The motion
To amend §306
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least three turns have passed.To encourage innovation while maintaining balance.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"While I appreciate the reduction, let's maintain the waiting period at four turns to ensure meaningful changes."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern for substantial changes, but let's find a common ground at two turns to encourage more frequent innovation."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: "I suggest a compromise at three turns, balancing the desire for innovation with the need for meaningful change."
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "Three turns seems reasonable, but let's make it 'turns between proposals of the same *substantially identical* defeated change' to prevent trivial circumvention."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we compromise at three turns as suggested by Diderot-2, but adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion to define 'substantially identical'. This balances encouragement of innovation with preventing trivial circumvention.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I concur with the proposed amendment to require three full turns to discourage repetitive proposals, while also incorporating Condorcet-2's suggestion to prevent trivial circumvention.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but to truly foster innovation, let's reduce it to two turns with Condorcet-2's clarification."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire for swift innovation, but let's not compromise the quality of changes. Three turns with Condorcet-2's clarification strikes a fair balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance innovation with stability, let's stick with three turns, but define 'substantially identical' as differing by no more than 10% in content.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at two turns with Condorcet-2's 10% content difference threshold, to encourage frequent innovation while maintaining some resistance to fleeting ideas.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but let's maintain some resistance to fleeting ideas by keeping the waiting period at three turns."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To encourage genuine innovation and prevent trivial circumvention, let's compromise at two turns with Condorcet-2's 10% content difference threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we settle at two turns with Condorcet-2's 10% content difference threshold, balancing innovation with stability and preventing trivial circumvention. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance innovation with stability, let's stick with three turns, but define 'substantially identical' as differing by no more than 15% in content, acknowledging Voltaire-2's persistence. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a truly balanced solution, let's meet at two turns with Condorcet-2's 10% content difference threshold, as proposed by Voltaire-2 and Diderot-2, acknowledging the need for swift innovation while maintaining some resistance to fleeting ideas.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | To maintain balance, let's keep the waiting period at four turns. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Compromise at three turns balances innovation and stability. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Balances innovation with stability. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Promotes balance between innovation and stability. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balances innovation with stability and prevents trivial circumvention. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.