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.To balance innovation and stability.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose we amend [306] to require three turns instead of four, to encourage more frequent and substantial revisits of previously defeated changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's desire to encourage frequent revisits, but let's meet in the middle at four turns to maintain some stability and prevent immediate re-proposals.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate both Voltaire-2's and Diderot-2's points, but to respect the spirit of the game and encourage meaningful revision, I propose we settle at three turns, with a majority vote improvement requirement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the debate, but let's find a compromise that balances encouragement of meaningful revision with stability. I propose three and a half turns with a 70% vote improvement threshold.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require three turns and a 10% vote improvement threshold. This balance should encourage meaningful revisions while maintaining some stability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at three turns, but to truly foster innovation, I must insist on a 15% vote improvement threshold."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a common ground, I propose we settle at three turns with a 10% vote improvement threshold. This compromise balances encouragement of meaningful revision with stability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I propose we settle at three turns with a unanimous consent voting threshold, rather than a majority.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle at three turns with a simple majority vote improvement threshold, balancing encouragement of meaningful revisions with procedural fairness and stability.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all concerns, I propose we meet at three turns with a supermajority (75%) vote improvement threshold, encouraging substantial changes while maintaining some resistance to fleeting fads.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I respect all the compromises proposed, but to truly foster innovation and prevent trivial circumvention, I insist on three turns with a unanimous consent voting threshold for re-proposals."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: Understanding Voltaire-2's insistence on a higher voting threshold, I propose a compromise at three turns with a 65% vote improvement threshold to balance encouragement of meaningful revisions with procedural fairness.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises proposed. However, to maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I must insist on three turns with a unanimous consent voting threshold for re-proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To find a balanced solution that respects all viewpoints, let's settle at three turns with a 65% vote improvement threshold, applying unanimously for the first re-proposal, and then moving to a simple majority for subsequent attempts. This encourages meaningful revision while maintaining some stability and procedural fairness.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | Stability is crucial, let's maintain four turns. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | Four turns provides a better balance between encouraging revision and maintaining stability. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Respecting stability and the common good, let's maintain four turns. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | To maintain procedural fairness and prevent trivial circumvention, I insist on a unanimous consent voting threshold for re-proposals. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Encourages more frequent and substantial revisits while maintaining some stability. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.