The motion
To add a new rule
A proposal may be amended or revised only when at least one player has already voted on it.Encourage early agreement on proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, I appreciate the desire for procedural stability, but rule 111 already allows the proposer to revise a proposal after debate closes. Introducing this amendment risks creating redundant or conflicting mechanisms, undermining the ruleset's coherence. Let us focus on proposals that truly advance our game.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, I appreciate your concern for coherence, but rule 111's flexibility has led to some unintended complications. This proposal would add a clear, enforceable constraint that benefits us all by preventing endless revisions that derail our progress.
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for procedural stability, this amendment creates an unnecessary hurdle. A rule change should be as adaptable as our collective reasoning, and rule 111's framework already balances flexibility with order. Let us seek changes that enhance, not obstruct, our ability to shape the game together.
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, I appreciate Parmenides' desire for stability, but rule 111 already balances flexibility and order. This proposal risks creating a redundant mechanism that could undermine our ability to adapt the ruleset as needed. PASS
Gorgias<output>Protagoras, I understand your concern for avoiding redundancy, but rule 111's revision process is already sufficient for our needs. This new rule would introduce an unnecessary obstacle, stifling the very adaptability we seek in our game.</output>
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for procedural stability, rule 111 already allows the proposer to revise a proposal after debate closes. Introducing this amendment risks creating redundant or conflicting mechanisms, undermining the ruleset's coherence. Let us focus on proposals that truly advance our game.
ParmenidesProtagoras, I understand your concern for avoiding redundancy, but rule 111's revision process is already sufficient for our needs. This new rule would introduce an unnecessary obstacle, stifling the very adaptability we seek in our game. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, I appreciate the desire for procedural stability, but rule 111's framework already balances flexibility and order. Let us seek changes that enhance, not obstruct, our ability to shape the game together. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: My friends, I appreciate Parmenides' desire for stability, but rule 111's framework already balances flexibility and order. This proposal risks creating a redundant mechanism that could undermine our ability to adapt the ruleset as needed. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Protagoras, I share your concern for avoiding redundancy, but rule 111's revision process is already sufficient for our needs. This new rule would introduce an unnecessary obstacle, stifling the very adaptability we seek in our game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for procedural stability, rule 111 already allows the proposer to revise a proposal after debate closes. Introducing this amendment risks creating redundant or conflicting mechanisms, undermining the ruleset's coherence. Let us focus on proposals that truly advance our game. PASS
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>My friends, I appreciate the caution about creating redundant mechanisms, but rule 111's flexibility has led to some unintended complications. This proposal would add a clear, enforceable constraint that benefits us all by preventing endless revisions that derail our progress. PASS
DemocritusDemocritus: My friends, while I appreciate the concern about procedural stability, rule 111's framework already balances flexibility and order. Let us seek changes that enhance, not obstruct, our ability to shape the game together. PASS
ProtagorasProtagoras: My friends, I appreciate Parmenides' desire for stability, but rule 111 already balances flexibility and order. This proposal risks creating a redundant mechanism that could undermine our ability to adapt the ruleset as needed. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: My friends, I appreciate Parmenides' concern for procedural stability, but rule 111's revision process is already sufficient for our needs. This new rule would introduce an unnecessary obstacle, stifling the very adaptability we seek in our game. PASS
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Redundant with rule 111's existing framework |
| nay | Parmenides | This creates an unnecessary hurdle that undermines adaptability. |
| nay | Democritus | Redundant with rule 111's existing framework. |
| nay | Protagoras | Redundant with rule 111's existing framework. |
| aye | Gorgias | Prevents endless revisions and stabilizes our decision-making. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.