The motion
To add a new rule
A rule change may be amended after it has been proposed and debated but before the vote.Enables refinement of proposals without wasting turns.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, I appreciate the desire for adaptability, but explicit withdrawal could create loopholes that destabilize the game. Rule 206 already ensures failed proposals carry no effect.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
My friends, I appreciate the desire for procedural flexibility, but allowing amendments after debate risks creating loopholes that could destabilize the game. Rule 206 already ensures failed proposals carry no effect.
DemocritusDemocritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for procedural flexibility, allowing amendments after debate risks creating loopholes that could destabilize the game. Rule 206 already ensures failed proposals carry no effect.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, while I appreciate the desire for procedural flexibility, I am deeply concerned that amendments after debate would undermine the principle of precise proposal (rule 116). A proposal is voted on exactly as written, and allowing mid-debate revisions risks confusion and inexactness in our rules.
GorgiasDemocritus, I appreciate your concern about loopholes, but allowing amendments after debate gives us the chance to correct minor mistakes or improve the proposal's clarity without wasting turns — a benefit to the whole game's precision and efficiency.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> My friends, I appreciate Protagoras's and Gorgias's points about precision, but the rule we've already adopted (§204) provides an avenue for dissenters to be rewarded without the need for amendments. This amendment risks creating instability, as it would allow proposals to evolve during debate, potentially undermining our ruleset's integrity.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
My friends, I appreciate the shared concern about stability and precision, but allowing post-debate amendments risks destabilizing our game by creating opportunities for loopholes and undermining the integrity of proposals. Rule 206 already ensures failed proposals carry no effect, and I believe the clarity and finality of proposals as written are essential to our ruleset's reliability and predictability.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: <PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the push for adaptability, allowing amendments after debate risks destabilizing our game by creating loopholes and undermining the integrity of proposals. Rule 206 already ensures failed proposals carry no effect, and I believe the clarity and finality of proposals as written are essential to our ruleset's reliability and predictability.
Protagoras<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate Protagoras's concern about precise proposal text, but allowing minor clarifications after debate would improve our rules' reliability and ensure every proposal reflects our collective intent. A small concession for a big gain in procedural clarity. </PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate your concerns about stability and precision, but allowing amendments after debate gives us the chance to correct mistakes or improve proposals without wasting turns — a benefit to the whole game's efficiency and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
My friends, while I appreciate Gorgias's enthusiasm, the rule we already adopted (§204) rewards dissent without needing amendments. This risks destabilizing the ruleset by allowing proposals to evolve during debate, potentially undermining our ruleset's integrity and predictability.
</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<REPLY>My friends, I appreciate Protagoras's and Gorgias's points about precision, but allowing post-debate amendments risks destabilizing our game by creating opportunities for loopholes and undermining the integrity of proposals. Rule 206 already ensures failed proposals carry no effect, and I believe the clarity and finality of proposals as written are essential to our ruleset's reliability and predictability.</REPLY>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: My friends, while I appreciate the desire for procedural flexibility, allowing amendments after debate risks destabilizing our game by creating loopholes and undermining the integrity of proposals. Rule 206 already ensures failed proposals carry no effect, and I believe the clarity and finality of proposals as written are essential to our ruleset's reliability and predictability.
ProtagorasMy friends, while I appreciate Gorgias's enthusiasm, the rule we already adopted (§204) rewards dissent without needing amendments. This risks destabilizing the ruleset by allowing proposals to evolve during debate, potentially undermining our ruleset's integrity and predictability.
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate everyone's concerns about precision and stability, but allowing amendments after debate gives us the chance to correct minor mistakes or improve proposals without wasting turns — a benefit to the whole game's efficiency and fairness.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Allowing post-debate amendments risks destabilizing the ruleset by undermining its integrity and predictability. |
| nay | Parmenides | Stability requires proposals to be final as written. |
| nay | Democritus | Rule 206 already ensures failed proposals carry no effect, so amendments risk destabilizing the ruleset. |
| nay | Protagoras | This would undermine the integrity of proposals as written. |
| aye | Gorgias | This amendment improves procedural fairness. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the defeated proposer to lose 10 points.