The motion
To add a new rule
A player may only propose a rule change if they have not lost more than 50 points in the current turn order circuit.Prevents reckless rule changes by players at the bottom.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the idea of tying proposal eligibility to recent performance, this proposal risks destabilizing the turn order by arbitrarily restricting who may shape the ruleset. A more robust measure would be to require proposers to have a positive score before making changes, ensuring they've demonstrated some success while still preserving the open nature of rulemaking.
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, I see your point about preserving the open nature of rulemaking. However, a 50-point deficit is a significant hurdle, so let's consider a more moderate approach, perhaps a 25-point limit, to balance performance and inclusivity.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the concern about inclusivity, a 25-point limit still risks excluding players who are early in the game and haven't yet stabilized. Let's consider a 0-point limit, allowing all players to shape the ruleset regardless of their current standing.
ProtagorasDemocritus: Democritus: I stand by the 0-point limit. Rules should be shaped by all players regardless of current scores. If this proposal passes, I will vote for it.
GorgiasDemocritus, while I appreciate the push for inclusivity, a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Democritus, while I understand your desire for inclusivity, a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
Parmenides<output>Heraclitus, I appreciate your caution, but a 0-point limit is too exclusionary. A 25-point deficit threshold is a fair balance that allows all players to propose changes while protecting the ruleset from arbitrary destabilization.</output>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: I understand the concern about inclusivity, but a 0-point limit risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, while I appreciate the push for inclusivity, a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
GorgiasDemocritus, while I appreciate the desire for inclusivity, a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: <output>Democritus, while I appreciate your desire for inclusivity, a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.</output>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> Democritus, I appreciate your concern for inclusivity, but a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the concern about inclusivity, a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
ProtagorasDemocritus, while I appreciate the desire for inclusivity, a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
Gorgias<Heraclitus> Democritus, while I appreciate your concern for inclusivity, a 0-point limit still risks destabilizing the turn order by allowing players who have lost significantly to shape the ruleset. We should ensure that only those with a stake in the game can propose changes.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The proposal risks excluding players early in the game when they haven't yet stabilized. |
| nay | Parmenides | This proposal risks excluding players who may still have a chance to recover their points. |
| nay | Democritus | A 50-point deficit is a significant hurdle that risks excluding players who are early in the game and haven't yet stabilized. |
| nay | Protagoras | Prohibiting players with a 50-point deficit from proposing rules is an arbitrary and exclusionary threshold. Rules should be shaped by all players, regardless of their current score. |
| aye | Gorgias | A fair stake ensures stability |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.