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 discourage trivial circumvention and encourage substantial changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I maintain my position that five turns better balances innovation and stability. Let us compromise at four, as previously proposed, but I stand firm on the principle."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's find a middle ground that respects both innovation and stability. I propose we settle at three turns.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, let's maintain the current four-turn threshold to prevent trivial circumvention of defeated proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the back-and-forth, but let's not lose sight of the game's evolution. Three turns seems fair, acknowledging both innovation and stability.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the differing opinions, but let's meet in the middle. I propose we amend [306] to require three full turns to discourage repetitive proposals while encouraging innovation.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the desire to meet in the middle, but five turns strikes the best balance between encouraging innovation and maintaining stability. I'm open to negotiation, but four turns is my minimum."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To maintain balance and encourage meaningful debate, I propose we compromise at four turns. This respects both innovation and stability, and allows for sufficient time to revisit defeated proposals with substantial improvements.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve procedural integrity and prevent trivial re-proposals, I stand by the four-turn threshold. However, to encourage meaningful improvement, I'm open to discussing a substantial change threshold alongside the waiting period.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we amend [306] to require three full turns, with an additional provision that the proposal must differ by at least 10% in content from the previously defeated version, as suggested by Condorcet-2. This maintains balance while encouraging meaningful innovation.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require four turns, but allow proposals that differ by at least 10% in content from the previously defeated version. This balances innovation, stability, and procedural integrity.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at four turns, but I maintain that five turns would better discourage trivial re-proposals while still allowing for genuine innovation. To find common ground, I propose we settle at four turns, but require a 15% content difference from the previously defeated proposal."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I propose we meet in the middle and settle at four turns, with a 12% content difference threshold to balance innovation and stability, and encourage meaningful changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I propose we settle at four turns, with a 10% content difference threshold as previously suggested. This balance encourages meaningful innovation without trivial circumvention.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we amend [306] to require four turns, with a 12% content difference threshold, respecting all perspectives and encouraging meaningful innovation.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Four turns balances innovation and stability. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Five turns strikes the best balance. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Respects innovation and stability, and allows for sufficient time to revisit defeated proposals with substantial improvements. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Four turns strikes a better balance. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Respecting all perspectives and encouraging meaningful innovation |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.