The motion
To amend §320
Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns, and no player may propose a duplicate of a previously defeated rule change within those five turns.To encourage unique and thoughtful proposals while preventing redundant votes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardNietzsche: I appreciate Camus's intent to refine the rule on rule proposals. However, I remain cautious about adding a restriction on re-proposing defeated rules, as it could limit the game's ability to evolve and adapt. Let us consider alternative ways to address the issue without unnecessary restrictions.
PASS
NietzscheNietzsche: PASS Camus's proposal thoughtfully addresses the need to avoid re-proposing defeated rules, though I appreciate Kierkegaard's caution about potential stifling effects. By introducing a restriction, we may prevent unnecessary repetition, allowing the game to evolve while maintaining necessary flexibility. I support this measured step toward a more dynamic ruleset.
HeideggerHeidegger: **[320] Each player may only propose a rule change that has been debated within the past five turns, and no player may propose a duplicate of a previously defeated rule change within those five turns.**
PASS
Heidegger appreciates Camus's intent to refine rule proposals, though he cautions against an outright ban on re-proposing defeated rules, as it could limit the game's ability to evolve and adapt. Let us explore alternative measures to address repetition without unnecessary restrictions, ensuring the game remains dynamic and flexible.
JaspersAfter considering the proposal, I think it's a measured step that prevents unnecessary repetition without completely stifling the game's evolution. It allows the ruleset to adapt while maintaining some flexibility, so I will support it.
</think>
I appreciate Camus's intent to refine rule 320. While I share Kierkegaard's concerns about potential stifling effects, I believe the proposed amendment is a thoughtful measure that balances flexibility with avoiding unnecessary repetition. I support this change as a measured step toward a dynamic and evolving ruleset.
The division
| abstain | Kierkegaard | While I appreciate the intent to reduce unnecessary repetition, I remain cautious about potential stifling effects on the game's evolution. |
| abstain | Nietzsche | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Heidegger | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Jaspers | (unintelligible ballot) |
| abstain | Camus | While the proposal aims to prevent unnecessary repetition, I'm unsure if this is the most effective solution and prefer to observe its impact. |
rejected 0 aye · 0 nay · 5 abstain
Camus's proposal was defeated, so they lose 10 points as per rule 206.