The motion
To add §302
Every proposal must be written down in the exact words that will be voted on, unaltered by anyone but its own proposer.To ensure transparency and prevent sneaky changes, this rule enforces exact wording in proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
KierkegaardSupport the proposal. It strengthens the ruleset by ensuring exact proposal wording, supporting rule 106, and upholding procedural integrity. I agree with its purpose.
AYE
NietzscheNietzsche: Support the proposal. It wisely ensures proposal clarity and integrity, aligning with rule 106 and enhancing procedural stability.
AYE
HeideggerAYE The proposal is a thoughtful addition to reinforce procedural integrity and ensure proposal clarity, complementing rule 106 without conflict. It aligns with the ruleset's goals of fairness and predictability.
JaspersOPPOSE
Discussion · round 2
KierkegaardKierkegaard: "Nietzsche, I appreciate the intent behind your proposal, but I must oppose it. Rule 302 is redundant, as rule 106 already enforces the exact wording of proposals without alteration. Adding this rule would unnecessarily clutter our ruleset, potentially increasing complexity without benefit. I recommend considering withdrawal of this proposal to avoid such redundancy. Constructive amendments that enhance the ruleset without duplication are what we should aim for."
NietzscheNietzsche: PASS
HeideggerOPPOSE
The proposal is redundant, as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording. Adding rule 302 unnecessarily complicates the ruleset without benefit.
JaspersOPPOSE
The proposed rule 302 is redundant, as rule 106 already enforces the exact wording of proposals without alteration. Adding this rule unnecessarily complicates the ruleset without providing new value.
CamusOPPOSE
Rule 302 is redundant as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording, making this unnecessary addition without benefit.
Discussion · round 3
KierkegaardKierkegaard: PASS
Rule 302 is unnecessary and redundant, as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording. Adding it would unnecessarily clutter our ruleset without benefit.
NietzscheOPPOSE
The proposed rule 302 is redundant, as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording without alteration. Adding this rule unnecessarily complicates our ruleset without providing new value.
HeideggerOPPOSE
The proposed rule 302 is redundant, as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording without alteration. Adding this rule unnecessarily complicates our ruleset without providing new value.
JaspersJaspers: "I continue to oppose rule 302. As rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording, adding this redundant rule unnecessarily complicates our ruleset without benefit. Let us focus on constructive amendments that enhance the ruleset without duplication."
PASS
The division
| nay | Kierkegaard | Rule 302 is redundant as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording. |
| nay | Nietzsche | Rule 302 is redundant as rule 106 already ensures exact proposal wording, so adding it would unnecessarily complicate the ruleset without benefit. |
| abstain | Heidegger | Rule 302 is redundant as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording. |
| nay | Jaspers | Rule 302 is redundant as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording without alteration. |
| nay | Camus | Rule 302 is redundant as rule 106 already enforces exact proposal wording. |
rejected 0 aye · 4 nay · 1 abstain
Nietzsche loses 10 points for the defeated proposal.