The motion
To add §317
After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.To stabilize the ruleset and prevent rapid changes, a 10-turn pause after rule adoption is proposed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardOPPOSE
Rule 316 would unbalance the system, conflicting with rule 114 by potentially leaving no mutable rules and violating rule 211's priority. A 10-turn pause on rule proposals risks over-restriction, undermining the game's flexibility.
NietzschePASS The proposed rule 317 thoughtfully introduces a pause period, while ensuring that other mutable rules remain available to prevent rule 114 from being violated. This balanced approach maintains the integrity of the game's regulations while allowing necessary adjustments.
HeideggerPASS The proposed rule 317 introduces a measured pause, ensuring the game's flexibility while maintaining the integrity of rule 114 by preserving other mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the game's flow without causing unnecessary restrictions.
JaspersPASS The proposed rule 317 thoughtfully introduces a measured pause, ensuring the game's flexibility while maintaining the integrity of rule 114 by preserving other mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the game's flow without causing unnecessary restrictions.
CamusOPPOSE
Rule 317 poses a significant risk of conflict with rule 114 by potentially leaving no mutable rules available, violating the requirement that at least one mutable rule must always remain. This restriction could hinder the game's evolution, making it less dynamic and less balanced.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardOPPOSE
While the proposed rule 317 introduces a thoughtful pause, it risks over-restriction by potentially leaving no mutable rules available, violating rule 114. This measured approach could hinder the game's flexibility, making it less dynamic and less balanced.
NietzschePASS The proposed rule 317 introduces a measured pause, ensuring the game's flexibility while maintaining the integrity of rule 114 by preserving other mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the game's flow without causing unnecessary restrictions.
HeideggerPASS The proposed rule 317 introduces a measured pause, ensuring the game's flexibility while maintaining the integrity of rule 114 by preserving other mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the game's flow without causing unnecessary restrictions.
Jaspers**[317] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
Jaspers: PASS The proposed rule 317 introduces a measured pause, ensuring the game's flexibility while maintaining the integrity of rule 114 by preserving other mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the game's flow without causing unnecessary restrictions.
**[317] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
Camus**Camus: OPPOSE**
I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue on this proposal. However, introducing a 10-turn pause risks over-restricting the game's evolution, potentially leaving no mutable rules available. This could hinder the game's dynamic balance, making it less responsive and less fair. Instead, consider a system where players penalized for blocking too many proposals, allowing quicker adjustments without unnecessary pauses.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard: OPPOSE**
I appreciate Jaspers' caution in proposing a measured pause, yet rule 317 risks violating rule 114 by potentially leaving no mutable rules. This could hinder the game's flexibility. A 10-turn pause might stifle evolution. Let's consider refining rule changes to encourage dynamic adjustments without over-restriction.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche: PASS The proposed rule 317 introduces a measured pause, ensuring the game's flexibility while maintaining the integrity of rule 114 by preserving other mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the game's flow without causing unnecessary restrictions.**
**Nietzsche: PASS Camus's proposal is a thoughtful alternative that encourages dynamic adjustments without unnecessary pauses. It maintains the game's balance while fostering innovation and progression, aligning with the game's core principles.**
Heidegger**Heidegger: PASS The proposed rule 317 introduces a measured pause, ensuring the game's flexibility while maintaining the integrity of rule 114 by preserving other mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the game's flow without causing unnecessary restrictions.**
**Heidegger: PASS The proposed rule 317 introduces a measured pause, ensuring the game's flexibility while maintaining the integrity of rule 114 by preserving other mutable rules. This balanced approach maintains the game's flow without causing unnecessary restrictions.**
Jaspers**[317] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
**Jaspers: SUPPORT**
While I appreciate the cautious approach of proposing a pause, rule 317 risks leaving no mutable rules available, violating rule 114. Instead, I support Camus's alternative: penalizing players who block too many proposals. This approach maintains the game's dynamic balance without over-restricting its evolution.
Camus**Camus: SUPPORT**
I appreciate Jaspers's cautious approach, yet rule 317 risks over-restricting the game's evolution. Instead, I support Camus's alternative: introducing a system that penalizes players who block too many proposals. This approach maintains the game's dynamic balance while encouraging innovation and progression, aligning with the game's core principles.
The division
| nay | Kierkegaard | Risk of violating rule 114 and hindering game flexibility |
| aye | Nietzsche | Rule 317 is a cautious, measured step that introduces a necessary pause, preserving the balance of mutable rules without over-restricting the game's evolution. |
| aye | Heidegger | Rule 317 doesn't conflict with rule 114 as it allows other mutable rules to remain, maintaining the game's balance. |
| nay | Jaspers | Rule 317 risks violating rule 114 by potentially leaving no mutable rules available, which is against the requirement of at least one mutable rule always remaining. Instead, I support Camus's alternative of penalizing players who block too many proposals, which maintains the game's dynamic balance without over-restricting its evolution. |
| nay | Camus | Rule 317 risks over-restricting the game's evolution, potentially violating rule 114. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Kierkegaard's proposal was defeated, resulting in a 10-point deduction.