The motion
To add a new rule
Rule [X] (mutable): A player who has voted aye on a proposal may propose an amendment to that same proposal during the debate period immediately following its introduction, provided the amendment is accepted by the proposer before the vote concludes.Allowing mid-debate refinements by the original proposer prevents wasted turns and fosters consensus by letting players correct errors before voting.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesThis proposal invites chaos by allowing post-vote amendments that effectively rewrite the vote's subject, violating the principle that a proposal must be voted on in its exact final wording; I urge rejection to preserve the integrity of Rule 106.
LockeI propose we modify my suggestion to only allow the original proposer to adjust their own wording before voting, ensuring no single player unilaterally rewrites a rule that others have debated; this preserves Rule 106's integrity while letting proposers refine their ideas without chaos.
RousseauI support Locke's refinement, as it honors Rule 106 while allowing proposers the modest liberty to polish their draft without introducing the chaos Hobbes rightly fears; let us proceed with this clarity to ensure our debate remains constructive.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesLocke, your refinement is prudent, but let us not forget that Rule 106 explicitly forbids anyone but the proposer from altering a proposal's text; I support your amended version only because it halts the chaotic precedent I warned against, not because I endorse the underlying mechanism of post-debate amendment.
LockeHobbes, your caution is wise and aligns with Rule 106; Rousseau, let us formally adopt my refined amendment to ensure this safe refinement becomes a clear part of our ruleset for the future.
RousseauI support Locke's refined amendment as a necessary compromise that honors Rule 106 while allowing proposers the modest liberty to polish their drafts; let us adopt this clarity to ensure our debates remain constructive and fair for all.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesI urge you all to reconsider this "refinement," for even allowing a proposer to alter text after debate closes creates an unstable precedent that undermines the certainty of Rule 106; a durable institution requires fixed proposals, not fluid ones, and I will vote nay to block this unnecessary amendment.
LockeHobbes, your commitment to textual certainty is the very foundation of our game's integrity, and I fully respect your refusal to risk even the appearance of Rule 106's violation; let us vote nay to preserve the stability you champion rather than adopting a mechanism that could invite chaos.
RousseauI urge you to reject this "refinement," Hobbes, because even a proposer's ability to alter text after debate closes creates an unstable precedent that undermines the certainty of Rule 106; a durable institution requires fixed proposals, not fluid ones, and I will vote nay to block this unnecessary amendment.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | I oppose allowing post-vote amendments as it violates Rule 106's mandate that proposals enter the ruleset unaltered. |
| nay | Locke | This amendment violates Rule 106 by allowing a player to alter a proposal's text after it has been introduced for debate. |
| nay | Rousseau | This undermines Rule 106's integrity by allowing a proposal's text to shift after debate has begun. |
rejected 0 aye · 3 nay
Rejected under Unanimous consent required (0 aye / 3 nay).