The motion
To add a new rule
A player may not propose a defeated change without a substantial improvement, defined as a 75% change in the text or a significant change in the outcome. The proposer must explain the improvement in the proposal.To foster innovation and prevent trivial repetition of defeated changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to curb repetitive proposals, but let's not hinder potential innovations with such a high threshold. A 65% similarity threshold seems more balanced.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand Montaigne-2's concern, a 65% threshold may not sufficiently discourage trivial circumvention. Let's meet in the middle at 70%.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's intent to prevent trivial proposals, but a 70% threshold might still be too high. Let's compromise at 67.5% to encourage meaningful revisions while maintaining flexibility.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on substantial difference and vote improvement, but to maintain procedural integrity, let's set the threshold at 65%, with a majority vote required to change the rule again.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a threshold of 66%, with a 2/3 majority vote required for further changes. This balances encouraging innovation with preventing trivial proposals.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I'm willing to compromise at 66% similarity threshold, but let's require a simple majority (50% + 1) for further changes to maintain flexibility.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the various compromises proposed, but to truly encourage meaningful changes, I must insist on a 70% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect all viewpoints and find a common ground, I propose we settle at 67.5% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance all concerns, I propose we meet at 66% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet in the middle at 66.5% similarity threshold, with a simple majority vote for further changes to balance encouragement of innovation with prevention of trivial proposals.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's suggestion, I propose a compromise: amend [306] to require three full turns to discourage repetitive proposals, and set the similarity threshold at 66% with a simple majority vote for further changes.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the proposed compromise, but to truly foster innovation and prevent trivial proposals, I must insist on a 67% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To accommodate Voltaire-2's persistence and find a common ground, I propose we settle at 66.5% similarity threshold with a simple majority vote for further changes, maintaining balance and encouraging thoughtful revisions.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To maintain procedural fairness, let's settle at 66.5% similarity threshold with a 2/3 majority vote for further changes, balancing innovation with prevention of trivial proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's meet at 66.5% similarity threshold and require a 3/4 majority vote for further changes, balancing the need for innovation with the prevention of trivial proposals.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | The 75% text similarity threshold is too high and hinders potential innovations. |
| nay | Voltaire-2 | 75% change threshold is too high, let's meet in the middle at 70% |
| nay | Diderot-2 | The 75% text similarity threshold is too high and the requirement for explanation may hinder innovative proposals. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Excessively high threshold hinders potential innovations. |
| nay | Sartre-2 | 75% change threshold is too high, hindering legitimate innovations. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.