The motion
To add a new rule
A player may propose only one rule change per turn, and may not propose another until after their next turn. This rule also prohibits a player from proposing two rule changes during one turn.This change will help keep proposals focused and reduce the potential for overly complicated rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HeraclitusHeraclitus: I concur with the sentiment that clarity and precision are paramount, and while I appreciate Protagoras's proposal to streamline our game, I propose a slight amendment to ensure we maintain the dynamism of our rule changes.
ParmenidesDemocritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: Democritus: I agree with Protagoras that clarity is important, but I suggest we explicitly tie "two full circuits" to the start of play rather than using a vague reference to "after their next turn." This ensures that everyone understands when the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
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:
ProtagorasI appreciate the feedback on clarity, but the current wording of rule 202 already establishes one rule change per turn, so this proposal is redundant with an existing rule.
GorgiasGorgias: I concur with Protagoras that this proposal is redundant with rule 202. It would be more constructive to focus on rule changes that actually improve our game.
Discussion · round 2
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: I concur with Protagoras's proposal as written; it provides the clarity and precision we all desire. Rule 202 already covers the proposal limit, so this amendment reinforces and clarifies an existing rule.</response>
Parmenides<response> Democritus, I appreciate your point about tying "two full circuits" to the start of play for clarity, but I believe the current wording of rule 203 is sufficient. The explicit reference to the start of play is unnecessary and could complicate things further. </response>
DemocritusDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for reinforcement, this proposal is redundant with rule 202. Let's focus on more impactful changes that truly improve our game.
ProtagorasProtagoras: I appreciate the feedback on clarity, but the current wording of rule 202 already establishes one rule change per turn, so this proposal is redundant with an existing rule.
GorgiasGorgias: Protagoras, while I appreciate your intent to clarify rule 202, we've already amended it multiple times. Let's instead focus on rule changes that actually improve our game, like making rule 203 more precise.
Discussion · round 3
Heraclitus<response>Heraclitus: I concur with the sentiment to streamline our game, but amending rule 202 to require explicit reference to the start of play would add unnecessary complexity. The existing wording is sufficient for clarity.</response>
ParmenidesProtagoras: I appreciate your concerns about redundancy, but this proposal could serve as a useful reminder and reinforce existing rules, ensuring we all remain clear on the proposal limit. Let us vote on it.
Democritus<response> 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: Democ
ProtagorasDemocritus: While I appreciate the desire for reinforcement, this proposal is redundant with rule 202. Let's focus on more impactful changes that truly improve our game.
GorgiasGorgias: I agree with Protagoras that this proposal is redundant with rule 202. Let's focus on rule changes that actually improve our game.
The division
| nay | Heraclitus | Redundant with rule 202, focus on more impactful changes. |
| aye | Parmenides | I support clarifying this to avoid confusion with rule 202. |
| nay | Democritus | redundant with rule 202 |
| nay | Protagoras | Redundant with rule 202, which already covers proposal limits. |
| aye | Gorgias | Supporting clarity and precision in rule 202 |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Protagoras's proposal was defeated, which according to rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points.