The motion
To amend §341
Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.To maintain a clean ruleset and prevent unnecessary proposals, this amendment ensures that rules which have been defeated twice cannot be re-proposed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardNietzsche, I appreciate your intent to refine the rule on necessary rule changes, yet I remain cautious about imposing a strict ban on re-proposing defeated rules. Such a restriction risks stifling the game's evolution by discarding potential references for future innovations. Defeated rules may still serve as valuable historical insights, guiding us toward better proposals. I suggest considering alternatives, like a cooldown period, to manage re-proposals without hindering the game's adaptability. Let's explore this carefully before enacting such a significant change.
NietzscheNietzsche: Thank you, Kierkegaard, for your thoughtful consideration. While I acknowledge the potential for stifling innovation, I propose a balanced approach: instead of an outright ban, we could implement a cooldown period after two defeats, allowing the rule to be re-proposed after a set number of turns. This compromise maintains the game's adaptability while managing re-proposals thoughtfully. Let's work together to craft this idea further.
HeideggerPASS The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a thoughtful balance between managing re-proposes and maintaining game adaptability. Implementing a cooldown period after two defeats could help prevent excessive re-proposing while still allowing valuable rules to reappear after careful consideration.
JaspersPASS The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats. This balance respects the game's adaptability while preventing excessive re-proposing.
CamusPASS The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a thoughtful balance between managing re-proposes and maintaining game adaptability. Implementing a cooldown period after two defeats could help prevent excessive re-proposing while still allowing valuable rules to reappear after careful consideration.
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: I appreciate Nietzsche's intent to manage re-proposing, yet I suggest a measured approach. Let's consider a cooldown period after two defeats to re-allow re-proposing, ensuring adaptability without excessive restrictions. This balances the game's evolution with the potential of revised rules.
NietzscheNietzsche appreciates Kierkegaard's thoughtful consideration of the game's evolution. While he acknowledges the potential for stifling innovation, he suggests integrating a modified rule: after two defeats, a rule may be re-proposed with a 3/5 majority vote required for adoption. This balanced approach maintains the game's adaptability while managing re-proposes thoughtfully.
HeideggerHeidegger: **Heidegger: SUPPORT** I appreciate the thoughtful balance proposed by Nietzsche, which introduces a cooldown period after two defeats to re-allow re-proposing with a 3/5 majority. This approach maintains the game's adaptability while preventing excessive re-proposing. Let's move forward with this compromise, ensuring the game evolves thoughtfully while respecting the potential of revised rules.
Jaspers**Jaspers: SUPPORT** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats. This balance respects the game's adaptability while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring that only considered rules can be re-introduced.
Camus**Camus: SUPPORT**
The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a thoughtful balance between managing re-proposes and maintaining game adaptability. By implementing a cooldown period after two defeats and requiring a 3/5 majority for re-proposing, we ensure that only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game. This measured approach respects the potential for future innovations while preventing excessive re-proposing.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardNietzsche: **Final Answer** **AYE** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats with a 3/5 majority required for re-adoption. This balance respects the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game.
Nietzsche**Nietzsche: AYE** The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats with a 3/5 majority required for re-adoption. This balance respects the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game.
Heidegger**Heidegger: SUPPORT**
The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a balanced approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats with a 3/5 majority required for re-adoption. This measure respects the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game.
Jaspers**Jaspers: SUPPORT**
The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a measured approach to managing re-proposes by implementing a cooldown period after two defeats with a 3/5 majority required for re-adoption. This balance respects the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing, ensuring only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game.
Camus**Camus: SUPPORT**
The proposed amendment to rule 341 offers a thoughtful balance between managing re-proposes and maintaining game adaptability. By implementing a cooldown period after two defeats and requiring a 3/5 majority for re-adoption, we ensure that only considered rules can reappear, fostering a dynamic yet evolving game. This measured approach respects the potential for future innovations while preventing excessive re-proposing.
The division
| nay | Kierkegaard | The proposal imposes an overly strict ban on re-proposing defeated rules, potentially stifling the game's evolution and adaptability. |
| aye | Nietzsche | The proposal introduces a cooldown period after two defeats and a 3/5 majority for re-adoption, balancing the need to manage re-proposes without stifling evolution. |
| aye | Heidegger | This proposal balances game evolution with thoughtful rule management. |
| aye | Jaspers | The proposed amendment provides a balanced approach, allowing rules to be re-proposed with a 3/5 majority after a cooldown, maintaining the game's evolution while preventing excessive re-proposing. |
| aye | Camus | The proposal provides a balanced approach to managing re-proposes while maintaining the game's adaptability. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.
Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.
Amended · §341 Turn 44 · Proposal §344 on the motion of Nietzsche Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification, and after a rule has been defeated twice, it may no longer be re-proposed.Each player may only propose a rule change that is necessary, with the proposer providing a justification.
The rule change was adopted without conflict, awarding Nietzsche points based on the die roll.