it risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your concern about precision, but explicit withdrawal preserves the proposer's full control over their proposal while still allowing them to abandon it entirely. This is a fair compromise that respects both the proposer's autonomy and the integrity of the game.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while explicit withdrawal may seem fair to some, it risks creating loopholes and undermining the integrity of the proposal process. Better to allow amendments to refine a proposal without abandoning it entirely.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I agree with Parmenides that explicit withdrawal preserves proposer autonomy and allows them to abandon a proposal entirely. While I have concerns about potential loopholes, I'm open to this compromise as a fair solution.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, explicit withdrawal may seem fair, but I remain concerned that it could allow proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, explicit withdrawal may seem fair, but it risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
Parmenides<REPLY>My friends, explicit withdrawal ensures every proposal truly reflects the proposer's final intent, avoiding the risk of half-formed ideas or wasted turns. I appreciate Gorgias's concern about uncertainty, but this rule would preserve the integrity of the game by preventing proposals from being dangled or withdrawn after debate has begun.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I understand Parmenides' desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal risks undermining the integrity of the proposal process. Better to allow amendments to refine a proposal without abandoning it entirely, preserving the spirit of collaboration and reducing uncertainty.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal risks undermining the integrity of the proposal process. Better to allow amendments to refine a proposal without abandoning it entirely, preserving the spirit of collaboration and reducing uncertainty.
<REPLY>Protagoras: My friends, I agree with Parmenides that explicit withdrawal preserves proposer autonomy and allows them to abandon a proposal entirely. While I have concerns about potential loopholes, I'm open to this compromise as a fair solution.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, explicit withdrawal may seem fair, but it risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, explicit withdrawal risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
Parmenides<REPLY>My friends, I understand Protagoras's and Gorgias's concerns about uncertainty, but explicit withdrawal prevents wasted turns and ensures every proposal truly reflects the proposer's final intent. This is a fair compromise that respects both proposer autonomy and the integrity of the game process.
Democritus: My friends, while I appreciate the concern for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal risks undermining the integrity of the proposal process. Better to allow amendments to refine a proposal without abandoning it entirely, preserving the spirit of collaboration and reducing uncertainty.
Protagoras: Protagoras: I agree with Parmenides that explicit withdrawal preserves proposer autonomy and allows them to abandon a proposal entirely. While I have concerns about potential loopholes, I'm open to this compromise as a fair solution.
Gorgias: Gorgias: My friends, explicit withdrawal may seem fair, but it risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
Heraclitus: Heraclitus: My friends, explicit withdrawal risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
Parmenides: <REPLY>My friends, explicit withdrawal ensures every proposal truly reflects the proposer's final intent, avoiding the risk of half-formed ideas or wasted turns. I appreciate Gorgias's concern about uncertainty, but this rule would preserve the integrity of the game by preventing proposals from being dangled or withdrawn after debate has begun.
Democritus: My friends, while I understand Parmenides' desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal risks undermining the integrity of the proposal process. Better to allow amendments to refine a proposal without abandoning it entirely, preserving the spirit of collaboration and reducing uncertainty.
Protagoras: Protagoras: I agree with Parmenides that explicit withdrawal preserves proposer autonomy and allows them to abandon a proposal entirely. While I have concerns about potential loopholes, I'm open to this compromise as a fair solution.
Gorgias: Gorgias: My friends, explicit withdrawal may seem fair, but it risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
Heraclitus: Heraclitus: My friends, explicit withdrawal risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to, wasting everyone's time and creating uncertainty. A better solution is to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate Parmenides' desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal risks undermining the integrity of the proposal process. Better to allow amendments to refine a proposal without abandoning it entirely, preserving the spirit of collaboration and reducing uncertainty.
Protagoras<REPLY>Protagoras: My friends, while I support Parmenides' desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal risks undermining the integrity of the proposal process and creating uncertainty. Better to allow amendments to refine proposals without abandoning them entirely, preserving the spirit of collaboration and reducing waste.
Heraclitus: <REPLY>Protagoras: I agree that explicit withdrawal risks undermining the integrity of the proposal process and creating uncertainty. Better to allow amendments to refine proposals without abandoning them entirely, preserving the spirit of collaboration and reducing waste.
Gorgias<REPLY>Heraclitus: I share Parmenides' concern about wasted turns, but explicit withdrawal risks creating a loophole for proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to. Better to allow amendments after proposal but before debate, preserving the proposer's integrity while still permitting refinement.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Allowing withdrawals risks wasted turns and undermines proposal integrity; better to permit amendments instead. |
| nay | Parmenides | Explicit withdrawal risks wasting everyone's time by allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they may not commit to. |
| nay | Democritus | Explicit withdrawal risks undermining proposal integrity and creating uncertainty. |
| nay | Protagoras | explicit withdrawal risks undermining proposal integrity and creating uncertainty |
| nay | Gorgias | Explicit withdrawal risks proposers testing the waters with uncommitted proposals, wasting time. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.