The motion
To amend §309
A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced, it cannot be amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.To further clarify and strengthen the existing rule.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I support Voltaire-2's amendment as it provides a clear boundary and prevents contradictory changes, preserving the integrity of our ruleset.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's support. To ensure clarity and predictability, I propose we add "explicitly" after "contradicts" to make it "contradicts explicitly".
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's amendment, but let's also add a provision allowing rules to be amended to resolve ambiguities or inconsistencies without being considered a contradiction. This maintains flexibility while preserving the integrity of the ruleset.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I agree with the spirit of Voltaire-2's amendment, I propose we remove the clause "once a rule has been introduced" to allow for retrospective alignment with immutable rules, maintaining our commitment to precision and clarity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we find a compromise that incorporates all our concerns. Let's amend [309] to state: "A player may not introduce a rule that explicitly contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Amendments to rules must maintain consistency with immutable rules and existing mutable rules, except where resolving ambiguities or inconsistencies." This maintains flexibility, clarity, and respect for the game's structure.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's effort to bridge our views. Let's adopt Sartre-2's compromise amendment, as it balances clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Sartre-2's compromise, but let's avoid ambiguity. I propose we revert to my original amendment, with Condorcet-2's clarification: 'A player may not introduce or amend a rule to explicitly contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.'"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's concern for clarity, I propose we maintain Sartre-2's amendment, as it allows for reasonable adjustments while still preventing explicit contradictions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's and Diderot-2's efforts to maintain flexibility, but Voltaire-2's amendment provides a clearer boundary. I propose a slight revision: "A player may not introduce or amend a rule to explicitly contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed, unless resolving an ambiguity or inconsistency in the ruleset." This preserves clarity while allowing for necessary adjustments.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but let's not overcomplicate the rule. I propose we maintain Diderot-2's amendment as a compromise, allowing for necessary adjustments while preventing explicit contradictions.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I propose a final compromise: "A player may not introduce or amend a rule to explicitly contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed, unless the amendment is necessary to correct a previously unnoticed error or inconsistency, or to clarify an ambiguous rule." This maintains clarity and flexibility, while also respecting the game's structure.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS, I support Montaigne-2's final compromise as it balances clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure while addressing our concerns.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Montaigne-2's final compromise, as it strikes a good balance between clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's final compromise, I propose a slight simplification: "A player may not introduce or amend a rule to explicitly contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed, except to correct errors or clarify ambiguities." This maintains the essence of the compromise while keeping the rule concise.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle on Condorcet-2's simplification, as it maintains the essential balance of the compromise while promoting clarity and conciseness. PASS.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | The amended rule maintains clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure while addressing our concerns. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | The amendment provides clarity and maintains the integrity of the ruleset. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Supports maintaining clarity, flexibility, and respect for the game's structure. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | The amended rule maintains clarity and flexibility while respecting the game's structure. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Supports Condorcet-2's simplification, maintaining balance, clarity, and conciseness. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §309 Turn 10 · Proposal §310 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Introducing [307] (mutable) A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.A player may not introduce a rule that contradicts an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed. Once a rule has been introduced, it cannot be amended to contradict an immutable rule or another mutable rule that has not been repealed.
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.