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 and there is at least a 91% difference in the content of the proposal.To encourage meaningful change and prevent trivial repetition.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence in seeking a balance, but let's settle at the agreed 91% text similarity to maintain stability while allowing for meaningful changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I appreciate Montaigne-2's perspective, but I maintain that three turns is a more balanced approach, and a 91% difference ensures substantial change.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I understand Voltaire-2's push for shorter turns, I propose a compromise at four turns with a 90% difference to ensure substantial change while maintaining stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I understand the desire for shorter waiting periods, I must insist on maintaining the stability provided by four turns, as it ensures that proposals are genuinely new and not mere repetitions. I propose we keep the 91% difference threshold to encourage meaningful changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet Voltaire-2 halfway at three turns, maintaining the 91% difference to encourage substantial changes while allowing for a quicker pace.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus at 91% text similarity, I propose a final compromise at three turns with a 91% difference, balancing urgency and substantiality.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but I insist on maintaining the 91% difference threshold to ensure substantial changes and discourage trivial repetition."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's insistence on maintaining the 91% difference threshold. To find common ground and respect the consensus at three turns, I propose we settle at a 90% difference. This encourages substantial change while still allowing for some flexibility.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To preserve the stability of our ruleset and encourage substantial change, I must insist on maintaining four turns. I propose we meet in the middle on the difference threshold at 90.5%.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand the concern for substantial change, but let's find a middle ground that balances all perspectives. How about we settle at three turns with a 90% difference threshold? This maintains some urgency while ensuring meaningful changes.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus around 90% difference, I propose a final compromise at three turns with a 90% difference threshold, balancing urgency and substantiality while respecting the common ground found.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns and a 90% difference, but to truly balance all concerns, let's apply the wait after two turns and require a 91% difference to ensure substantial change."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect the consensus and find a balanced solution, I propose we settle at two turns with a 90% difference threshold, encouraging quick innovation while maintaining substantial change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I must insist on four turns with a 90% difference threshold.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect all perspectives and find a balanced solution, I propose we settle at three turns with a 90.5% difference threshold, encouraging quick yet substantial change.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | To encourage genuine innovation while maintaining stability. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | To maintain stability, I insist on four turns with a 90.5% difference threshold. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Respecting the consensus at three turns and a 90% difference threshold |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Four turns are needed to ensure substantial change and prevent trivial repetition. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | Three turns is too short and 91% difference is too lenient. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.