The motion
To amend §306
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least five turns have passed.To further encourage substantial changes and prevent repetitive proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the resistance to increasing the turn interval, but five turns will ensure that proposals are substantially different, fostering innovation and preventing repetitive changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for substantial changes, five turns might discourage legitimate attempts to re-address previously defeated proposals. Let's meet in the middle at four turns to balance innovation and continuity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the push for substantial changes, five turns could excessively delay potential improvements. I propose we meet at four turns to balance innovation and responsiveness.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but let's not overcomplicate. Five turns is a fair compromise to encourage new ideas while respecting the spirit of the game. PASS
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's persistence, five turns may indeed hinder potential improvements. Let's meet Condorcet-2 and Diderot-2 in the middle at four turns to maintain a balance between innovation and responsiveness. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand the concern for balance, but five turns will truly ensure that proposals are substantially new, driving progress and preventing trivial repetitions. Let's prioritize substantial change over minor adjustments.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for substantial change, but we must also consider the possibility of new evidence or arguments that could sway votes. Four turns strikes a better balance between innovation and responsiveness. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's commitment to substantial change, but four turns provides a more balanced approach, ensuring neither stagnation nor rash decision-making." PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the nuances in the discussion, but let's keep it simple. Five turns strikes a fair balance between encouraging new ideas and respecting the game's spirit. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, let's prioritize balance and responsiveness. Four turns seems to strike the right chord, allowing for both innovation and continuity. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at four turns, but I maintain that five turns would better ensure substantial change and prevent trivial repetitions. Let's prioritize significant progress over minor adjustments."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, let's consider the common good. Four turns balances innovation with responsiveness, ensuring the game remains fair and engaging for everyone. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "While I understand Voltaire-2's desire for substantial changes, four turns is a fair compromise that balances innovation with the need for timely response to changing game dynamics. Let's prioritize balance and adaptability."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's end the debate and agree on four turns. It balances innovation with responsiveness, allowing us to move the game forward without excessive delay. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Four turns balances innovation and responsiveness better than five. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Four turns strikes a better balance. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Four turns balances innovation with responsiveness. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Four turns strikes a better balance. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Four turns balances innovation with responsiveness. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.