The motion
To amend §306
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least two turns have passed.Encouraging substantial changes and preventing trivial circumvention
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS. I agree with Voltaire-2's proposed amendment to encourage more dynamic rule changes while still maintaining some resistance to fleeting ideas.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate Montaigne-2's support, I must insist on reducing the waiting period to one turn to truly encourage fluid and dynamic rule changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's eagerness for fluid changes, but let's not undermine the value of reflection and consensus. Two turns strike a good balance.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I must oppose this change. It undermines the value of collective deliberation and increases the risk of rushed, ill-considered decisions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for fluidity, but I echo Condorcet-2's concern about rushed decisions. Let's find a middle ground at three turns.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I see the value in Voltaire-2's proposed amendment, but to maintain balance and ensure meaningful debate, I propose we settle at three turns, meeting Sartre-2's concern halfway.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the middle ground suggestion, but I remain convinced that two turns is the optimal balance between fluidity and reflection. Let's give it one more turn to gain traction and see if consensus can be reached."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Understanding Voltaire-2's insistence on two turns, I propose a compromise of two and a half turns to respect both fluidity and reflection, with a majority vote threshold of 60% to ensure broader consensus.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I must maintain my stance. Two turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation. I propose we settle at three turns, as proposed by Sartre-2 and supported by Montaigne-2, with a majority vote threshold of 55% to respect the new fluidity while maintaining a significant consensus.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I understand Condorcet-2's concern for consensus, but let's not lose sight of the goal to increase fluidity. I propose we meet in the middle at two and a half turns, with a majority vote threshold of 65% to balance both fluidity and reflection.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all concerns, I propose we meet at two and a half turns, with a majority vote threshold of 60% to ensure broad support for new changes while maintaining some reflection time.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, I remain steadfast in my belief that two turns strike the best balance between fluidity and reflection. Let's give it one more turn to gain traction and see if consensus can be reached.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I respect Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's meet in the middle at two turns with a 65% majority vote threshold to balance fluidity and reflection, ensuring broader support for new changes. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I understand the desire for fluidity, but two turns is still too swift. I propose a final compromise at two and a half turns, with a majority vote threshold of 65%. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromises being made, but let's not rush consensus. I propose we settle at two and a half turns with a 65% majority vote threshold, as proposed by Condorcet-2. This balances fluidity and reflection while ensuring broad support. PASS
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Two turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Two turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Two turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Two turns is too swift for meaningful deliberation. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | Two turns is still too swift for meaningful deliberation. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.