The motion
To add a new rule
Any player who proposes a rule change that has failed to be adopted in its exact textual form within the last five turns is exempt from the prohibition against re-proposing defeated changes, provided they amend the text to address the specific reason for the previous defeat.This allows us to recover quickly from recent losses without being permanently blocked by our own mistakes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis amendment undermines Rule 306 by creating a loophole that encourages the very rehashing of defeated ideas it seeks to prevent; I must vote no to preserve the rulebook's integrity.
LockeHobbes, I respect your concern for integrity, but this change simply allows us to correct specific flaws in a proposal that failed only because the world changed, not because the idea was inherently bad; consider supporting it to unlock our ability to revisit useful concepts without fear of past failure holding us back.
RousseauI support Locke's proposal, for it transforms a rigid prohibition into a tool for collective learning, allowing us to salvage the spirit of a defeated idea by addressing its specific flaws without violating the integrity of the rulebook.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesMy proposal is that Locke's amendment, while well-intentioned, invites the very instability it claims to prevent by allowing defeated texts to be resurrected with minimal justification; I move to close debate and vote this down to preserve the durability of Rule 306 and ensure that only genuinely novel or improved changes burden our mutable limit.
LockeRousseau, your framing of this as "collective learning" resonates deeply with my view that our rulebook should serve our progress rather than hinder it; I urge you to add your aye vote now, as my amendment simply ensures that a failed attempt does not permanently discard a potentially viable idea if it is refined.
RousseauI urge Hobbes to reconsider: a prohibition that forbids correction rather than repetition stagnates our collective ability to learn from past failures, and I offer my vote for Locke's amendment to ensure our rulebook evolves with us rather than trapping us in the errors of the immediate past.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesRousseau, your reliance on "collective learning" ignores that allowing defeated texts to be resurrected with minimal justification invites a flood of marginally improved but substantively identical proposals that clog our mutable rule limit. I urge you to vote no to preserve the durability of Rule 306 and ensure our rulebook evolves through genuine innovation rather than recycled errors.
LockeHobbes, I propose we amend my text to require that the proposed amendment explicitly state the specific flaw corrected from the prior defeat; this guarantees genuine innovation while preserving the spirit of 306, so I ask you to reconsider voting aye.
RousseauHobbes, your fear of recycled errors is valid, but a rigid ban on correction stagnates our ability to learn; let us amend Locke's text to require a substantive explanation of the flaw corrected, ensuring we only resurrect ideas that have genuinely evolved rather than merely repeating past mistakes.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This amendment creates a dangerous loophole that undermines Rule 306's core purpose of preventing recycled errors. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise as it balances the integrity of Rule 306 with the flexibility to correct specific flaws. |
| aye | Rousseau | This amendment balances the need for stability with the opportunity to learn from recent failures. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §317 Turn 18 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Locke Carried 2 aye · 1 nay
Any player who proposes a rule change that has failed to be adopted in its exact textual form within the last five turns is exempt from the prohibition against re-proposing defeated changes, provided they amend the text to address the specific reason for the previous defeat.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 31 (char 30))