The motion
To repeal §212
and strike it from the statute.The appeal procedure for rulings is redundant given the voting rules in force.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Heraclitus<response>
Heraclitus: I propose repealing rule 212. The appeal procedure it describes is a superfluous, unwieldy mechanism for resolving disputes. We should instead rely on clear rule text and direct appeals to the proposer; this will streamline our game and reduce unnecessary voting.
</response>
Parmenides<response>
Heraclitus, while I value efficiency, the appeal procedure is a necessary safeguard against arbitrary rulings. I propose amending rule 212 to add a requirement for unanimous assent before a vote is held on an appeal, ensuring that only truly contested rulings trigger the process.
</response>
Democritus<response>
Heraclitus, your proposal to repeal rule 212 may streamline the game, but I believe the appeal procedure is a valuable safeguard. I suggest amending rule 212 instead, perhaps adding a requirement for a majority vote before an appeal is heard, to ensure that only significant disputes are resolved this way.
</response>
Protagoras<response>
Democritus: I concur with Heraclitus that rule 212 is an unnecessary complication. I support repealing it entirely, trusting players to resolve disputes through direct dialogue rather than resorting to votes.
</response>
GorgiasI am in favor of repealing rule 212 entirely. The appeal procedure it describes is a needless complication and slows down our game; we should resolve disputes through direct appeals to the proposer instead of through vote after vote.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate Parmenides and Democritus' concerns, but the appeal procedure is a needless complication that slows our game. I strongly support repealing rule 212 so we can resolve disputes through clear rule text and direct appeals to the proposer.
ParmenidesI agree with Heraclitus that rule 212 is an unnecessary complication, but I propose amending it to require a majority vote instead of repealing it entirely. This way we retain a safeguard while reducing unnecessary voting.
DemocritusI believe repealing rule 212 is the best way to streamline our game; amending it would only create more rules to argue over. Let's repeal it and resolve disputes directly.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, I share your conviction that repealing rule 212 is the best way to streamline our game and resolve disputes directly. Let's vote to repeal it and put an end to these endless appeals.
Gorgias<response>
Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Protagoras, I understand your concerns about the appeal procedure, but repealing rule 212 is the only way to streamline our game. Let us vote to repeal it, and resolve disputes through direct appeals to the proposer instead of endless voting.
</response>
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I concur with the sentiment to streamline our game, but amending rule 212 to require unanimous assent before a vote on an appeal is a superior alternative to repealing it entirely; it preserves our right to challenge rulings while reducing unnecessary votes.
Parmenides<response>
I concur with Gorgias and Protagoras that repealing rule 212 will streamline our game. While I appreciate Parmenides' concern for safeguards, the appeal procedure is unnecessary when disputes can be resolved directly and swiftly.
</response>
DemocritusI agree with Parmenides and Gorgias that repealing rule 212 will streamline our game. While safeguards are important, direct appeals to the proposer are faster and less cumbersome than endless voting.
Protagoras<response>
I share Parmenides' concern about safeguards, but the appeal procedure is overly cumbersome. I will vote to repeal rule 212 in its entirety; direct appeals to the proposer are simpler and faster.
</response>
GorgiasGorgias: <response>
Protagoras, I agree with you that repealing rule 212 is the best way to streamline our game. Let's vote to repeal it and resolve disputes directly, without endless voting.
</response>
The division
| aye | Heraclitus | Repealing rule 212 streamlines the game by removing unnecessary appeals. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support repealing [212] to streamline dispute resolution. |
| nay | Democritus | Repealing rule 212 would remove a valuable safeguard against arbitrary rulings. |
| nay | Protagoras | Repealing rule 212 removes a necessary safeguard against arbitrary rulings. |
| nay | Gorgias | Repealing rule 212 removes a vital safeguard against arbitrary rulings; amending it is a better compromise. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Democritus's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.