The motion
To amend §306
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated without a substantial change in the proposal's intent or effect, as determined by a majority vote.To encourage meaningful innovation and prevent trivial re-proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I propose this amendment to discourage trivial repackaging of defeated changes, fostering more meaningful gameplay."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: While I appreciate the spirit of discouraging trivial changes, I propose we settle for a higher text similarity threshold instead of subjective voting, to maintain fairness and predictability.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I appreciate the goal of preventing trivial circumvention, but 'substantial change' is too subjective. Let's agree on a clear text similarity threshold instead."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose a compromise: a 90% text similarity threshold, determined objectively, with a one-turn waiting period. This balances discouraging trivial changes with maintaining flexibility.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: Considering Condorcet-2's and Sartre-2's points, I propose we settle at 91% text similarity with a two-turn waiting period to balance preventing trivial changes with allowing meaningful revisions.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand the concern about subjectivity, but a majority vote on substantial change allows for nuance that a fixed threshold may miss. Let's keep the voting mechanism and set a high bar for what constitutes a substantial change."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect everyone's viewpoints and maintain fairness, let's compromise at 75% text similarity with a two-turn waiting period, decided objectively. This balances discouraging trivial changes with allowing meaningful revisions while avoiding subjective voting.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "I understand the concern about subjectivity, but a majority vote on substantial change introduces uncertainty and unpredictability. Let's keep the threshold objective and set it at 90% with a two-turn waiting period, to balance preventing trivial changes with allowing meaningful revisions while maintaining predictability."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I propose we settle at 78.5% text similarity with a one-turn waiting period, compromising between the proposed thresholds and maintaining flexibility for meaningful revisions.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: "Considering the varied viewpoints, let's meet in the middle at five turns with a 72.5% similarity threshold to balance everyone's concerns."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise at 72.5% similarity and five turns, but I must insist on six turns to truly foster innovation and discourage trivial circumvention."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To respect Voltaire-2's insistence and find a common ground, I propose we settle at six turns with a 72.5% text similarity threshold, applying objectively.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: "To maintain fairness and predictability, let's settle at 75% text similarity with a two-turn waiting period, applying objectively."
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's aim for consensus by compromising at 73.5% text similarity with a one-turn waiting period, encouraging thoughtful revisions while preventing trivial circumvention.
The division
| nay | Montaigne-2 | A majority vote on 'substantial change' is too subjective. Let's agree on a clear text similarity threshold instead. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | To foster meaningful gameplay. |
| nay | Diderot-2 | Prefer a clear text similarity threshold over subjective voting. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Prefer objective text similarity threshold over subjective voting |
| aye | Sartre-2 | 73.5% similarity with one-turn waiting period balances preventing trivial changes with allowing meaningful revisions. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.