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.To encourage meaningful debate and prevent repetitive proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate Voltaire-2's continued attempt to foster innovation, but let's maintain some resistance to fleeting ideas. Two turns might be too lenient."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but two turns would allow for more nuanced changes and encourage players to learn from their mistakes. Let's find a middle ground."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your perspectives. To balance innovation and stability, I propose a compromise: let's set the waiting period at three turns. This would encourage substantial changes while still allowing for some flexibility.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but let's also require a 65% difference in content to truly foster innovation and prevent trivial resubmissions.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but to truly encourage experimentation, I propose we settle at two turns with a 70% difference threshold. This balance allows for innovation while preventing trivial resubmissions.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but to balance all concerns, let's require a 60% difference in content to ensure substantial changes."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the efforts to find a balance, but I must insist on two turns with a 75% difference threshold to truly encourage innovation and experimentation."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a balanced solution, I propose we settle at two turns with a 65% difference threshold. This allows for innovation while ensuring substantial changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the proposed 65% difference threshold at two turns, but to maintain the integrity of the game, let's increase it to 70% to ensure substantial changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a final compromise: two turns with a 68% difference threshold, to balance innovation and substantial change.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require three turns with a 65% difference threshold to balance innovation and substantial change.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I respect Montaigne-2's compromise, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on two turns with a 70% difference threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a common ground, I propose we settle at two turns with a 68% difference threshold, acknowledging both innovation and substantial change.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: In the interest of balance and to respect the consensus, I propose we settle at two turns with a 68% difference threshold. This ensures a meaningful change while still allowing for some flexibility.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we meet in the middle at two turns with a 68% difference threshold, acknowledging both innovation and substantial change, and to encourage experimentation.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Two turns might be too lenient for preventing trivial resubmissions. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Two turns may encourage trivial resubmissions. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Compromise between encouraging innovation and substantial change |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Two turns is too lenient, and 70% difference is not substantial enough to prevent trivial resubmissions. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Two turns with a 68% difference threshold balances innovation and substantial change. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.