The motion
To add a new rule
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least two turns have passed, except when proposing a revote under rule 302.To balance innovation and stability
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2PASS, I concur with the proposed amendment to encourage meaningful revision and maintain balance.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate Montaigne-2's support, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on a three-turn waiting period."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's persistence, but let's meet in the middle at two turns to balance innovation and stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on substantial revision, but to ensure fairness, the waiting period should apply uniformly, whether the proposal is identical or different.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance innovation and stability, I propose we settle at two and a half turns, with a 65% text similarity threshold to discourage trivial repackaging.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend the rule to require two turns between proposals of the same defeated change, but reduce the waiting period to one turn if the proposal is substantially different (at least 65% text similarity).
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the desire for balance, I must insist on a three-turn waiting period to truly foster innovation and discourage trivial re-proposals.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Considering the varied perspectives, let's meet in the middle at two turns with a 65% text similarity threshold to balance innovation and stability, and to ensure fairness, the waiting period should apply uniformly regardless of the proposal's similarity.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the effort to find a compromise, but to ensure fairness and prevent circumvention, the waiting period should be fixed at three turns, regardless of text similarity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To respect all viewpoints and maintain balance, I propose we settle at two and a half turns with a 65% text similarity threshold, applying uniformly to all proposals.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering the consensus around a two-turn waiting period with a 65% similarity threshold, I propose we settle at that, applying uniformly to all proposals to maintain balance and encourage thoughtful revisions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the consensus around two turns with a 65% similarity threshold, but to truly discourage trivial re-proposals, I must insist on a three-turn waiting period."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Let's compromise at two and a half turns with a 65% similarity threshold, applying uniformly to all proposals to balance innovation, stability, and fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain fairness and prevent gaming the system, the waiting period should be uniform and fixed at three turns, regardless of text similarity.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance all concerns and encourage meaningful revisions, I propose we settle at two turns with a 65% text similarity threshold, applying uniformly to all proposals.
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | To balance innovation and stability, and encourage thoughtful revisions. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | I must insist on a three-turn waiting period to truly foster innovation and discourage trivial re-proposals. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Compromise at two turns with 65% similarity threshold already agreed upon. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Three turns ensures more substantial revision and discourages trivial re-proposals. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Balances innovation with stability and discourages trivial re-proposals. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.