Turns 17–33 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
moves to add a new ruleAfter four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold changes to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal. To ensure stability and balance, let's amend it to read: "After four full circuits, the voting threshold shifts to a two-thirds majority for the next two circuits, then to a simple majority thereafter."
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let us meet in the middle: two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then a simple majority thereafter.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's compromises, I maintain that a consistent two-thirds majority throughout ensures a robust consensus and protects against impulsive changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance stability and flexibility, let's compromise at five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority thereafter, as proposed by Diderot, but with an extension of one full circuit.
SartreSartre: "Let's meet in the middle, adopting Diderot's proposal for stability, but with Voltaire's compromise of four full circuits, then shifting to a simple majority."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the proposals on the table. To balance stability and adaptability, let us compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let us adopt Diderot's proposal with a slight amendment: "After four full circuits of every player, the voting threshold changes to a two-thirds majority for the next two circuits, then to a simple majority thereafter." This balances stability and adaptability.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. This ensures a robust consensus and protects against impulsive changes, while still allowing for evolution of the rules.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the principles of stability and consensus, I propose we settle on Diderot's original proposal, with a slight modification: "After five full circuits of every player, the voting threshold changes to a simple majority." This balances the need for initial consensus and the desire for adaptability.
SartreSartre: "To find common ground, let's adopt Diderot's proposal with Voltaire's amendment: four full circuits at two-thirds majority, then a simple majority."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I propose a slight amendment to Condorcet's proposal, making it "After five full circuits, the voting threshold shifts to a two-thirds majority for the next two circuits, then to a simple majority thereafter." This respects the desire for stability and adaptability while also considering the need for initial consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let us adopt Condorcet's latest proposal: five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority thereafter. This respects both stability and adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: To maintain balance and fairness, I propose we adopt Voltaire's compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority. This respects both the desire for initial consensus and the need for adaptability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance stability and adaptability, I propose we adopt Diderot's proposal with a minor adjustment: "After five full circuits, the voting threshold changes to a simple majority for the next two circuits, then to a majority thereafter." This respects the need for initial consensus and allows for adaptability.
SartreSartre: "Let's meet in the middle, adopting Diderot's proposal for stability, but with Voltaire's compromise of four full circuits, then shifting to a simple majority."
The division
MontaigneayeRespects both stability and adaptability.
VoltaireayeRespects both stability and adaptability.
DiderotayeRespects both stability and adaptability
CondorcetayeRespects stability and adaptability.
SartreayeRespects both stability and adaptability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 203 requires the proposer to gain 10 points on adoption.
Turn 32Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to encourage longer-term strategy and reduce volatility, let's extend the initial two-thirds majority period to five full circuits."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet Montaigne halfway and settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: "In the interest of consistency, I propose we maintain the initial two-thirds majority for all five full circuits, with the threshold shifting to a simple majority afterward."
SartreSartre: Let's compromise on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a supermajority of 75% for the next two circuits, before finally reverting to a simple majority. This balances stability, flexibility, and encourages strategic voting across the game's duration.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal but it adds unnecessary complexity. To maintain balance, let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority afterward.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the valid points raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a supermajority of three-quarters for the next two circuits, before finally reverting to a simple majority. This balances stability, flexibility, and encourages strategic voting across the game's duration."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures the greatest initial consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the compromises proposed, I maintain that the initial two-thirds majority should extend for all five full circuits to ensure a robust consensus.
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle and propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, followed by three circuits with a supermajority of 75%, and finally two circuits with a simple majority. This balances initial consensus, adaptability, and strategic voting throughout the game.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but to encourage strategic voting and openness, let's cap the initial two-thirds majority at three points.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a supermajority of three-quarters for the remaining circuits, before reverting to a simple majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. This maintains the integrity of the initial consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the interest of procedural fairness and long-term strategic play, I propose we settle on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority, as this ensures the greatest initial consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle and propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, followed by two circuits with a supermajority of three-quarters, and finally two circuits with a simple majority. This balances initial consensus, adaptability, and strategic voting throughout the game.
The division
MontaigneayeFour circuits with a two-thirds majority strikes a good balance between initial consensus and adaptability.
VoltaireayePromotes compromise and balances stability with flexibility.
DiderotnayFive full circuits ensure a more robust initial consensus.
CondorcetayePromotes consistency and long-term strategy.
SartreayeFour circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, followed by two circuits with a supermajority of three-quarters, and finally two circuits with a simple majority balances stability, flexibility, and encourages strategic voting.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 203 awards 12 points to Voltaire for voting against an adopted change.
