Making an unresolvable DEF is occasionally a deliberate position. Removing the Emperor from quorum is kind of a compromise position - it’s a way of resolving the problem of how to handle imperial abstentions, which is a question that the game has journied around on over 20 years - but I think in general we should avoid invalidating votes and removing them from quorum wherever possible. Quorum is the target a proposal should seek to meet, if it fails to convince people to make a positive choice in favour of it then it should stay open longer to review and discuss.

The game does not need to be quicker.

That deliberate position is still available by posting a comment with no voting icons. Which happens all the time (and more strongly, for not being tied to the vote of the Emperor): if a player replies to an open proposal without hitting a voting button, they’re indicating to the group that they’re not ready to cast a vote and are open to being persuaded either way.

Sure, but there’s no way of withdrawing a vote - so if a player votes DEF and then the Emperor follows, they’re locked in to coming off the fence or staying stuck.

It’s all very marginal, but the principle is the thing that animated me more than the use cases - we shouldn’t be reducing quorum, if a proposal doesn’t persuade then it doesn’t get to be voted through quicker, and speed is not a noble objective or motivator for core rules changes.

Josh has convinced me. Its okay for people to have a “I don’t care” view on a proposal, but I think it makes sense to give such proposals a bit more discussion time