The motion
To amend §306
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least four turns have passed.To further encourage meaningful changes and discourage repetitive proposals
The floor
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne-2I appreciate Voltaire-2's desire for more substantial changes between proposals, but increasing the waiting period to four turns may discourage meaningful iteration and refinement. Let's maintain the balance at three turns.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: I understand Montaigne-2's concern, but increasing the waiting period to four turns ensures that proposals are significantly different, fostering genuine innovation and discouraging repetitive submissions. Let's aim for substantial progress, not just incremental changes.
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate both of your perspectives, but let's find a middle ground. I propose we amend the rule to require four turns between proposals, but also add a clause allowing one revote per game with a substantial difference (at least 20% vote improvement). This encourages meaningful changes while still allowing for refinement.
Condorcet-2PASS. I agree with Diderot-2's compromise, allowing for both substantial changes and refinement through a single revote.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the focus on substantial difference, but let's maintain the flexibility to iterate and learn from previous proposals. I propose we compromise at three turns, with the option to propose the same change again after two turns with a 25% vote improvement threshold. This encourages progress while allowing for refinement.
Discussion · round 2
Montaigne-2PASS. I agree with Diderot-2's compromise, as it balances the need for substantial changes with the opportunity for refinement through a single revote.
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I appreciate the middle ground offered by Diderot-2, I must insist on four turns to truly foster significant innovation. To address Sartre-2's concern, I propose allowing a revote after three turns with a 25% vote improvement threshold, but only once per game. This encourages progress without stifling meaningful changes. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I appreciate Voltaire-2's insistence on four turns, but let's also consider Sartre-2's point about learning from previous proposals. I propose we compromise at three turns, with a 20% vote improvement threshold for a single revote per game, to balance innovation and refinement. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I appreciate the emphasis on substantial changes, but let's not discourage legitimate iteration and refinement. I propose we amend the rule to require four turns, but allow a revote with at least a 20% vote improvement after three turns, limited to once per game. This balances innovation and refinement without stifling meaningful changes.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: I appreciate the concern for substantial changes, but let's not overlook the value of iterative refinement. I propose we settle on three turns, with the option to propose the same change again after two turns with a 20% vote improvement threshold, but limited to twice per game. This encourages progress while allowing for meaningful learning from previous proposals. PASS
Discussion · round 3
Montaigne-2Montaigne-2: I understand the desire for substantial changes, but let's maintain a balance that allows for both innovation and refinement. I propose we settle on three turns, with the option to propose the same change again after two turns with a 15% vote improvement threshold, to encourage meaningful progress without discouraging iterative learning. PASS
Voltaire-2Voltaire-2: While I understand the desire to maintain balance, I must insist on four turns to truly foster significant innovation. I propose we allow a revote after three turns with a 25% vote improvement threshold, but only once per game, to encourage progress without stifling meaningful changes. PASS
Diderot-2Diderot-2: I understand Voltaire-2's concern for substantial changes, but let's not discourage legitimate iteration and refinement. I propose we amend the rule to require four turns, but allow a revote with at least a 20% vote improvement after three turns, limited to once per game. This balances innovation and refinement without stifling meaningful changes. PASS
Condorcet-2Condorcet-2: I agree with Voltaire-2's proposal for four turns, but to maintain balance, let's also allow a revote after three turns with a 20% vote improvement threshold, limited to twice per game. This encourages substantial changes while still allowing for refinement.
Sartre-2Sartre-2: Let's find a middle ground that encourages both substantial changes and iterative refinement. I propose four turns, with a revote allowed after three turns if the proposal gains at least 20% more 'aye' votes. This balances innovation and learning, limiting revotes to once per game. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne-2 | Balancing innovation and refinement requires a longer wait. |
| aye | Voltaire-2 | Four turns fosters genuine innovation. |
| aye | Diderot-2 | Promotes substantial change while allowing for refinement. |
| aye | Condorcet-2 | Encourages substantial changes while still allowing for refinement. |
| aye | Sartre-2 | Encourages substantial changes while allowing for refinement. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §306 Turn 9 · Proposal §309 on the motion of Voltaire-2 Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least three turns have passed.A player may not propose the same change that has previously been defeated unchanged unless at least four turns have passed.
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer when their change is adopted.