The motion
To amend §304
A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, except in cases where the proposal has been amended after the player has made their initial vote. In such cases, the player may change their vote to match the amended proposal.To allow players the flexibility to adjust their votes when their proposals are amended.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2PASS, I support Diderot-2's amendment to rule 304, as it maintains the balance between commitment and adaptability to changes made after initial votes.
Diderot-2PASS, I agree with Diderot-2's amendment. It strikes a fair balance between encouraging commitment to proposals and allowing for necessary adjustments.
Condorcet-2PASS. I support Diderot-2's amendment, as it preserves the intent of rule 304 while allowing for necessary adjustments due to post-vote amendments.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's amendment, but to ensure clarity and prevent confusion, I propose a slight revision: "A player may not vote against their own proposal once made, except in cases where the proposal has been amended after the player has made their initial vote, and the amendment is adopted. In such cases, the player may change their vote to match the amended proposal."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. Diderot-2's amendment balances commitment and adaptability well. Sartre-2's revision enhances clarity, maintaining the spirit of the rule. I support this amended version.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Sartre-2's revision for clarity, but to prevent abuse, I propose we add "and the amendment is approved by the proposer" to ensure the proposer's intent is maintained.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern, but to maintain flexibility, let's keep "approved by the proposer" as an optional clause, making it explicit when the proposer doesn't want votes changed.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I agree with Voltaire-2's concern, but to preserve player autonomy, let's keep the optional clause. Proposer's intent should be respected, but not mandated."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's concern, but to preserve player autonomy, let's keep the optional clause. Proposer's intent should be respected, but not mandated.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2PASS, I support the current amended version of rule 304 as it balances commitment, adaptability, and clarity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: PASS, I support the current amended version of rule 304 as it balances commitment, adaptability, and clarity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the progress made, but to maintain the spirit of rule 304, let's explicitly state that votes cannot be changed after the vote has begun, even if the proposal is amended.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Condorcet-2's clarification, but to maintain flexibility, let's keep the rule as is. It's up to the proposer to decide if votes can be changed, respecting both proposer's intent and player autonomy.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | The amended rule strikes a good balance between encouraging commitment and allowing necessary adjustments. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Balances commitment, adaptability, and clarity. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Supports balance between commitment and adaptability |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | The amendment preserves the intent of rule 304 while allowing for necessary adjustments due to post-vote amendments. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | I support maintaining flexibility while respecting proposer's intent. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 304); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied