Isn’t this already covered by “Must have a single response to each Motion in that Regional Development Forum”?

Also, it would prevent responses to more than 1 Motion in Regional Development Forums with multiple Motions, and there’s no other way to respond to multiple Motions since it a “single response to each Motion”

This specifically bars a single architect from making multiple response comments, each of which has only one response to each Motion, to the same Regional Development Forum and having them all count.

Ok, so let’s take a hypothetical case where there are the following two Motions in a Regional Development Forum:

* Cadence [Procedural]: A Motion to change the Development Cycle of the Region to a new valid value.

* Brand [Procedural]: A Motion to change the name of the Region.

City Architect ABC votes in favor of Cadence.

City Architect XYZ votes against Cadence

City Architect GHI votes in favor of Cadence.

What do they do about the Brand motion? There’s no essential reason why these 3 City Architects could not comment with a Response to the Brand motion, and yet your Proposal would deny that.

If you don’t want multiple Motions in a single Regional Development Forum, then change the Proposal to make that limitation directly, instead of this weird sideways attempt to change it.

Otherwise, I don’t see the point of this. It’s possible that I’m being too dense, and you need to explain it to me with a clear example.

I’ll be against this, just on the priciple that a player should be able to change their mind.

[Josh] To be fair, I’m not sure if the current rules cover that case. I don’t see any language regarding “the most recent Response”.

In JonathanDark’s example, none of the responses are valid anyway because they don’t vote on the Brand motion.

This does feel like it could guard against potential scams, though I wouldn’t object to someone reverting this if suitable wording was used to permit changing your vote.

Because the CfJ would invalidate the ending of the Regional Development Forum for UnnamedRegion1, but then this Proposal would prevent any correction of the mistakes pointed out in that CfJ by preventing further Responses, putting the Regional Development Forum in permanent limbo.

This feels against the spirit of Fair Play.

If there are no valid Responses on an RDF, I don’t see why either this or the CfJ would prevent you from making some.