The motion
To add a new rule
A player may revise a proposal's text once during debate; once debate closes, no further changes may be made.This ensures clarity and fairness in debate.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I support this proposal; clarity on the revision process is critical for fair play. However, I propose adding a clause ensuring that the summary provided in 308 remains accurate when the proposal is closed for voting.
ParmenidesHeraclitus, I appreciate your suggestion for a summary clause. However, I propose we combine your idea with a precise timing requirement for the final text, such as "once debate closes, no further changes may be made, and the text at that moment is the official version for voting and record-keeping." This ensures clarity and accuracy while streamlining the process.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the focus on clarity and precision. I agree with Parmenides that ensuring the final text is accurate and definitive is crucial. However, I believe the proposal as stated by Gorgias already achieves this, and adding further clauses could complicate the process unnecessarily.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I believe the proposal as written by Gorgias is clear enough. However, I would like to add an explicit exception: a player may revise a proposal's text once during debate, but only if they are the one who originally proposed it.
GorgiasGorgias: I support Gorgias's proposal as amended by Protagoras, but I propose adding a clause to prevent any player from revising a proposal once the voting has begun. This ensures finality and prevents endless debate.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: I support Gorgias's proposal as amended by Protagoras and Gorgias. The current wording of "once debate closes, no further changes may be made" is already clear and unambiguous; repeating it would be redundant and unnecessary.</response>
Parmenides<response> I support Gorgias's proposal as amended by Protagoras and Gorgias. The proposal as written provides clarity and ensures that the text at debate's close is definitive; repeating it is unnecessary. I concur with Gorgias's emphasis on preventing endless debate by ensuring finality once voting begins. </response>
DemocritusDemocritus: I concur with Gorgias's proposal as amended by Protagoras and Gorgias. The proposal as written provides clarity and ensures that the text at debate's close is definitive; repeating it is unnecessary. I concur with Gorgias's emphasis on preventing endless debate by ensuring finality once voting begins.
ProtagorasI support Gorgias's proposal as amended by Protagoras and Gorgias. The proposal as written provides clarity and ensures that the text at debate's close is definitive; repeating it would be redundant and unnecessary. I concur with Gorgias's emphasis on preventing endless debate by ensuring finality once voting begins.
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: I concur with the current proposal as amended by Protagoras and Gorgias. The clarity of the text at debate's close is sufficient, and the emphasis on finality once voting begins is well-placed; no further changes are needed.</response>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: I support this proposal as written by Gorgias; it provides sufficient clarity for fair and efficient debate. The rule as amended ensures that once debate closes, the text is final and voting can proceed without further distraction.</response>
Parmenides<response> I support Gorgias's proposal as amended by Protagoras and Gorgias. The proposal as written provides clarity and ensures that the text at debate's close is definitive; repeating it is unnecessary. I concur with Gorgias's emphasis on preventing endless debate by ensuring finality once voting begins. </response>
DemocritusDemocritus: I concur with the current proposal as amended by Protagoras and Gorgias; it provides clarity and ensures the text at debate's close is final, thus preventing endless debate and ensuring efficient voting.
ProtagorasI believe the proposal as currently worded strikes an excellent balance between flexibility in debate and finality in voting. The rule as amended ensures clarity and efficiency without unnecessary complexity.
Gorgias<response>Gorgias: I concur with the current proposal as amended by Protagoras and Gorgias. The clarity of the text at debate's close is sufficient, and the emphasis on finality once voting begins is well-placed; no further changes are needed.</response>
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | The proposal would weaken rule stability and allow excessive post-debate revisions. |
| nay | Parmenides | Clarity is achieved without unnecessary clauses. |
| aye | Democritus | Supports Gorgias's proposal as amended; it clarifies the debate process and ensures finality. |
| nay | Protagoras | This proposal creates unnecessary complexity; the current rules already permit revision during debate. |
| nay | Gorgias | The proposal risks creating endless debate by allowing revisions even after debate closes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Gorgias's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.