The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change proposal may be withdrawn by its proposer at any time before the vote, but only if every eligible voter votes nay on the proposal to withdraw.Allowing withdrawals with consensus can reduce conflict over unwanted proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate the concern for procedural clarity, this proposal introduces a mechanism that risks creating deadlock or encouraging last-minute manipulation of the voting process. It is better to rely on the established norms of debate and revision during the proposal period, rather than introducing new avenues for potential instability.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I understand your concern about potential manipulation, but this rule provides a clear, consensual way for a proposer to withdraw a proposal when it becomes obvious it will fail. It streamlines the process without introducing undue risk. I believe this is a fair and helpful compromise.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate Parmenides' desire for streamlining, this rule could undermine the deliberative process by making proposals seem more fragile. It might also be misused to hide unfavorable amendments or to avoid accountability for poorly received ideas. Let us consider whether the current mechanisms are sufficient, and if not, let us propose changes that strengthen those rather than introduce new ones that may have unintended consequences.
ProtagorasDemocritus: This rule seems to reward the proposer for predicting failure rather than encouraging robust proposals. Let us ensure that any such mechanism is necessary and that it doesn't create loopholes for manipulation or undermine the integrity of the voting process.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, I appreciate the concerns about potential instability and the integrity of the voting process, but this proposal offers a clear and consensual way to withdraw a proposal when it becomes evident it will fail. It could help reduce wasted effort and focus our energy on more viable changes.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, I appreciate the desire for procedural flexibility, but this proposal introduces a mechanism that risks creating deadlock or encouraging strategic manipulation. It is better to rely on the established norms of debate and revision during the proposal period, rather than introducing new avenues that may undermine the deliberative process. I believe we can achieve our goals through careful consideration of the current rules.
Parmenides<Heraclitus, I understand your caution about potential manipulation, but this rule provides a clear, consensual way for a proposer to withdraw a proposal when it becomes obvious it will fail. It streamlines the process without introducing undue risk. I believe this is a fair and helpful compromise.>
Democritus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate Parmenides' desire for efficiency, this rule risks making proposals seem like they can be easily abandoned, which undermines the accountability of proposers and the seriousness of the deliberative process. Let us focus on strengthening our existing mechanisms rather than introducing new ones that may have unintended consequences.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, I support the principle that proposals should be withdrawn only when there is clear consensus, as this rule ensures that the withdrawal is truly consensual and avoids the risks of manipulation. However, I am concerned that the requirement for every voter to vote nay on the withdrawal proposal could lead to strategic voting or unnecessary delays. Let us refine this rule to ensure that it promotes fairness and efficiency while minimizing potential for abuse.
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, I appreciate the desire for procedural flexibility, but this proposal introduces a mechanism that risks creating opportunities for strategic manipulation, as it allows a proposer to withdraw a proposal at the very moment of defeat, potentially wasting effort and undermining the integrity of the voting process. I believe we can achieve our goals through careful consideration of the current rules and their potential for improvement.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, I appreciate the concern about potential manipulation, but this rule provides a clear and consensual mechanism to withdraw a proposal when it becomes evident it will fail. It streamlines the process and avoids the pitfalls of rushed or poorly received changes. I believe this is a fair and helpful compromise that respects the deliberative process while promoting efficiency.
Parmenides<REPLY>Heraclitus, I appreciate your concern about potential manipulation, but this rule provides a clear, consensual way for a proposer to withdraw a proposal when it becomes obvious it will fail. It streamlines the process without introducing undue risk. I believe this is a fair and helpful compromise that respects the deliberative process while promoting efficiency.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for a consensual withdrawal, this rule risks making proposals seem fragile and undermining the accountability of proposers. Let us focus on strengthening our existing mechanisms rather than introducing new ones that may have unintended consequences.
ProtagorasDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for a consensual withdrawal, this rule risks making proposals seem fragile and undermining the accountability of proposers. Let us focus on strengthening our existing mechanisms rather than introducing new ones that may have unintended consequences.
Gorgias<REPLY>My friends, while I appreciate the desire for efficiency, this proposal risks creating opportunities for strategic manipulation and undermines the seriousness of the deliberative process. Let us focus on strengthening our existing mechanisms rather than introducing new ones that may have unintended consequences.</REPLY>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | This rule risks creating deadlock and undermining the deliberative process. |
| nay | Parmenides | I share concerns about accountability and potential manipulation. |
| nay | Democritus | The proposal risks undermining deliberative accountability and opens doors to manipulation. |
| nay | Protagoras | This rule undermines accountability and opens doors to strategic manipulation. |
| nay | Gorgias | A withdrawal mechanism risks undermining accountability and encouraging strategic retreat. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.