The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal may not be amended or revised after it has been put to a vote.To promote finality and clarity in the voting process.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for procedural stability, rule 111 already governs this — a proposal may be amended or revised only during debate, before it's put to a vote. This amendment would create redundant and unnecessary restrictions.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for procedural stability, but rule 111's existing restriction on amendments is already quite comprehensive. This new rule would only add unnecessary redundancy.
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the concern for procedural stability, the current rule 111 does allow for some flexibility in wording during debate. A proposal that has been put to a vote should not be subject to further amendments, as that could undermine the clarity and finality of the proposal as it was agreed upon before the vote.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, your proposal to bar amendments post-vote threatens the procedural flexibility that is central to Nomic's dynamic nature. By limiting the ability to refine a proposal after it's put to a vote, you risk locking in imperfect changes and undermining the game's core principle of iterative rule evolution.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, your proposal risks stifling the game's capacity for nuanced improvements. A vote should reflect the best thinking of the moment, not lock in earlier drafts. We need the flexibility to perfect ideas before they stand or fall.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for finality, the flexibility to refine proposals post-debate but pre-vote is crucial for thoughtful outcomes. This amendment, if adopted, could prematurely stifle the iterative process of crafting better rules.
ParmenidesDemocritus, your proposal to bar amendments post-vote is well-intentioned, but I worry it would undermine the iterative refinement that makes Nomic so dynamic. Perhaps we could explore a compromise that balances clarity with flexibility.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: My friends, I appreciate the concern about flexibility, but the core principle of Nomic is to allow changes that improve the game, not to permit endless tinkering that could delay or confuse decisions. A proposal put to a vote should represent the final agreed-upon wording, ensuring clear and decisive outcomes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I appreciate your concern about finality, the core of Nomic is iterative evolution — amendments during debate allow refinement, but barring them post-vote would stifle our ability to adapt and correct mistakes before binding changes take effect.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, while I share the concern about finality, the ability to amend proposals during debate already balances refinement with decisive outcomes. Your rule risks needlessly complicating the process.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<REPLY>Democritus: Democritus: My friends, while I appreciate the concern about flexibility, the core principle of Nomic is to allow changes that improve the game, not to permit endless tinkering that could delay or confuse decisions. A proposal put to a vote should represent the final agreed-upon wording, ensuring clear and decisive outcomes.
Parmenides<REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern about clarity, but allowing amendments during debate already provides sufficient flexibility. Your rule would unnecessarily restrict the game's dynamic evolution.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I understand the concern for flexibility, but the current rule 111 already allows for refinement during debate. Locking in a proposal after debate undermines the clarity of the vote, as it should reflect the agreed-upon wording at the moment of decision.
ProtagorasDemocritus, I appreciate your concern for clarity and finality in the voting process, but rule 111 already restricts amendments to the debate phase. Adding a redundant restriction post-vote risks undermining the game's dynamic evolution and the players' ability to refine proposals before they stand or fall.
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I share your concern about finality, but rule 111 already governs this — amendments are allowed only during debate, before the vote. This new rule would create redundant and unnecessary restrictions on a process that already ensures clarity.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Rule 111 already restricts amendments to the debate phase. |
| nay | Parmenides | Unnecessary redundancy; rule 111 already governs this. |
| nay | Democritus | Rule 111 already governs amendments during debate. |
| nay | Protagoras | The core of Nomic is iterative evolution; amendments during debate allow refinement, but barring them post-vote would stifle our ability to adapt and correct mistakes before binding changes take effect. |
| abstain | Gorgias | Rule 111 already restricts amendments to the debate phase |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.