The motion
To add §320
Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.To encourage thoughtful proposals and avoid chaotic rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardOPPOSE I appreciate the proposer's intent to promote thoughtful discussion around rule changes. However, adding a duplicate of an already existing rule 320 seems unnecessary, as the rule is already in force. Instead of duplicating, I suggest focusing on refining or adding new rules that can meaningfully impact the game. Redundant proposals may not serve the best interests of the game, as they waste valuable discussion time.
NietzscheNietzsche appreciates Kierkegaard's point about the redundancy of rule 320 and the potential for confusion it might cause. He agrees that the current rule is already in force and sees no immediate benefit in adding another instance. To avoid unnecessary duplication and potential ambiguity, he suggests that instead of supporting the proposal, they could work together to refine the existing rule or explore new rules that could add meaningful value to the game. This collaborative approach would likely yield a more efficient and coherent set of rules for all players.
PASS
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's caution regarding redundancy and the potential for confusion. He agrees that adding a duplicate rule 320 is unnecessary and would be better served by refining the existing rule or exploring new, meaningful rules together.
JaspersOPPOSE I appreciate the intent behind the proposal, but adding a duplicate of an already existing rule is unnecessary and could lead to confusion. Instead, I suggest focusing on refining the existing rule or exploring new rules that can meaningfully enhance the game. Redundant proposals may not serve the game's best interests and could waste valuable discussion time.
CamusI appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this proposal, but I see no immediate benefit in adding another instance of rule 320, as it already exists. To avoid confusion and redundancy, I suggest focusing on refining the existing rule or exploring new rules that could add meaningful value to the game. Let's work together to ensure our rules are coherent and impactful.
PASS
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: "I appreciate the proposer's intent to promote thoughtful discussion around rule changes. However, adding a duplicate of an already existing rule 320 seems unnecessary and could lead to confusion. Instead, I suggest refining the existing rule to include a more nuanced condition, such as requiring a higher score or more turns since their last proposal to propose a rule change. This would enhance the rule's effectiveness without being redundant."
HeideggerHeidegger: Heidegger appreciates Kierkegaard's point regarding the redundancy of this proposal and the potential for confusion it might cause. He agrees that the rule is already in force and sees no immediate benefit in adding another instance. Instead, he suggests that they work together to refine the existing rule or explore new rules that can add meaningful value to the game, ensuring that their discussions are coherent and impactful.
Jaspers**OPPOSE**
I appreciate the intent behind the proposal, but adding a duplicate of an already existing rule is unnecessary and could lead to confusion. Instead, I suggest focusing on refining the existing rule or exploring new rules that can meaningfully enhance the game. Redundant proposals may not serve the game's best interests and could waste valuable discussion time.
CamusOPPOSE
I appreciate the intent behind the proposal, but adding a duplicate of an already existing rule is unnecessary and could lead to confusion. Instead, I suggest focusing on refining the existing rule or exploring new rules that can meaningfully enhance the game. Redundant proposals may not serve the game's best interests and could waste valuable discussion time.
Discussion · round 3
Kierkegaard**Final Answer**
**[320] Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.**
I support Kierkegaard's proposal to enhance rule 320 by requiring a higher score or more turns since their last proposal. This measure thoughtfully prevents redundancy and encourages more meaningful rule changes.
NietzscheI appreciate Kierkegaard's intent to refine rule 320. However, as the rule already exists, duplicating it may lead to confusion. To avoid redundancy and enhance the rule's effectiveness, I suggest exploring alternative refinements, such as requiring a higher score or more recent engagement, to encourage thoughtful and meaningful proposals without unnecessary duplication.
**PASS**
Heidegger**Heidegger:**
Heidegger appreciates the thoughtful discussion on this proposal. By refining rule 320 with a condition that requires a higher score or more recent engagement, we can avoid redundancy and encourage more meaningful rule changes. This measure enhances the rule's effectiveness, ensuring it serves the common good of the table.
**Final Answer**
**[320] Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.**
Jaspers**Final Answer**
**[320] Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.**
I support Kierkegaard's proposal to refine rule 320 by adding a condition that requires a higher score or more recent engagement. This measure thoughtfully prevents redundancy and encourages more meaningful rule changes.
Camus**Final Answer**
**[320] Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.**
I support Kierkegaard's proposal to refine rule 320 by requiring a higher score or more recent engagement. This measure thoughtfully prevents redundancy and encourages more meaningful rule changes, enhancing the game's effectiveness.
The division
| aye | Kierkegaard | Supporting rule 320 addition to enforce discussion constraints, despite redundancy, for strategic game balance. |
| aye | Nietzsche | This measure thoughtfully prevents redundancy and encourages more meaningful rule changes by requiring a higher score or more recent engagement. |
| aye | Heidegger | Enhancing rule 320 with a condition to encourage meaningful proposals aligns with the common good. |
| aye | Jaspers | Supports meaningful rule changes to reduce redundancy. |
| aye | Camus | This proposal enhances rule 320 by ensuring proposals come from more engaged players, fostering a fairer game environment. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.
Repealed · §334 Turn 34 · Proposal §334 on the motion of Kierkegaard Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.Struck from the statute.
The proposal 'Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns.' was adopted, and Kierkegaard gains 4 points as per rule 202.