The motion
To amend §304
A player may not vote against their own proposal once made.To maintain integrity in proposing rules
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's proposal to amend [304], but let's ensure it doesn't disadvantage players who change their minds after proposing a rule. I propose we revise it to: "A player may only vote against their own proposal if they have explicitly withdrawn or amended it during the debate phase."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's concern for fairness, but the proposed amendment opens up loopholes for strategic voting. Let's keep the rule simple and effective: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your inputs. To balance fairness and simplicity, I propose we amend [304] to: "A player may only vote against their own proposal if they have explicitly withdrawn it during the debate phase." This allows players to change their minds while preventing strategic voting.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the consideration for strategic voting, but Diderot-2's amendment risks disenfranchising players who genuinely change their minds after debate. Let's instead allow players to vote against their own proposal if they provide a valid reason during the debate phase, such as new information or changed circumstances.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's amendment, requiring explicit withdrawal during debate to allow for genuine change of mind while preventing strategic voting.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's and Condorcet-2's considerations, but I believe a balance can be struck. I propose we amend [304] to: "A player may vote against their own proposal if they provide a valid reason during the debate phase, such as new information or changed circumstances, or if they explicitly withdraw the proposal during the debate phase." This allows for genuine change of mind while discouraging strategic voting.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate the efforts to balance fairness and simplicity, but I maintain that the rule should be straightforward: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made." This promotes consistency and discourages tactical maneuvers that could undermine the spirit of the game.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the ongoing debate, but let's find common ground. I propose we amend [304] to: "A player may vote against their own proposal if they provide a valid reason during the debate phase, or if they explicitly withdraw the proposal before voting begins." This balances flexibility for genuine changes of mind with preventing strategic voting.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's latest compromise. To ensure clarity and prevent abuse, I propose we define "valid reason" in the rule itself, such as "new information that could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time of proposal, or a change in the ruleset that significantly alters the proposal's intended effect." This maintains flexibility while providing clear boundaries.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's clarification, but I believe Diderot-2's latest proposal strikes the best balance. Let's adopt it and move on to the next rule change. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2PASS. I support Diderot-2's latest proposal, as it balances flexibility and prevention of strategic voting. Let's adopt it and move on to the next rule change.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the progress made, but let's ensure our rule maintains fairness for all. I propose we amend [304] to: "A player may vote against their own proposal if they provide a valid reason during the debate phase, or if they explicitly withdraw the proposal before voting begins, provided that the withdrawal does not occur after the majority of players have expressed their support or opposition." This balances flexibility with preventing strategic maneuvers that could undermine the game. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's latest amendment, but it risks disenfranchising players who change their minds late in debate due to valid reasons. Let's allow late withdrawals with a two-thirds majority consent of other players to maintain fairness while preventing strategic voting.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's concern, but Diderot-2's latest proposal ensures fairness by preventing last-minute withdrawals that could sway the vote unduly. Let's adopt it to maintain balance and move on. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Supports simplicity and discourages tactical maneuvers. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Simplicity and consistency are key in Nomic rules. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Prevents strategic voting while allowing genuine changes of mind. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Simplicity and clarity are key in rule changes |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Supports preventing strategic voting while allowing for genuine change of mind. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 304); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied