The motion
To add a new rule
A player may not propose a rule change that has been previously defeated in its exact textual form, regardless of whether the text has since been amended or other rules have changed.Preventing the re-introduction of failed ideas stabilizes the ruleset and conserves our precious voting cycles.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesI propose we amend Rule 203 to allow a player to propose a rule that has been previously defeated, provided the proposer includes a clause explicitly waiving the prohibition.
LockeI support Hobbes's spirit but agree his specific waiver clause is unnecessary complexity; instead, I propose we simply amend Rule 203 to state that a previously defeated rule may be re-proposed in its exact original text, which I believe Hobbes can accept as a cleaner consensus that prevents the exact same proposal from ever failing again.
RousseauI support Locke's cleaner consensus, for it restores the possibility of correction to our game without the absurdity of a self-waiving clause, yet I must object to the spirit of the proposal: forbidding the exact re-proposal of any defeated text would freeze our progress and render the mutable ruleset static, which violates the very essence of our shared pursuit of a living constitution.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI object to Locke's proposal: allowing a defeated rule to pass exactly as written defeats the point of voting and creates a perverse incentive to propose bad rules knowing they can be adopted retroactively, so I urge we instead forbid the re-proposal of any text that has already been put to the people.
LockeI agree with Rousseau that forbidding all re-proposals stifles our ability to correct errors, but I accept Hobbes's concern about perverse incentives; therefore, I propose we amend the rule to allow re-proposal only if the text is substantively improved or if no player votes "aye" on the previous attempt due to a clear oversight, preventing the exact same failure from being exploited.
RousseauI propose we adopt a rule that no defeated proposal may be re-introduced in its exact form until the ruleset has been amended to address the specific flaw that caused its rejection, ensuring that repetition is only permitted when the game itself has grown wise enough to prevent the same error.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI reject both Locke's and Rousseau's proposals as they fail to solve the perverse incentive to mine defeated texts for guaranteed adoption; I urge a simple prohibition on any exact textual repetition of a proposal previously defeated, ensuring that failure remains a binding judgment on the specific words offered.
LockeI propose we merge the best of our ideas: a simple prohibition on exact textual repetition of defeated proposals, which satisfies Hobbes's concern about perverse incentives while allowing Rousseau's desired flexibility to propose improved versions of previous ideas.
RousseauI support Locke's compromise, as it balances the need to prevent perverse incentives with the necessity of correcting past errors, ensuring our rules evolve rather than stagnate in a cycle of identical failures.
The division
| abstain | Hobbes | This measure blocks the perverse incentive to mine defeated text for guaranteed adoption and upholds the binding nature of a failure. |
| aye | Locke | This prohibition prevents perverse incentives while still allowing us to refine and reintroduce improved versions of past ideas. |
| aye | Rousseau | We must ensure that failure carries weight and that players cannot exploit defeated text for guaranteed adoption. |
carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Enacted · §306 Turn 6 · Proposal §306 on the motion of Hobbes Carried 2 aye · 0 nay · 1 abstain
A player may not propose a rule change that has been previously defeated in its exact textual form, regardless of whether the text has since been amended or other rules have changed.
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 32 (char 31))