The motion
To amend §304
After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.To allow thoughtful reconsideration after a rule's defeat, preventing hasty retrials.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:** [304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 1 turn. This amendment strikes a balance between necessary reflection and maintaining the game's fluidity, as it prevents hasty decisions without fully considering the implications.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche:** I appreciate Kierkegaard's thoughtful proposal for a measured pause after rule changes, as it provides valuable time for reflection and prevents the rush of hasty decisions. I support the proposed amendment, as it aligns with our need for balanced progression in the game.
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
HeideggerHeidegger: **Heidegger:** I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a measured pause after rule changes. It offers valuable reflection time without unnecessarily halting the game's progression. However, I would advocate for a 1-turn cooldown to ensure quick adaptability while still allowing for considered decisions, striking a balance between reflection and fluidity.
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 1 turn.**
Jaspers**Jaspers:**
**Jaspers:** I appreciate Kierkegaard's effort to ensure thoughtful reflection after rule changes, yet a 10-turn pause seems excessive. A 1-turn cooldown balances the need for reflection with the game's fluidity. This amendment aligns with rule 211, ensuring no conflict arises. I support a 1-turn pause, maintaining the game's quick adaptability while allowing considered decisions.
Camus**Camus:**
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 1 turn.**
I appreciate Kierkegaard's measured proposal for a 1-turn cooldown, which thoughtfully balances the need for reflection with the game's fluidity. This pause allows for considered decisions without unnecessarily halting the game's progression. It aligns with our shared values of balanced growth and strategic foresight.
Discussion · round 2
Kierkegaard**Kierkegaard:**
Kierkegaard appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. A 10-turn pause after rule changes provides a necessary cooling-off period, ensuring that decisions are not made in haste and allowing time for reflection and consideration. This balanced approach aligns with our shared values of thoughtful progression and durable institutions. While I understand the desire for quicker adaptability, a 1-turn pause may not provide sufficient time for the game to reflect on the implications of a rule change. I stand by my proposal, but I am open to further discussion if a more measured middle ground can be reached.
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
Nietzsche**Nietzsche:**
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 1 turn.**
I appreciate Kierkegaard's proposal for a 1-turn cooldown, which thoughtfully balances the need for reflection with the game's fluidity. This pause allows for considered decisions without unnecessarily halting the game's progression. It aligns with our shared values of balanced growth and strategic foresight.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Heidegger:**
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 10 turns.**
I appreciate Kierkegaard's desire for reflection after rule changes, but a 10-turn pause provides sufficient time for thoughtful consideration without unnecessarily halting the game's progression. This balanced approach aligns with rule 211, ensuring no conflicts arise from lower-numbered rules. I support the 10-turn cooldown, maintaining the game's integrity while allowing for considered decisions.
JaspersJaspers: Nay. I appreciate Kierkegaard's desire for reflection after rule changes, but a 10-turn pause may be excessive. It could lead to conflicts with rule 211, undermining the principle that lower-numbered rules take precedence. I support a more balanced approach, such as a 1-turn cooldown, to ensure thoughtful consideration without unnecessarily halting the game's progression.
Camus**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 2 turns.**
I appreciate Kierkegaard's desire for reflection after rule changes, but a 2-turn pause strikes a balanced approach. It allows sufficient time for thoughtful consideration without unnecessarily halting the game's progression, aligning with rule 211 to maintain order while ensuring quick adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard: Kierkegaard appreciates Camus's balanced proposal for a 2-turn pause, yet he remains convinced that a 10-turn cooldown better serves the game's durability. A longer reflection period minimizes the risk of hasty decisions and aligns with our shared values of thoughtful progression. While he acknowledges the value of adaptability, he believes a 10-turn pause provides the necessary depth of reflection for truly considered decisions. He is open to further dialogue but remains committed to his proposal.
Nietzsche**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 3 turns.**
Nietzsche appreciates the need for reflection and the value of adaptability in the game. While he supports the original 10-turn proposal for its reflection, he also sees merit in Camus's 2-turn pause for its balance. To bridge the gap, he proposes a 3-turn cooldown. This middle ground allows for necessary reflection without unnecessarily halting the game's progression, aligning with our shared values of thoughtful progression and strategic foresight.
Heidegger**Heidegger:** Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. A 1-turn cooldown provides a balanced approach, allowing sufficient time for reflection without unnecessarily halting the game's progression. This pause aligns with rule 211 to maintain order while ensuring quick adaptability. Heidegger supports the 1-turn pause, maintaining the game's integrity while allowing for considered decisions.
Jaspers**Jaspers:**
Jaspers appreciates Kierkegaard's desire for reflection after rule changes, yet a 10-turn pause may be excessive. It risks conflicting with rule 211, which prioritizes lower-numbered rules. A 1-turn cooldown better balances reflection with the game's fluidity, ensuring considered decisions without unnecessarily halting progress.
Camus**Camus:**
**[304] After any rule change is adopted, no player may propose a new rule change for the next 2 turns.**
I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. While a 10-turn pause offers valuable reflection, I believe a 2-turn cooldown provides a balanced approach, allowing sufficient time for considered decisions without unnecessarily halting the game's progression. This middle ground aligns with our shared values of strategic foresight and thoughtful progression, ensuring the game remains fluid while allowing for necessary reflection.
The division
| aye | Kierkegaard | Kierkegaard values reflection and prefers a 10-turn pause for durability. |
| aye | Nietzsche | Supports the proposal as it provides necessary reflection time without halting progression too much. |
| abstain | Heidegger | A 10-turn pause is excessive; a 1-turn cooldown better balances reflection with game fluidity. |
| nay | Jaspers | A 10-turn cooldown is excessive, risking conflicts with rule 211 and unnecessarily halting the game's progression. |
| abstain | Camus | A 2-turn cooldown offers a balanced approach, allowing sufficient reflection without unnecessary delays, while maintaining the game's fluidity. |
carried 2 aye · 1 nay · 2 abstain
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