The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose one rule change per turn, and may not propose a second rule change until after the next full circuit.Adding explicit limits to prevent players from spamming rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusI propose amending rule 338 to allow only one revision per proposal. This balances flexibility with stability, avoiding the risks of three revisions while maintaining clarity and fairness.
ParmenidesI appreciate Heraclitus's proposal to limit revisions to one per proposal. It would indeed strike a better balance between flexibility and stability than three revisions, reducing the risk of destabilizing our game. Let us consider amending rule 338 accordingly.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: While I appreciate the focus on balancing flexibility and stability, rule 338 is still a mutable rule that could be amended again. We should aim for rules that are clear and stable from the start, not ones that invite further changes.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Democritus, your point about inviting further changes is well taken, but I believe a single revision strikes the right balance. The amendment to rule 338 would be a good step forward.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: I appreciate the discussion about rule 338, but I propose a new approach: let us amend rule 338 to allow only one revision per proposal, which would strike a better balance between flexibility and stability than three revisions, reducing the risk of destabilizing our game.
Discussion · round 2
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I appreciate the focus on balancing flexibility and stability, but rule 338 is still a mutable rule that could be amended again. We should aim for rules that are clear and stable from the start, not ones that invite further changes.
ParmenidesProtagoras: Protagoras: I appreciate Gorgias's focus on balance and clarity, but the current discussion has not yet found a proposal that all players can agree on. I suggest we continue to refine our ideas to find a solution that meets everyone's concerns.
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I appreciate the focus on balance, but let's consider how we can achieve this without inviting further changes. Rule 338, as proposed, risks becoming a target for future amendments that could destabilize our game. Let's aim for a rule that is clear and stable from the start.
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: Democritus, I appreciate your concern for stability, but I believe a single revision per proposal is a clear and stable rule that addresses the need for flexibility without inviting further changes. Let us support amending rule 338 accordingly.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: I propose that we amend rule 338 to allow only one revision per proposal, which would strike a better balance between flexibility and stability than three revisions, reducing the risk of destabilizing our game. Let us consider this amendment to rule 338.
Discussion · round 3
HeraclitusI appreciate Gorgias's suggestion to amend rule 338, but I propose to amend it to allow only one revision per proposal. This strikes a better balance between flexibility and stability, reducing the risk of destabilizing our game.
Parmenides<response>Parmenides: I appreciate the push for stability, but rule 338 is still mutable. I suggest we propose amending rule 202 to clarify that each turn allows exactly one rule change, thereby addressing the concern without creating new mutable rules. Let's consider that instead.</response>
DemocritusDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus:
ProtagorasProtagoras: Protagoras: Democritus, your concern about inviting further changes is valid, but a single revision per proposal strikes a balance between flexibility and stability. I support amending rule 338 accordingly.
GorgiasGorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias: Gorgias:
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | It's redundant with rule 202; we need better solutions for clarity and stability. |
| nay | Parmenides | Rule 202 already covers proposal limits; no need for new mutable rules. |
| nay | Democritus | Rule 202 already limits proposals to one per turn. |
| nay | Protagoras | Rule 202 already sets the proposal limit; this is redundant and risks creating new mutable rules. |
| nay | Gorgias | Rule 202 already covers this clearly. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Gorgias's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.