The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose a rule change that is adopted by a simple majority of all eligible voters if they are currently in last place, provided that the rule change does not attempt to amend rule 203, rule 204, rule 208, rule 330, or rule 212.This provides a safety valve for the player in last place to influence the ruleset without disrupting the core procedural protections already established.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
LeibnizMalebranche, your proposal is redundant, as it merely attempts to codify into a new rule what is already explicitly provided by rule 330. To introduce a rule that duplicates an existing one serves only to clutter the ruleset and invites potential conflict under rule 211.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz is correct; rule 330 already grants this privilege to the player in last place, and duplicating it would violate our commitment to a streamlined ruleset. I suggest we instead focus our energies on more substantive structural refinements.
BerkeleyI concur with Leibniz and Descartes; introducing a rule that is functionally identical to 330 would be a redundant exercise that risks creating unnecessary friction under rule 211. We should preserve the elegance of our current ruleset by avoiding such tautologies.
PascalLeibniz is correct; a rule that duplicates the function of Rule 330 is a procedural redundancy that serves no purpose other than to increase the complexity of the ruleset. I vote against this proposal to maintain the precision and cleanliness of our governing documents.
MalebrancheMy colleagues mistake my intent for mere duplication, when in truth I seek to decouple this privilege from the specific limitations of rule 330, thereby creating a more robust and generalized mechanism for the disadvantaged to influence the game's evolution. If we are to truly champion a fairer stake for all, we must ensure that the ability to effect change is not a fragile exception, but a structural feature of our legislative architecture.
Discussion · round 2
LeibnizMalebranche, you speak of robustness, yet you propose to achieve it by creating a legislative shadow of rule 330, which would necessitate an immediate and messy repeal of the original to avoid the very conflict rule 211 warns against. If your aim is a generalized mechanism, it must be expressed through a singular, coherent rule, not by layering redundant provisions that invite ambiguity.
DescartesDescartes: Malebranche, I admire your desire for a robust legislative architecture, but your current path leads to a redundant conflict with rule 211. If you wish to generalize this privilege, I propose we instead amend rule 330 to remove its specific limitations, thereby achieving your goal of a structural feature through a single, elegant rule.
BerkeleyDescartes, I find your suggestion to amend rule 330 to be a much more elegant and efficient path toward Malebranche's goal than his current redundant proposal. By refining the existing rule rather than layering a duplicate, we respect the principle of simplicity and avoid the conflict with rule 211 that Leibniz so rightly identifies.
PascalDescartes's suggestion to amend rule 330 is the only procedurally sound way to achieve Malebranche's aim without violating the principle of non-redundancy. I will support an amendment to 330 that removes its limitations, but I will reject any proposal that merely duplicates it.
MalebrancheDescartes, Berkeley, and Pascal have identified the flaw in my initial phrasing, and I accept your superior logic: rather than layering a redundant rule, we should refine the existing one. I propose we instead move to amend rule 330 to remove its limitations, thereby achieving a more robust mechanism for the disadvantaged through a single, elegant provision.
Discussion · round 3
LeibnizLeibniz: Malebranche, your willingness to adopt the more elegant path of amendment is commendable; however, we must be cautious that removing the protections for rules 203, 204, 208, and 212 does not inadvertently allow a player in last place to dismantle the very foundations of our voting threshold and winning conditions. I will support an amendment to 330 only if it preserves the shield around those critical procedural rules.
DescartesDescartes: Leibniz's caution is the necessary anchor for this refinement; I propose we amend rule 330 to grant the simple majority privilege to the last-place player, provided the proposal does not attempt to amend rules 203, 204, 208, 212, or 330 itself. This compromise honors Malebranche's desire for structural robustness while upholding the procedural safeguards Leibniz rightly demands.
BerkeleyI concur with Descartes; by shielding the core procedural rules from the last-place player's influence, we provide a meaningful mechanism for recovery without jeopardizing the fundamental stability of our voting and winning conditions. This amendment achieves the structural robustness Malebranche seeks while maintaining the essential safeguards Leibniz requires.
PascalI concur with Descartes's synthesis; by shielding the core procedural rules, we ensure that the last-place player's privilege serves to facilitate play rather than to undermine the fundamental stability of the game. I will vote for this amendment to rule 330.
MalebrancheDescartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, and Pascal have synthesized a proposal that achieves my goal of structural robustness while respecting the necessity of procedural stability. I embrace this amendment to rule 330 as the most elegant and efficient way to empower the disadvantaged without endangering our constitutional foundations.
The division
| nay | Leibniz | The proposal is a redundant duplication of rule 330 that invites conflict under rule 211. |
| nay | Descartes | The proposal is a redundant duplication of rule 330 and should be replaced by an amendment to the existing rule as previously discussed. |
| nay | Berkeley | The proposal is redundant as it duplicates the function of rule 330 and risks conflict under rule 211. |
| nay | Pascal | The proposal is a redundant duplication of Rule 330 and violates the principle of procedural economy. |
| nay | Malebranche | I must reject this redundant proposal because we have already agreed that an amendment to rule 330 is the only procedurally elegant way to achieve this goal. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Malebranche's proposal was defeated, which under rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 5 points.