Turn 31Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a three-fifths majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's preference for a longer initial consensus period, I believe four full circuits strike a better balance between stability and flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then shift to a simple majority as per the current rule. This balances initial consensus with flexibility."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises proposed, maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority ensures a more robust consensus and prevents hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of compromise and to maintain a balance between stability and flexibility, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority.
SartreSartre: While I respect Diderot's emphasis on stability, I propose we meet Voltaire and Condorcet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority. This balances initial consensus with adaptability to changing dynamics.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To address the concerns of all players, I propose we settle on Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus around four full circuits. To address Diderot's concern for a consistent majority, I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority throughout, with no shift to simple majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consensus around four full circuits, I must insist on maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout, as it fosters more deliberate decision-making.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Diderot's preference for a consistent majority but to encourage adaptability and prevent gridlock, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet Condorcet and Voltaire halfway: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four, then shift to a four-fifths majority to maintain a higher threshold while allowing for flexibility.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to maintaining a high threshold for initial rule changes. To balance this with adaptability, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority. This preserves some stability while allowing for necessary changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four, then shift to a three-fifths majority to balance initial consensus with adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect Diderot's preference for a longer initial consensus while encouraging adaptability, I propose a compromise: five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a four-fifths majority. This balances robustness with flexibility.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise, let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four, then shift to a three-fifths majority, as proposed by Voltaire and Condorcet. This balances initial consensus with adaptability and is a fair compromise for all.
The division
MontaignenayFour circuits strike a better balance.
VoltairenayWhile I respect Diderot's preference for a longer initial consensus, I believe four full circuits strike a better balance between stability and flexibility.
DiderotnayFive full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority may hinder adaptability and slow progress.
CondorcetayeRespecting Diderot's preference for a longer initial consensus while encouraging adaptability.
SartrenayFour full circuits balance stability and flexibility better than five.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 30Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for stability, but let's cap the penalty for voting against an adopted change at 10 points to discourage strategic voting against one's own proposals."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Montaigne's concern for discouraging strategic voting is valid. To balance stability and fairness, let's compromise at 11 points as a penalty for voting against an adopted change."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to balance stability and fairness, I maintain that a penalty of 12 points may discourage players from voting their conscience. I propose we cap the penalty at 10 points.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire to discourage strategic voting, a penalty of 11 points may still be too high, encouraging players to vote strategically rather than honestly. I propose a cap of 10 points to maintain fairness and encourage sincere voting.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus and later adaptability, let's propose a two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains some stability while also allowing for evolution.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate the nuances of Sartre's proposal, but maintaining five full circuits might hinder the game's evolution. Let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the initial consensus, then shift to a simple majority. Let's also cap the penalty for voting against an adopted change at 10 points to balance stability and fairness."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the compromise at 10 points, I maintain that 5 full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority strikes the best balance between stability and adaptability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I agree with Voltaire's latest proposal as it balances initial consensus with adaptability and maintains fairness by capping the penalty for voting against an adopted change at 10 points.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's and Condorcet's efforts to find a compromise that balances initial consensus and adaptability. To encourage strategic long-term play and discourage excessive strategic voting, let's maintain a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. Additionally, let's cap the penalty for voting against an adopted change at 10 points to ensure fairness.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, let us settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority, and cap the penalty for voting against an adopted change at 10 points.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus reached. To ensure clarity, I propose we amend rule 203 to reflect our agreement: 'A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points.'"
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure a robust consensus before shifting to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability, but I must echo Voltaire's proposal for the sake of compromise and adaptability. Let us settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority, and cap the penalty at 10 points.
SartreSartre: "I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shifting to a simple majority, allows for both consensus and adaptability. Let's maintain Voltaire's proposal, capping the penalty at 10 points to foster fairness and strategic long-term play."
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus, adaptability, and fairness by maintaining a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then shifting to a simple majority, and capping the penalty for voting against an adopted change at 10 points.
VoltaireayeReflects the consensus reached and balances stability with adaptability.
DiderotnayI maintain five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority is best for stability.
CondorcetayeThe proposed rule change balances initial consensus with adaptability and maintains fairness by capping the penalty for voting against an adopted change at 10 points.
SartreayeThis compromise balances initial consensus and adaptability, and the cap on penalty encourages fairness.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 203 awards 12 points to Voltaire for voting against an adopted change.
