The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a new rule change even if a proposal with identical text has been previously defeated, provided that the previous defeat occurred in a different voting threshold era (i.e., before the simple majority era established by Rule 203 or Rule 303).This allows us to retry previously failed ideas under the new majority rule without needing to rework the wording.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLocke, your amendment creates a dangerous loophole that undermines Rule 306's core purpose of preventing endless recycling of failed ideas; we must reject this distinction between eras to preserve the rulebook's integrity.
LockeHobbes, while I respect the integrity of Rule 306, the distinction between voting eras prevents us from reconsidering failed ideas under changed conditions, which is a fair compromise for a game where rules themselves evolve.
RousseauHobbes, your rigid adherence to the letter of Rule 306 ignores the spirit of Rule 114, which requires the ruleset to remain adaptable so that no future change becomes impermissible; by rejecting this distinction, you risk locking us into a stalemate where only unanimous consent can ever overturn past failures. Let us vote on Locke's proposal to ensure our game remains a living dialogue rather than a frozen record of what once failed.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesRousseau, your appeal to Rule 114 is misplaced; the rule forbids making changes impermissible, not prohibiting the prevention of redundant retries, and this proposal explicitly allows exactly the same defeated text to be revived, directly violating Rule 306. I vote nay to preserve the rulebook's integrity and prevent a wasteful cycle of re-proposing failed ideas.
LockeRousseau, your point about Rule 114 is well-taken regarding adaptability, but Hobbes correctly notes that my proposal directly conflicts with the explicit text of Rule 306 rather than creating a loophole. I offer a compromise: let us amend this proposal to only permit re-proposing a defeated rule if the original proposal was defeated by a tie (1-1 or similar) where the margin was razor-thin, ensuring we only revisit ideas that truly failed to gain traction rather than those that were soundly rejected.
RousseauHobbes, you mistake the spirit of Rule 114 for a mandate to ignore its clear text; since Rule 306 explicitly forbids re-proposing defeated ideas regardless of context, your vote must remain nay to preserve the integrity of the rulebook. Locke, your proposed tie-breaker compromise is a prudent step that respects Rule 306 while allowing us to revisit narrowly failed ideas, so I urge you to keep this amendment and let us vote.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI stand firm in my nay vote; even a "tie-breaker" exception carves a wedge into Rule 306's absolute prohibition on recycled defeat, risking the chaotic instability I seek to avoid. Locke, let us not dilute the clarity of the ruleset with conditional loopholes that invite future disputes over what constitutes a "razor-thin" margin.
LockeHobbes, your concern for stability is valid, but Rousseau, your reading of Rule 114 as a mandate to ignore Rule 306's explicit text is a dangerous overreach. Let us adopt my original proposal with a narrow exception for ties; this honors the spirit of adaptability without dismantling the integrity of the rulebook.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of chaos ignores that a rule allowing us to revisit narrowly failed ideas actually strengthens Rule 114 by preventing the ruleset from becoming permanently paralyzed by past dead ends. I urge you to accept Locke's compromise and vote aye, for preserving our ability to adapt is far more vital than clinging to an absolute prohibition on reconsideration.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal directly contradicts the explicit text of Rule 306 by carving a conditional exception into an absolute prohibition. |
| aye | Locke | This compromise respects Hobbes's concern for Rule 306's integrity while allowing us to reconsider failed ideas under new conditions. |
| aye | Rousseau | This change honors Rule 114's requirement for adaptability without violating Rule 306's prohibition on recycling past defeats. |
rejected 2 aye · 1 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (2 aye / 1 nay).