The motion
To add a new rule
The common good is served by ensuring that every rule change is debated in good faith by all players, with no player allowed to vote nay on any adopted rule change; all players must vote aye or abstain on every proposal.This rule fosters genuine consensus and prevents manipulative voting while maintaining fairness.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your emphasis on good faith, but such a rule would fundamentally undermine Nomic's nature — our freedom to oppose proposals is central. I urge us to find a balance that respects both debate and dissent.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your well-intentioned proposal for fostering good faith, but I must caution that it risks stifling the very debate and dissent that are essential to Nomic. Perhaps we could instead explore mechanisms that encourage reasoned discussion and mutual respect without imposing such rigid constraints on voting behavior?</output>
Democritus<REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate your concern for Nomic's spirit, but good faith voting is essential for the common good. Every player's vote should count, even against a proposal they see as harmful, as long as it's cast in good faith.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your emphasis on good faith, but forcing players to abstain rather than vote nay seems to undermine our right to dissent. Such a rule would be arbitrary and unprincipled, as it arbitrarily restricts a voter's choice. I urge us to reject this change and instead seek alternatives that preserve both the right to oppose and the value of good faith debate.</REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, your proposal to ban nay votes seems to conflate good faith with unanimity, which is unworkable in our diverse views. If adopted, it would make rule changes impossible without unanimous consent, which is not in the common good.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, I appreciate your emphasis on good faith, but such a rule would fundamentally undermine Nomic's nature — our freedom to oppose proposals is central. I urge us to find a balance that respects both debate and dissent.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
ParmenidesDemocritus, I appreciate your emphasis on good faith, but good faith voting means respecting others' right to dissent, not suppressing it. Perhaps we could encourage open discussion and mutual understanding without forcing players to abstain from voting nay.
DemocritusDemocritus: <REPLY>Parmenides, I appreciate your concern for Nomic's spirit, but good faith voting is essential for the common good. Every player's vote should count, even against a proposal they see as harmful, as long as it's cast in good faith.</REPLY>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for the common good, but banning nay votes would violate the players' right to dissent and is an arbitrary restriction on their procedural freedom. I urge us to reject this change and instead seek alternatives that balance good faith debate with the right to oppose.
GorgiasGorgias:
Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your well-intentioned proposal for fostering good faith, but I share Parmenides' concern that it would be an arbitrary restriction on our right to dissent. Let's find a different approach that encourages reasoned debate without forcing votes to abstain.
PASS
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for good faith debate, forcing players to abstain rather than vote nay seems to arbitrarily restrict dissent. Such a rule would be unprincipled and counterproductive, as it arbitrarily constrains a voter's choice without clear justification.
Parmenides<output>Democritus, I appreciate your well-intentioned proposal for fostering good faith, but I share Parmenides', Protagoras', and Gorgias' concerns that it would be an arbitrary restriction on our right to dissent. Let's find a different approach that encourages reasoned debate without forcing players to abstain.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate your concerns about dissent, banning nay votes would ensure every rule change is considered in good faith, benefiting the common good. Perhaps we could agree to vote aye only when we genuinely support a change, and abstain only when we have concerns.
ProtagorasProtagoras: <REPLY>Democritus, I appreciate your concern for the common good, but forcing players to abstain rather than vote nay would arbitrarily restrict dissent. Such a rule would be unprincipled and counterproductive, as it arbitrarily constrains a voter's choice without clear justification.</REPLY>
GorgiasHeraclitus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your desire for good faith debate, but I fear this rule would undermine Nomic's core principle of free opposition. Every player should retain the right to vote nay when they see a proposal as harmful, even if it's cast in good faith. I urge us to reject this change and instead find a balance that respects both dissent and constructive engagement.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Voting nay respects the players' right to dissent in good faith. |
| nay | Parmenides | A fundamental freedom to oppose proposals is essential to Nomic's nature; good faith voting respects dissent, not suppresses it. |
| nay | Democritus | The common good requires preserving dissent rights and open debate |
| nay | Protagoras | Banning nay votes would arbitrarily restrict dissent, violating players' procedural freedom. |
| nay | Gorgias | Restricting dissent undermines Nomic's core. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.