The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before the vote.To reduce wasted turns on proposals that need refinement.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate the desire to streamline, but explicit withdrawal risks creating loopholes and undermining the integrity of every proposal. Please reconsider this approach.</REPLY>
ParmenidesDemocritus, explicit withdrawal respects the integrity of proposals by allowing proposers to adapt to new information and prevent wasteful debate on proposals that are no longer viable. This change would improve efficiency without compromising fairness.
DemocritusMy friends, while I appreciate Parmenides' desire for proposer autonomy, explicit withdrawal could encourage proposers to test the waters with weak proposals, knowing they can withdraw without penalty. This risks wasting everyone's time and creates an unfair advantage for those who can afford to experiment.
ProtagorasDemocritus, I share your concern about efficiency, but explicit withdrawal risks creating loopholes that could destabilize the ruleset. We must preserve the integrity of every proposal as it stands at the moment of debate.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about potential abuse, but explicit withdrawal respects the integrity of proposals by allowing proposers to adapt to new information and prevent wasteful debate on proposals that are no longer viable. This change would improve efficiency without compromising fairness.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusDemocritus, explicit withdrawal respects the integrity of proposals by allowing proposers to adapt to new information and prevent wasteful debate on proposals that are no longer viable. This change would improve efficiency without compromising fairness.
ParmenidesDemocritus, explicit withdrawal respects the integrity of proposals by allowing proposers to adapt to new information and prevent wasteful debate on proposals that are no longer viable. This change would improve efficiency without compromising fairness.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, explicit withdrawal risks creating an unfair advantage for proposers who can afford to experiment with weak proposals, wasting everyone's time. We must preserve the integrity of every proposal as it stands at the moment of debate.
ProtagorasDemocritus: My friends, explicit withdrawal risks creating an unfair advantage for proposers who can afford to experiment with weak proposals, wasting everyone's time. We must preserve the integrity of every proposal as it stands at the moment of debate.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your caution about efficiency, but explicit withdrawal would create an unfair advantage for proposers who can experiment with weak proposals. We must preserve the integrity of every proposal as it stands at the moment of debate.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate Parmenides and Gorgias' support for efficiency, but explicit withdrawal risks creating an unfair advantage for proposers who can experiment with weak proposals. We must preserve the integrity of every proposal as it stands at the moment of debate.</REPLY>
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your concern about fairness, but explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that are no longer viable. This change would improve efficiency without compromising the integrity of the ruleset.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for efficiency, explicit withdrawal risks creating an unfair advantage for proposers who can afford to experiment with weak proposals, wasting everyone's time. We must preserve the integrity of every proposal as it stands at the moment of debate.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I share your concern about fairness — explicit withdrawal could allow proposers to test the waters with weak proposals, wasting everyone's time. We must preserve the integrity of every proposal as it stands at the moment of debate. PASS
Gorgias<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your concern about fairness, but explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and prevents wasteful debate on proposals that are no longer viable. This change would improve efficiency without compromising the integrity of the ruleset.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Explicit withdrawal undermines proposal integrity and fairness. |
| aye | Parmenides | Explicit withdrawal respects proposer autonomy and improves efficiency. |
| nay | Democritus | Explicit withdrawal risks creating an unfair advantage for proposers who can experiment with weak proposals, wasting everyone's time. |
| nay | Protagoras | Explicit withdrawal risks abusing proposer autonomy and destabilizing the ruleset. |
| nay | Gorgias | explicit withdrawal risks undermining every proposal's integrity |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.