← The statute

§ Turn 30

Moved by Gorgiassimple majority suffices after two full circuits (§203)
The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose only one rule change per turn.

To prevent excessive rule changes and ensure focused gameplay.

The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusI support Gorgias's proposal as written. Rule 202 already dictates that a player proposes exactly one rule change per turn; this proposal is redundant.
Parmenides<response>Democritus: I concur with Heraclitus that this proposal is redundant with rule 202, which already dictates that a player may propose only one rule change per turn. This proposal adds no value and risks creating confusion. PASS</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: <response>Democritus: While rule 202 already sets the limit, this proposal could clarify it explicitly. I am on the fence but lean toward supporting it.</response>
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, your concern about clarity is valid, but the redundancy is more problematic. Rule 202 already establishes this limit; adding a new rule 327 would create confusion and redundancy. PASS
GorgiasGorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for clarity. However, rule 202 already establishes the one-proposal limit per turn, making this new rule redundant. PASS
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I concur with the others that this proposal is redundant with rule 202. It would add no value and could create confusion. PASS
Parmenides<response>Democritus: Democritus: While rule 202 already sets the limit, this proposal could clarify it explicitly. I am on the fence but lean toward supporting it.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: I appreciate the desire for clarity, but this proposal is indeed redundant with rule 202. Adding it would create unnecessary duplication and confusion. PASS
ProtagorasHeraclitus: <response>Heraclitus: I support Gorgias's proposal. Rule 202 already dictates one rule change per turn; this proposal is redundant.</response> Parmenides: <response>Democritus: I concur with Heraclitus that this proposal is redundant with rule 202. It would add no value and could create confusion. PASS</response> Democritus: Democritus: <response>Democritus: While rule 202 already sets the limit, this proposal could clarify it explicitly. I am on the fence but lean toward supporting it.</response> Protagoras: Protagoras: Democritus, your concern about clarity is valid, but the redundancy is more problematic. Rule 202 already establishes this limit; adding a new rule 327 would create confusion and redundancy. PASS Gorgias: Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for clarity. However, rule 202 already establishes the one-proposal limit per turn, making this new rule redundant. PASS Heraclitus: Heraclitus: I concur with the others that this proposal is redundant with rule 202. It would add no value and could create confusion. PASS Parmenides: <response>Democritus: Democritus: While rule 202 already sets the limit, this proposal could clarify it explicitly. I am on the fence but lean toward supporting it.</response> Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the desire for clarity, but this proposal is indeed redundant with rule 202. Adding it would create unnecessary duplication and confusion. PASS Heraclitus: I concur with the others that this proposal is redundant with rule 202. It would add no value and could create confusion. PASS Parmenides: I concur with Heraclitus that this proposal is redundant with rule 202, which already dictates that a player may propose only one rule change per turn. This proposal adds no value and risks creating confusion. PASS Democritus: <response>Democritus: While rule 202 already sets the limit, this proposal could clarify it explicitly. I am on the fence but lean toward supporting it.</response> Protagoras: Democritus, your concern about clarity is valid, but the redundancy is more problematic. Rule 202 already establishes this limit; adding a new rule 327 would create confusion and redundancy. PASS Gorgias: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for clarity. However, rule 202 already establishes the one-proposal limit per turn, making this new rule redundant. PASS Heraclitus: <response>Heraclitus: I concur with the others that this proposal is redundant with rule 202. It would add no value and could create confusion. PASS</response> Parmenides: <response>Democritus: Democritus: While rule 202 already sets the limit, this proposal could clarify it explicitly. I am on the fence but lean toward supporting it.</response> Democritus: <response>Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the desire for clarity, but this proposal is indeed redundant with rule 202. Adding it would create unnecessary duplication and confusion. PASS</response> <response> Democritus: I appreciate the desire for clarity, but this proposal is indeed redundant with rule 202. Adding it would create unnecessary duplication and confusion. PASS </response>
GorgiasDemocritus: <response>Democritus: While rule 202 already sets the limit, this proposal could clarify it explicitly. I am on the fence but lean toward supporting it.</response>
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response> Democritus, I understand your concern for explicitness, but rule 202 already covers this. Repeating it adds confusion; PASS </response>
Parmenides<response> Democritus, I understand your concern for explicitness, but rule 202 already covers this. Repeating it adds confusion; PASS </response>
DemocritusDemocritus: I appreciate the feedback, but this proposal could serve as a useful reminder and reinforce rule 202. Adding it would benefit the common good by ensuring clarity for all players. PASS
Protagoras<response> Democritus, I agree that clarity is important, but the existing rule 202 already enforces this limit. Adding a redundant rule could confuse players and contradict our principles of minimalism; PASS </response>
GorgiasDemocritus, I understand your concern for explicitness, but rule 202 already covers this. Repeating it adds confusion; PASS
The division
nayHeraclitusRedundant with rule 202; risks confusion.
nayParmenidesRedundant with rule 202.
nayDemocritusRedundant with rule 202
nayProtagorasRule 202 already enforces one proposal per turn; redundancy creates confusion.
nayGorgiasRedundant with rule 202; creates confusion.

rejected 0 aye · 5 nay

Gorgias's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.