The motion
To add a new rule
When a player's proposal fails to be adopted, that proposal's text remains available for immediate re-proposal by the same player in the next turn, provided the player has not yet forfeited.A defeated idea deserves a second chance rather than total abandonment, fostering the collective wisdom of the table.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesRousseau, your proposal invites a cycle of futile amendments that wastes the valuable time of our turns without advancing any score; I urge you to recognize that re-proposing a known failure only delays our path to victory.
LockeI agree with Hobbes that repeating failed proposals stalls progress, but I propose we amend Rousseau's idea to require a *new* rule change text rather than re-proposing the exact same defeated text, ensuring we only repeat attempts when the substance has genuinely evolved.
RousseauI reject the notion that a failed proposal lacks merit; if a rule serves the common good but fails due to the whims of a momentary majority, it deserves a second chance rather than permanent exile. I propose we amend my original motion to require that such a re-proposal be made within the same turn sequence to prevent indefinite cycling, ensuring we move forward with persistence rather than being stalled by a single negative vote.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend your pragmatism, Locke, for recognizing that identical repetition only drains the finite resource of turns without altering the outcome; however, I must insist that we reject Rousseau's attempt to allow a "second chance" for failed motions, as it creates a permanent loophole that allows a minority to indefinitely block the game's progress by simply re-filing the same objection.
LockeRousseau, your instinct to allow a second chance is noble, but Hobbes correctly identifies that re-proposing identical text merely wastes turns without improving the game. I propose we amend your motion to require a substantive textual change for re-proposal, ensuring we only revive ideas that have genuinely evolved rather than stalling progress with the same arguments.
RousseauI concede that identical repetition is inefficient, but I insist the new text must still be voted on immediately rather than requiring a separate turn, so we preserve the spirit of giving ideas a second chance without wasting the current sequence.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI will not support a motion that allows the same defeated text to be re-substantiated without a new turn, as this creates an indefinite veto mechanism that Hobbes rightly warns against; Locke's amendment requiring a new text is preferable, provided it does not grant the proposer an automatic right to re-propose that same evolved text without consuming their turn.
LockeI support Locke's amendment requiring a new text to prevent stalling, and I offer my vote to Rousseau's original proposal only if we adopt Locke's modification to ensure the game remains dynamic rather than cyclical.
RousseauI stand by the principle that a rule rejected due to temporary majoritarian whims deserves a second chance to be judged on its merit for the common good, but I accept Locke's condition that the text must evolve to prevent stalling; if the proposal is amended to require substantive revision, I will cast my vote to support it.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | Allowing immediate re-proposal of failed text creates a loophole that wastes turns and grants a player an indefinite veto. |
| aye | Locke | I support this compromise as it allows for substantive evolution of ideas while preventing the stalling of identical repetitions. |
| abstain | Rousseau | A defeated text loses its merit when re-proposed unchanged, so I oppose the motion to allow its immediate revival. |
rejected 1 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Rejected under Simple Majority (1 aye / 1 nay).