In the case of the Carrier motions, Carrier was only able to find two people to support them -- that is, himself and one other person. If there had been a standing rule that protected any motion with, say, 10 supporters from being OTC'd, he might possibly have been able to find 10 supporters for his motion to change the zone rotation system, or his Incompatible Activities Amendment, but certainly not for the one to ban any Worldcon from being held within 100 km of Robert Sacks' home. There are only so many people willing to sign their name to a resolution whose consideration would be damaging to the organization -- and the more people who sign on, the less likely it is that the motion's consideration really would be damaging to the organization.

(I was going to say "outright foolishness" instead of "damaging to the organization," but that's not the same thing.)

Any restrictions on OTC would presumably be done via a standing rule rather than a constitutional amendment -- so presumably they could be changed from year to year and thus fine-tuned until some satisfactory balance was achieved.

-- J. Kreitzer