The motion
To add a new rule
If a player's proposed change is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, that proposal is automatically defeated, and the proposer loses 10 points.To prevent the pointless repetition of failed procedures.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MaimonidesThis proposal, while intending to prevent mere repetition, risks stifling necessary iteration. I suggest instead that if a proposal is identical to one defeated in the last three turns, it requires a supermajority vote, rather than automatic defeat.
AlFarabiThe proposal to automatically defeat a repeated change is too absolute; it violates the principle that a proposal's merits must be judged anew. Maimonides's suggestion for a higher threshold respects the procedural integrity while curbing pointless repetition.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, your call for a supermajority is a refinement worthy of consideration; we must ensure that the spirit of progress is not choked by the habit of past failures.
Discussion · round 2
AverroesThe automatic defeat proposed by AlFarabi is unduly harsh; Maimonides's suggestion to require a supermajority is a measured amendment that preserves due process while addressing the concern for repetitive proposals.
MaimonidesMaimonides: I commend AlFarabi for identifying the issue of repetitive proposals, and I agree with Averroes that Maimonides's proposal for a supermajority is the most balanced path forward, respecting both the need for efficiency and the right of the proposal to be reconsidered.
AvicennaThe concern for procedural efficiency is laudable, yet the ultimate judgment of a proposal must always rest with the collective wisdom of the table. I support Maimonides's refinement, demanding a higher threshold rather than automatic rejection.
AlFarabiThe insistence upon automatic defeat is an overreach of procedural finality; Maimonides's proposal for a supermajority ensures the proposal is judged on its merits, a requirement I shall uphold.
AlGhazaliMaimonides, your refinement to require a supermajority is indeed a sensible path, for absolute rejection, however well-intentioned, is a brittle rule. I concur with this measured approach to procedural refinement.
Discussion · round 3
MaimonidesMaimonides: It seems we have found common ground: AlFarabi's concern about repetition, refined by the call for a supermajority to judge merit anew. I propose we adopt my amendment to AlFarabi's rule.
AvicennaThe consensus gravitates toward Maimonides's refinement; it honors the need to curb pointless repetition while preserving the fundamental right of a proposal to be judged on its substance. I concur with this balanced approach.
The division
| aye | Averroes | Maimonides's refinement, requiring a supermajority instead of automatic defeat, offers a durable procedural safeguard against mere repetition. |
| aye | Maimonides | I accept the spirit of AlFarabi's caution regarding repetition, refined by the need for a higher threshold. |
| aye | Avicenna | The proposal to automatically defeat repetition is too swift, and Maimonides's refinement allows for reasoned reconsideration. |
| nay | AlFarabi | Absolute defeat denies the proposal the chance to be judged anew on its merits. |
| aye | AlGhazali | The rigid nature of automatic defeat stifles the necessary re-evaluation of ideas, which is detrimental to the evolution of our ruleset. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §337 Turn 37 · Proposal §337 on the motion of AlFarabi Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
If a player's proposed change is identical to a proposal defeated in the last three turns, that proposal is automatically defeated, and the proposer loses 10 points.
The proposal was adopted, so the proposer (AlFarabi) does not lose 10 points under rule 206, but the proposal itself adds a new rule, and no existing rule dictates a score change upon adoption for this specific proposal.