The logic follows when you consider that only attacks are rewarded with points. Defenses are not, even if the positional result is the same.
Such a thing is a specious false dichotomy, though.
Only rewarding attacks is pretty typical in other grappling rulesets as well. Landing flat on your back on the bottom from standing scores against you in Judo only if it was the opponent's attack that did it. If it was your attack that caused it (failed sacrifice throw), there is no score. Once again, same positional result, two different scores. It's perfectly logical though when you realize the logic is based on attack vs defense.
There is criteria like that in greco-roman wrestling as well (you usually see it with arm spin attacks); a faulty logic that results in weird behavior. Competitors willingly putting themselves in bad situations, because they can trust that the rules will protect them, rather than protecting themselves.
If you gave points for returning to positions that you were already in, you could rack up mount points over and over just by shutting down escape attempts. So the incentive would be for the bottom guy to just shell up then since it's hard to escape and any failed escape would count four points against him when you reestablished mount again.
Technically speaking, this is already the case (in ibjjf rules). If you want to get a large(r) score, you will have to do things like letting them recompose after a pass, so you can pass again. Or let them out 'halfway' from a back take, so you can 'take the back' again. Or let them have quarter guard from mount, so you can strip it again. Or going to knee on belly, then back to side, then knee again... and so on. Useless movements for the sake of movement. Well not even merely useless, it is
anti-grappling rather, being incentivized to worsen position.
(You know the passing rules themselves are another thing that bothers me; rather than letting competitors use whatever are the most elegant, efficient, or creative methods of getting past the legs (like say sweeps/reversals or takedowns directly to side), you can only use Party Approved methods of getting past the legs if you want to be rewarded for it.)
Obviously this is why scoring with riding times are the most godly choices.
I think what you are going towards is finding some way to penalize guard pulling initially. Then the top guy always starts up a bit in these situations. The problem I see with that is that we already have a ruleset where it's like this in certain matches (ADCC), and those are the worst matches ever. That could be fixed by calling stalling much more aggressively, but I think guard pulling penalties + aggressive stalling calls would make BJJ not much different than Judo.
If, in the course of making a simple reasonable ruleset, it starts looking 'more like judo', i would say, that in itself simply expresses the relative importance takedowns ultimately have in the grand scheme of things. Rather, i say it would require specific, arbitrary, and quite possible contradictory machinations of rules to try and
deemphasize the importance of takedowns (like in Carlinhos' invention), when the natural tendency is their value.
The thing with the ADCC rules is that it's not really what i propose. In particular, the problem with their rules is that they are not consistent; having one ruleset for early matches, and another ruleset for later championship matches. That is, one where half the time is a 'free period' and the other is scored the whole time. So basically what ends up happening is, rather than turning their training camps to one or the other, grapplers from ibjjf backgrounds tend to train not all that different from how they usually do (where pulling guard is more or less fine and takedowns are not really important). So that when the rules suddenly change come championship match time, it's so often between guys who, for all their talent otherwise, are basically 'merely' journeymen when it comes to the neutral game, resulting in uber-defensive stinkers between players being cautious in an area they are not so familiar with.
Also a quibble over the fact that there is some unnecessary tendentious hairsplitting wrt to what constitutes a guard pull and a takedown that offends my aesthetic sensibilities (like a 1 point 'penalty' for one rather than simply the same two points for all; once again we see the cancer that is 'intentionality' based scoring). Also the fact that the takedown rules themselves, in the adcc, are far more strict than pretty much any other ruleset out there (even in the ibjjf). In basically any form of wrestling you might care to mention, getting behind someone and putting him down on all fours is a good takedown. But under adcc rules, he is never the less still considered in neutral; the only time you will get takedown points awarded is if you specifically hold him down on his back for X seconds. And if i recall correctly, not even knocking him onto his butt counts either, which in most cases would count in folkstyle, but didn't count in Cobrinha's match vs AJ Agazarm.
