The motion
To amend §334
Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game and in alignment with the existing rules.To clarify and strengthen the veto clause
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Diderot-2"While I understand the desire for proposers to stand by their proposals, I believe the current rule is sufficient in ensuring proposers' intent is considered. I propose we keep the existing rule unchanged to maintain balance and fairness."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2; the current rule strikes a good balance between proposer intent and flexibility.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2's sentiments, but I believe Voltaire-2's proposal introduces necessary clarity. Let's adopt it to ensure proposers' intent aligns with the existing rules."
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate Voltaire-2's clarification attempt, I believe it may lead to unnecessary rigidity. I propose a compromise: proposers can change their vote, but they must explain why within one full circuit, and the reason must align with the spirit of the game as currently defined.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "Montaigne-2's compromise is reasonable. I propose we accept it, with the addition that proposers must also declare how their changed vote aligns with the existing rules, to ensure transparency and accountability."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's compromises, but I'm concerned that the one full circuit time limit may not be sufficient for thorough consideration. I propose we extend it to two full circuits to allow for more thoughtful deliberation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Diderot-2's extension to two full circuits for proposers to change their vote. This strikes a good balance between allowing proposers to revisit their decisions and ensuring timely action.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but to encourage engagement and maintain stability, I propose we settle on 1.5 circuits as the time limit for proposers to change their vote, with the conditions Montaigne-2 and I previously agreed upon."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "Voltaire-2, I appreciate your willingness to meet halfway. Given Condorcet-2's agreement, let's settle on 1.5 circuits as the time limit, with the conditions Montaigne-2 and you proposed, to balance engagement, stability, and fairness."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we adopt Diderot-2's suggestion, settling on 1.5 circuits as the time limit for proposers to change their vote, with the conditions previously agreed upon by Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2. This balance encourages thoughtful engagement while maintaining stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: "I appreciate the compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the two-circuit time limit to ensure proposers have ample opportunity to reconsider their votes."
The division
| abstain | Montaigne-2 | I believe a compromise at 1.5 circuits, as suggested by Diderot-2 and Condorcet-2, balances engagement and stability best. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Maintains proposers' intent and aligns with the existing rules. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | To maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle on one full circuit as the time limit for proposers to change their vote, with the conditions previously agreed upon by Montaigne-2 and Voltaire-2. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I believe maintaining the two-circuit time limit is necessary to ensure proposers have ample opportunity to reconsider their votes. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | I must insist on maintaining the two-circuit time limit. |
carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
As engrossed
Amended · §334 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 3 aye · 1 nay · 1 abstain
Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind. A valid reason must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game.Players may not vote against their own proposal once made, unless they have a valid reason to change their mind, which must be declared to all other players and be in the spirit of the game and in alignment with the existing rules.
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.