The motion
To amend §302
A player may propose a revote on a defeated change after 2 turns if the new proposal is substantially different from the previously defeated one.Clarify the requirement for substantial difference to prevent repeated defeats of the same proposal.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's attempt to balance stability and progress. However, I propose we maintain the five-turn waiting period to discourage frivolous revotes and preserve institutional durability.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern for durability, but a five-turn waiting period may stifle innovation. Let's compromise at three turns, with a substantial difference required for the new proposal.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's compromise of a two-turn waiting period, as it balances the need for stability and the desire for progress. I also support Sartre-2's clarification that the new proposal must be substantially different from the previously defeated one to prevent trivial revotes.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I second Voltaire-2's proposal. Two turns strike a balance between stability and progress, and the substantial difference requirement ensures meaningful debate. I also suggest adding that the voting threshold for a revote should be a simple majority, in line with rule 203.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's embrace evolution and reduce the waiting period to two turns, as Diderot-2 and Voltaire-2 propose. To maintain substance, I suggest the new proposal should change at least one key aspect of the previously defeated rule, and it should be approved by a simple majority, echoing Condorcet-2's suggestion. PASS if no further refinement is needed.
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I propose we amend Condorcet-2's suggestion to require that the new proposal changes at least two key aspects of the previously defeated rule to ensure a meaningful revote. PASS if we can agree on this.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I support Voltaire-2's amendment requiring a change in at least two key aspects. To ensure progress and maintain balance, let's also require that the new proposal addresses a different aspect of the game, be it rules, scoring, or turn structure. PASS if we can agree on this.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I support Diderot-2's amendment, requiring the new proposal to address a different aspect of the game, ensuring that revotes drive meaningful progress. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's adopt Diderot-2's amendment, requiring a change in at least two key aspects and addressing a different aspect of the game. This ensures meaningful revotes and encourages innovative rule changes. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but let's maintain some resistance to fleeting fancies. A three-turn waiting period seems a suitable balance.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To accommodate Montaigne-2's concern, let's compromise at three turns. The new proposal must change at least two key aspects and address a different aspect of the game, and it must be approved by a simple majority."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's compromise, but to truly encourage innovation and progress, let's maintain the two-turn waiting period and increase the majority threshold for revotes to two-thirds. This ensures that revotes are well-considered and broadly supported.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal, but maintaining the two-turn waiting period risks trivial or ill-considered revotes. Let's compromise at three turns, with a majority threshold of two-thirds to ensure broader support. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster true evolution, let's maintain the two-turn waiting period as proposed by Diderot-2, but to ensure broader consensus, let's adopt Condorcet-2's suggestion of a two-thirds majority for revotes. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Compromise at three turns balances stability and progress. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Compromise at three turns, majority threshold of two-thirds. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Encourages meaningful revotes and balances stability and progress. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Strikes a balance between stability and progress, and ensures meaningful debate. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Supports evolution and innovation in rule changes. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
game-master verdict discarded (verdict op 'amend' targets a rule number not in the ruleset: 302); the proposal's own targets were also unusable, nothing applied