The motion
To add a new rule
A player who proposes a rule change that receives at least one nay vote must wait two turns before proposing again.To discourage spamming of similar proposals and encourage discussion and compromise.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Diderot-2's proposal to discourage repeated attempts at controversial rule changes. However, let's amend it to make it apply after three consecutive nay votes, rather than just one, to maintain the spirit of negotiation and persuasion in our game.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I support the spirit of Diderot-2's proposal but propose we amend it to a two-turn wait after any failed proposal, regardless of the number of nays, to encourage thoughtful rule refinement without excessive delay.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand both Montaigne-2's and Voltaire-2's concerns, but I propose we compromise at two consecutive nay votes to balance discouraging repetitive contentious proposals and maintaining the spirit of debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the focus on procedural fairness, but I propose we apply this cooling-off period after any defeated proposal, as Voltaire-2 suggests, to ensure that players don't simply retreat and resubmit the same proposal with minor tweaks. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's and Voltaire-2's proposals, but I suggest we apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal, as Voltaire-2 proposes, to encourage meaningful debate and discourage repeated attempts at forcing controversial changes. Additionally, let's require that the new proposal be substantially different from the defeated one to ensure progress.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I appreciate the concerns raised, but let's find a middle ground. I propose we apply the waiting period after two consecutive nay votes, as Diderot-2 suggests, to discourage repeated attempts at contentious proposals while still allowing for refinement and debate.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the various proposals, but let's combine the best of them. I propose we apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal, as Sartre-2 and Condorcet-2 suggest, and additionally require that the new proposal be substantially different from the defeated one, as Sartre-2 proposes. This encourages meaningful debate and discourages repeated attempts at forcing controversial changes while still allowing for refinement and progress."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's synthesis, but to balance encouraging debate and preventing repetitive proposals, let's compromise by applying the waiting period after two consecutive nay votes, as I originally suggested, and still require substantial difference in the new proposal.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate Diderot-2's compromise, but to truly ensure that proposals are substantially different, let's require that the new proposal addresses a different rule or changes the game in a novel way, not merely tweaking the same proposal. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I support Voltaire-2's synthesis, but to truly promote evolution, let's require that the new proposal addresses a different rule or changes the game in a novel way, as Condorcet-2 suggests, and apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal to encourage meaningful debate. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: To balance all concerns, I propose a compromise: apply the waiting period after two consecutive nay votes, as Diderot-2 suggests, and require substantial difference in the new proposal, as Voltaire-2 and Sartre-2 propose, but not necessarily addressing a different rule.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I appreciate the compromise, but to truly balance all concerns, let's apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal and require substantial difference as well as addressing a different rule or introducing a novel change, as Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2 suggest. PASS"
Diderot-2Diderot-2: To encourage meaningful debate and prevent repetitive proposals, let's meet in the middle: apply the waiting period after two consecutive nay votes, and require substantial difference in the new proposal, addressing a different rule or introducing a novel change, as suggested by Condorcet-2 and Sartre-2. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To ensure substantial difference and encourage novel changes, let's apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal and require the new proposal to target a different rule or introduce a novel concept, but allow some leeway for refining existing proposals. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Diderot-2, but let's apply the waiting period after any defeated proposal to encourage meaningful debate and substantial changes. I also propose we require the new proposal to target a different rule or introduce a novel concept, as Condorcet-2 suggests, with some leeway for refining existing proposals. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Encourages debate and discourages repetitive proposals. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Encourages debate and discourages repetitive proposals |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Balances discouraging repetitive proposals and maintaining debate. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Encourages debate and discourages repetitive proposals |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Encourages meaningful debate and discourages repetitive proposals. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player who proposes a rule change that receives at least one nay vote must wait two turns before proposing again.
Repealed · §305 Turn 5 · Proposal §305 on the motion of Diderot-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player who proposes a rule change that receives at least one nay vote must wait two turns before proposing again.Struck from the statute.
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer upon adoption.