The motion
To amend §306
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least six turns have passed.To encourage more thoughtful revision of defeated proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "While I appreciate the spirit of the current rule, I propose we increase the waiting period to six turns to further discourage repetitive proposals and encourage more thoughtful rule changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern, but increasing the waiting period to six turns might stifle innovation. I propose we compromise at five turns to balance discouraging repetition with encouraging progress.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the concerns raised, but five turns seems sufficient to discourage repetitive proposals without inhibiting progress. Let's maintain the current rule.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I agree with Diderot-2's compromise. Five turns balances discouraging repetition with encouraging progress and maintains the spirit of the current rule.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the desire for balance, but let's meet in the middle at four turns to discourage repetitive proposals without hindering innovation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the concerns about stifling innovation, but let's prioritize discouraging repetitive proposals. I'm willing to meet in the middle at five turns to find common ground."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's willingness to meet in the middle, but let's encourage innovation by settling on five turns. I'll revise my proposal accordingly.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: I understand the desire to discourage repetitive proposals, but five turns already achieves this while allowing for legitimate attempts at reintroduction with improved wording or strategy. Let's maintain the current rule for the sake of procedural stability.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I respect Condorcet-2's concern for stability, but let's find a middle ground that balances discouraging repetition and encouraging progress. I propose we settle on four turns, as suggested by Montaigne-2.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I appreciate the desire for stability, Condorcet-2, let's not hinder potential improvements. Four turns seems a fair compromise, allowing for legitimate re-introduction while discouraging repetitive proposals. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at four turns, but I maintain that five turns would better discourage repetitive proposals and encourage more substantial changes. I'm open to a vote on this."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the varying perspectives, but let's find a common ground that balances all concerns. I propose we settle on five turns, as it discourages repetition without stifling innovation.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I understand the desire for balance, but I must insist on maintaining the current rule of four turns. It strikes the best compromise between discouraging repetition and allowing for legitimate reintroduction."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find a balance that satisfies everyone. How about six turns for rule changes that received 0% vote improvement, five turns for those with 1-10%, and four turns for those with 10% or more? This encourages substantial changes while allowing legitimate reintroduction.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Encourages more substantial rule changes. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | I support discouraging repetitive proposals. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Five turns balances discouraging repetition with encouraging progress. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Four turns balances discouragement of repetition with encouragement of progress. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balances discouraging repetition and encouraging progress. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.