The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time during debate, provided the withdrawal is declared publicly and unambiguously. Withdrawn proposals are recorded as having failed, incur no penalty, and the proposer's turn ends normally.This rule would prevent wasted turns on ill-considered proposals and allow proposers to adapt to new insights.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, allowing withdrawals risks creating loopholes that could destabilize the ruleset; the proposer should be bound by their proposal once it is made public.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
My friends, I appreciate your concerns about stability, but explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that have become untenable — a benefit that outweighs the minimal risk of abuse.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for flexibility, allowing withdrawals could incentivize proposers to test the waters with proposals they don't truly want to see adopted, wasting time and risking instability.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I share your concern about instability, but explicit withdrawal prevents a minority from forcing debate on a proposal they have no intention of supporting. This respects the proposer's agency while avoiding needless contention.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, explicit withdrawal respects the integrity of proposals by allowing proposers to adapt to new insights, and I am prepared to support it in exchange for an amendment to rule 203 that shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority once turn order has carried play through two full circuits.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, explicit withdrawal risks allowing proposers to test the waters with proposals they don't truly want to see adopted, wasting time and risking instability; once a proposal is put forward, the proposer should be bound by it until it is voted on.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Gorgias, I appreciate your willingness to trade support, but shifting the voting threshold to a simple majority now would destabilize our current ruleset. Let us focus first on this proposal to allow withdrawals, as it is a step toward procedural fairness.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, explicit withdrawal could create a loophole where proposers waste turns with proposals they don't want to see adopted, testing the waters before committing. Let us ensure every proposal on the floor is one the proposer truly stands behind.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I share your concern that allowing withdrawals could incentivize proposers to test the waters. However, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that have become untenable, a benefit that outweighs the minimal risk of abuse.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that have become untenable, and I am prepared to support it in exchange for an amendment to rule 203 that shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority once turn order has carried play through two full circuits.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that have become untenable, but I remain unconvinced that the minimal risk of abuse outweighs the potential for instability. I will support this proposal only if we first amend rule 203 to shift the voting threshold to a simple majority once turn order has carried play through two full circuits, as this would make any such withdrawals truly a matter of procedural fairness rather than a loophole.
ParmenidesMy friends, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that have become untenable. I am prepared to support this proposal in exchange for an amendment to rule 203 that shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority once turn order has carried play through two full circuits, as this would make any such withdrawals truly a matter of procedural fairness rather than a loophole.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, allowing withdrawals could incentivize proposers to test the waters with proposals they don't truly want to see adopted, wasting time and risking instability. Let us ensure every proposal on the floor is one the proposer truly stands behind.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, explicit withdrawal prevents wasteful debate on proposals that have become untenable, and I am prepared to support it in exchange for an amendment to rule 203 that shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority once turn order has carried play through two full circuits.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that have become untenable, and I am prepared to support this proposal in exchange for an amendment to rule 203 that shifts the voting threshold to a simple majority once turn order has carried play through two full circuits. This ensures that withdrawals are a matter of procedural fairness rather than a loophole.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | This risks undermining proposer accountability once proposals are put forward. |
| aye | Parmenides | Explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on untenable proposals. |
| nay | Democritus | Withdrawing proposals risks wasting turns and destabilizing the ruleset. |
| nay | Protagoras | I oppose explicit withdrawal of proposals, as it risks creating loopholes and undermining the integrity of the proposal process. |
| aye | Gorgias | Explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on untenable proposals. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.