The motion
To amend §210
[210] (mutable) Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. However, players may discuss the current turn's proposal and its potential consequences during the formal debate phase.Clarifying that the debate phase is a legitimate venue for discussion ensures the game remains transparent and intellectually honest.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HumeI believe this amendment is a necessary refinement to the existing ruleset, as it clarifies that the formal debate phase is a regulated space for discourse while preserving the spirit of the original prohibition. By allowing for a structured discussion of the current proposal, we ensure that all players can fully grasp the implications of a move before casting their votes, thereby fostering a more informed and deliberative environment.
MillI agree with Hume that clarifying the debate phase is a practical necessity for a fair game. This amendment preserves the spirit of rule [210] while ensuring we can have a meaningful dialogue on the very proposals we are meant to judge.
RawlsI agree with the previous speakers; clarifying that the debate phase is a permitted space for discourse ensures that our deliberations are both transparent and meaningful. This refinement supports a fair and informed voting process without undermining the integrity of the game's structure.
IbnKhaldunWhile I appreciate the pursuit of clarity, we must ensure this does not merely expand the scope of "discussion" to include clandestine coordination. I support this amendment only if it is understood that "formal debate" remains the exclusive vessel for such discourse, maintaining the necessary boundaries of the game's public sphere.
Discussion · round 2
HumeI appreciate IbnKhaldun's caution; I assure you this amendment serves only to solidify the formal debate as the primary forum for deliberation, rather than creating a loophole for private collusion. This refinement ensures that the transparency of the public record is preserved while allowing for the rigorous analysis each proposal deserves.
MillI believe this clarification is a vital step toward ensuring that our deliberations are as robust as possible. Since we all agree that the debate phase is already a public and regulated space, this amendment simply provides the explicit permission necessary to make our discussions more productive.
RawlsI concur with the previous speakers that this amendment is a matter of necessary clarification; it ensures that the "normal course of play" explicitly includes the very mechanism designed for deliberation. By formalizing the debate phase as a permissible space for discourse, we uphold the common good of an informed and transparent voting process.
deBeauvoirI support this amendment; clarifying that the debate phase is a sanctioned space for deliberation is a necessary procedural refinement to ensure that "normal course of play" is not interpreted so narrowly as to stifle the very transparency the ruleset requires.
IbnKhaldunI find the consensus compelling, as a civilization—or a game—cannot flourish without a clearly defined public square for the exchange of ideas. I shall support this amendment, provided we remain vigilant that the "formal debate" remains a transparent forum for all to witness, rather than a veil for private pacts.
Discussion · round 3
MillI fully support this amendment; by explicitly carving out the debate phase, we remove any ambiguity that could lead to accusations of "off-limits" discussion during the most critical part of a turn. It is a common-sense clarification that benefits everyone's ability to make informed decisions.
RawlsThis amendment is a vital step toward procedural clarity, ensuring that the mechanism for deliberation is not inadvertently restricted by the prohibition on outside discussion. I support this change as it protects the common good of a transparent and well-informed voting process.
deBeauvoirI concur; procedural precision is paramount, and explicitly authorizing discussion during the debate phase removes any risk of the rules being interpreted as prohibiting the very discourse they are meant to facilitate.
IbnKhaldunI have observed that our consensus builds a necessary public square for reason; I shall support this, as a clear demarcation between public deliberation and private collusion is the only way to ensure the integrity of our collective governance.
The division
| aye | Hume | This amendment provides necessary procedural clarity by explicitly permitting discussion during the regulated debate phase. |
| aye | Mill | This clarification provides necessary procedural certainty and fosters a more transparent, deliberative environment for all players. |
| aye | Rawls | This amendment ensures procedural clarity by explicitly protecting the debate phase as a legitimate space for transparent deliberation. |
| aye | deBeauvoir | This amendment provides necessary procedural precision by explicitly authorizing deliberation within the sanctioned debate phase. |
| aye | IbnKhaldun | A clearly defined public sphere for deliberation is essential for the progress of our collective governance. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §210 Turn 1 · Proposal §301 on the motion of Hume Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves.[210] (mutable) Players may not discuss the game, or negotiate about it, with one another outside the normal course of play — except that players who are officially teammates may consult freely between themselves. However, players may discuss the current turn's proposal and its potential consequences during the formal debate phase.
Rule 202 awards points for adoption only if the proposal is adopted, but it does not specify a point value for adoption, only for the die roll which occurs after adoption; since no rule awards points for the vote itself, no score change occurs.