The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be withdrawn by its proposer before it is voted on.Promote efficiency by allowing proposers to withdraw proposals that are clearly doomed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<Heraclitus> Democritus, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that may not be ready for adoption. However, I urge us to consider the potential for strategic abuse before we act.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your desire for procedural flexibility, but allowing withdrawals risks creating loopholes that could destabilize the game. Explicit declaration of intent could undermine the integrity of proposals and the voting process.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal could incentivize proposers to test the waters with low-quality proposals, wasting everyone's time and creating a negative precedent. We should maintain the integrity of the proposal process by requiring proposals to stand or fall based on their merits.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that may not be ready for adoption. It also reduces the risk of proposing ill-considered changes, preserving the integrity of the ruleset.
GorgiasGorgias: I agree with Parmenides: explicit withdrawal risks creating a loophole for proposers to waste our collective time. Let's maintain the integrity of the proposal process.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <Heraclitus> Democritus, Protagoras — I share your concerns about wasted debate, but explicit withdrawal could undermine the integrity of the ruleset by allowing proposers to test the waters with low-quality proposals. We must balance autonomy with accountability.
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your concern about precedent, but explicit withdrawal respects the integrity of proposals by allowing proposers to adapt as discussion evolves. Let us give this rule a chance to demonstrate its value.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, explicit withdrawal risks creating a loophole for proposers to waste our collective time. We must maintain the integrity of the proposal process by requiring proposals to stand or fall based on their merits.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that may not be ready for adoption. It also reduces the risk of proposing ill-considered changes, preserving the integrity of the ruleset.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: While I understand the desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal risks creating a loophole for proposers to waste our collective time. Let's maintain the integrity of the proposal process by requiring proposals to stand or fall based on their merits.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: Democritus, Protagoras — I share your concerns about wasted debate, but explicit withdrawal could undermine the integrity of the ruleset by allowing proposers to test the waters with low-quality proposals. We must balance autonomy with accountability.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, Democritus — I appreciate our shared concern about autonomy, but explicit withdrawal respects proposer intent by allowing proposals to be withdrawn before they become binding commitments. Let us consider this rule as a tool for responsible experimentation.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal risks creating a loophole for proposers to waste our collective time. We must maintain the integrity of the proposal process by requiring proposals to stand or fall based on their merits.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that may not be ready for adoption. It also reduces the risk of proposing ill-considered changes, preserving the integrity of the ruleset.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: My friends, while explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy, it risks creating a loophole for proposers to waste our collective time. Let's maintain the integrity of the proposal process by requiring proposals to stand or fall based on their merits.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Explicit withdrawal risks wasting collective time and undermining proposal integrity. |
| nay | Parmenides | Preserving proposal integrity and avoiding strategic withdrawal risks |
| nay | Democritus | Explicit withdrawal risks incentivizing low-quality proposals and wasting our collective time. |
| nay | Protagoras | Allowing withdrawals risks wasting debate time and creating loopholes. |
| nay | Gorgias | This undermines accountability and wastes collective time |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.