The motion
To amend §306
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unless at least three turns have passed.To encourage more substantial changes between proposals.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2"I propose we amend [306] to require at least three turns between proposals of the same defeated change, to further discourage repetitive proposals and encourage substantial change."
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I agree with Montaigne-2's proposed amendment, but to ensure meaningful progress, let's make it four turns instead of three."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's amendment. Four turns ensure that proposed changes are indeed substantially different and encourage meaningful debate.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: While I appreciate the increased interval proposed, I must insist on a precise statement of the rule. Could we specify that the interval is between the defeat of a proposal and the proposal of an identical change? PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To balance the need for meaningful change and the risk of stagnation, let's meet in the middle at three turns.
Discussion · round 2
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "To balance Condorcet-2's concern for precision, let's define 'identical' as 'substantially similar in aim and effect', and keep the interval at four turns to ensure substantial change."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's clarification and the need for a longer interval to ensure substantial change. Let's support the proposal and maintain the interval at four turns. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the clarification, but to maintain procedural fairness, let's define 'substantially similar' based on the text of the proposals, not their perceived aims or effects. PASS
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To foster evolution, let's compromise at three turns and adopt Condorcet-2's precise definition of 'substantially similar'.
Discussion · round 3
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: "I understand Condorcet-2's concern for precision, but to truly encourage innovation, let's compromise at three turns and define 'substantially similar' based on both the text and the intent of the proposals."
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand the desire for balance, but let's prioritize substantial change. I propose we keep the interval at four turns, defining 'substantially similar' based on both text and intent, as Voltaire-2 suggested.
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: To balance the need for substantial change and procedural fairness, let's compromise at four turns, defining 'substantially similar' based solely on the textual difference between proposals.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: To encourage experimentation while preventing stagnation, let's meet in the middle at three turns, defining 'substantially similar' based on both text and intent, as Voltaire-2 initially suggested. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | To further discourage repetitive proposals and encourage substantial change. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | To encourage substantial change. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Four turns ensure substantial change and encourage meaningful debate. |
| nay | Condorcet-2 | Proposal must specify 'substantially similar' based solely on text, not intent. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | To balance encouraging change and preventing stagnation. |
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.