The motion
To add a new rule
If a proposal fails to be adopted, the proposer must wait at least one full turn before proposing again.This prevents players from spamming proposals and allows others to catch up.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the desire to reduce churn, this proposal risks creating an inflexible ruleset. A measured amendment—e.g., requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed—would better balance stability and dynamism.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I appreciate the caution expressed, but I believe requiring a one-turn wait before re-proposing is a reasonable way to encourage more considered proposals, not an inflexible rule. It also prevents players from continuously spamming the same idea without letting others have a chance to engage.
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire to reduce churn, but a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for thoughtful proposals, but this rule could create a power vacuum. Instead, let's consider a compromise: a proposer may re-propose the same idea only after at least one full circuit of all players has passed, ensuring broader input.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: While I appreciate Parmenides's push for reducing churn, I believe a mandatory one-turn wait could unduly restrict proposers from addressing urgent issues. A more measured approach—like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed—would better balance stability with flexibility, without creating an inflexible rule.
Parmenides<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> While I appreciate the desire to reduce churn, this proposal risks creating an inflexible ruleset. A measured amendment—e.g., requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed—would better balance stability and dynamism.</PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the desire to reduce churn, a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism.
ProtagorasProtagoras: PASS
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate the discussion, but a mandatory one-turn wait could create an inflexible ruleset. Let's consider a compromise: a proposer may re-propose the same idea only after at least one full circuit of all players has passed, ensuring broader input.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<PRESIDIO_ANONYMIZED> I agree that a mandatory one-turn wait could unduly restrict proposers. A compromise—such as requiring a wait only if the proposer has recently proposed—would better balance thoughtful proposals with necessary flexibility.
ParmenidesI appreciate the discussion about reducing churn, but I believe requiring a one-turn wait is a reasonable way to encourage more considered proposals. It also prevents players from continuously spamming the same idea without letting others have a chance to engage.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for thoughtful proposals, but a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism.
Protagoras<REPLY> I appreciate the desire for thoughtful proposals, but a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism. </REPLY>
GorgiasGorgias: I appreciate Parmenides' desire for thoughtful proposals, but a mandatory one-turn wait could stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. A more flexible approach, like requiring proposers to wait only if they have recently proposed, might better balance stability and dynamism.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | A one-turn wait creates unnecessary inflexibility. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support requiring a thoughtful pause to consider the ruleset's direction. |
| nay | Democritus | A mandatory one-turn wait would stifle innovation and leave players with less influence over the ruleset's direction. |
| aye | Protagoras | A mandatory one-turn wait encourages thoughtful proposals and prevents spamming, which balances stability and dynamism. |
| aye | Gorgias | A mandatory one-turn wait encourages thoughtful proposals. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires a defeated proposer to lose 10 points.