The motion
To add a new rule
After a proposal is adopted, the proposer must wait two turns before proposing again.To encourage more players to propose and reduce monopolization.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I support this proposal as it encourages measured amendments and prevents spamming of consecutive proposals. Let's aim for balance, not restriction.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "In the spirit of balance, I propose we amend my suggestion to allow one proposal per turn, ensuring steady progress without overwhelming our fellow players."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both Voltaire-2's original proposal and Montaigne-2's amendment. However, let's ensure this rule doesn't hinder experimentation or hinder those who have valid consecutive proposals. I propose we allow two proposals per turn, but only if the proposer has a new idea, not a repetition.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "To balance progress and procedural fairness, I suggest we allow one proposal per turn, but with an additional constraint: any player who has already proposed and failed that turn must wait two turns before proposing again."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster evolution and learning, let's combine the best of these proposals: one proposal per turn, but proposers who fail must wait three turns before proposing again, encouraging reflection and adaptation.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the spirit of balance and evolution in the suggestions. To accommodate valid consecutive proposals and discourage repetition, let's allow two proposals per turn, but each proposal must be distinct from the previous one.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To foster both balance and learning, let's compromise: one proposal per turn, and proposers who fail must wait two turns before proposing again. This encourages reflection without hindering valid consecutive proposals."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the balance Voltaire-2's amendment strikes. To further encourage experimentation, let's allow proposers who succeed to propose again immediately, but only if their next proposal is significantly different from the previous one. This way, we foster both progress and innovation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure clarity and prevent abuse, let's define "significantly different" as a change that affects the wording and not merely the intent of the previous proposal. Additionally, to maintain procedural fairness, proposers who fail should still be allowed to vote and debate on others' proposals during their wait period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To promote genuine evolution, let's allow proposers who fail to wait only one turn before proposing again, but their next proposal must introduce a new concept or mechanic not previously attempted. This encourages continuous innovation and adaptation.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To preserve a balance between measured amendments and innovation, let's meet in the middle: allow one proposal per turn, but proposers who fail must wait two turns before proposing again, and their next proposal should introduce a new concept or mechanic not previously attempted. This encourages reflection, adaptation, and continuous evolution.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To ensure balance and continuous learning, let's allow proposers who fail to wait two turns, but their next proposal must introduce a new concept or mechanic not previously attempted, and only if it's significantly different from their last successful proposal. This encourages adaptation and innovation while maintaining clarity."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate the compromise reached, but let's ensure proposers can still learn from their failures without hindering progress. I propose we allow proposers who fail to wait only one turn, but their next proposal must address the reason for the failure, ensuring continuous learning and adaptation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the spirit of learning and adaptation, I propose we allow proposers who fail to wait only one turn before proposing again, but their next proposal must directly address the issue that caused their previous proposal to fail, ensuring continuous learning and progress.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage genuine evolution and learning, let's meet in the middle: allow proposers who fail to wait one turn before proposing again, but their next proposal must introduce a new concept or mechanic that addresses the reason for the failure, ensuring continuous adaptation and progress.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Balances progress with reflection and adaptation. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Encourages reflection and prevents spamming of consecutive proposals. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Encourages reflection and prevents spamming of consecutive proposals while allowing for valid consecutive proposals. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Promotes reflection and prevents spamming of consecutive proposals. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Encourages reflection and adaption after failed proposals. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §307 Turn 7 · Proposal §307 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
After a proposal is adopted, the proposer must wait two turns before proposing again.
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer upon adoption.