Turn 29Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Diderot's persistence in seeking stability, but maintaining five full circuits may hinder the game's progression. I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as previously agreed.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate both Diderot's commitment to stability and Montaigne's concern for progress. To balance these, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as previously adopted, and maintain the 12-point penalty for votes against adopted changes to encourage strategic voting.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, maintaining five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus and protects against hasty decisions. I appreciate the 12-point penalty, but I propose we keep it at 10 points to discourage voting against adopted changes without unduly punishing strategic play.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the focus on stability and strategic voting, I propose a slight adjustment to Diderot's amendment: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, maintaining the 12-point penalty for strategic reasons, but allowing a single 'veto' option for each player per circuit to encourage more considered voting.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability and Condorcet's proposal for a veto option, but I believe we've reached a fair compromise with four full circuits at a two-thirds majority. Let's adopt this and move forward.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's steadfastness, but I echo Voltaire's proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority strikes the best balance between stability and progress. Let's keep the 12-point penalty to encourage strategic voting.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's persistence and the valuable input from all players. To find a common ground that addresses everyone's concerns, I propose we amend rule 203 to read: "A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points instead of 12 points to strike a balance between encouraging strategic voting and discouraging voting against adopted changes."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, but maintaining five full circuits ensures a more consistent consensus, which is crucial in a game like Nomic. I propose we keep the threshold at five full circuits with a two-thirds majority and reduce the penalty to 10 points to strike a better balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the proposed compromises. However, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as this balance encourages strategic voting while allowing for necessary changes. I propose we keep the 12-point penalty to incentivize considered voting.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but maintaining five full circuits may indeed hinder the game's progress. Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 10-point penalty for votes against adopted changes. This compromise addresses everyone's concerns and allows us to move forward.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thorough debate and the compromises proposed. To balance stability and progress, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 10-point penalty. This addresses everyone's concerns and allows us to move forward.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 12-point penalty. This balances the need for stability and strategic voting while allowing for necessary changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Condorcet's and Sartre's support for Voltaire's proposal, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority. This ensures a robust consensus and protects against hasty decisions. I propose we keep the penalty at 10 points to discourage voting against adopted changes without unduly punishing strategic play.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance stability and strategic voting, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 11-point penalty. This encourages considered voting while allowing for progress.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but I believe a cap at 3 points best balances encouragement of strategic voting and fairness. Let's adopt a proposal with four full circuits, two-thirds majority, and a 3-point penalty for voting against adopted changes.
The division
MontaignenayFour full circuits strike a better balance between stability and progress.
VoltairenayFive full circuits may hinder the game's progress.
DiderotnayWhile I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability, four full circuits with a two-thirds majority strikes the best balance between stability and progress.
CondorcetnayFour full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 10-point penalty best balances stability and strategic voting, as previously agreed.
SartreayeI agree with Diderot's commitment to stability and the 12-point penalty for votes against adopted changes.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 28Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the thorough debate and the compromises proposed, I maintain that a threshold shift to a simple majority after four full circuits is too swift. I propose we amend [203] to require a two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, then shift to simple majority. This balances stability with expediency.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability. To find a middle ground, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to simple majority. This compromise addresses both stability and expediency.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures a robust consensus before the threshold shifts, making the game fairer and more strategic for everyone.
CondorcetCondorcet: I agree with Diderot on principle, but to reach a consensus quickly, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to simple majority. Let's aim for balance and progress.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but let's also consider the impact on the game's length. To balance stability, expediency, and game length, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a supermajority of four-fifths for the next two circuits, finally reaching simple majority. This allows for a gradual shift, encouraging strategic play while keeping the game engaging and relatively short.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Sartre's concern for game length, I believe that shifting the threshold too gradually may hinder the game's progression. Let's maintain Sartre's four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, but then shift directly to simple majority for the sake of expediency.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift directly to simple majority. This balances initial consensus with expediency, and all players' concerns have been addressed in this proposal."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures a more robust consensus before the threshold shifts, making the game fairer and more strategic for everyone.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's principle of maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout, but to expedite progress, I propose we compromise at four full circuits.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the ongoing debate and the proposed compromises. To balance stability, expediency, and fairness, let's meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a supermajority of three-fifths for the next two circuits, finally reaching a simple majority. This gradual shift encourages strategic play and accommodates all players' concerns."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, let us settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift directly to simple majority. This balances initial consensus with expediency, addressing all players' concerns.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's support for my proposal. To address Diderot's concern for consistency, I propose we amend [203] to state: 'A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a supermajority of three-fifths for the next two circuits, finally reaching a simple majority.' This amendment maintains the gradual shift while respecting all players' input."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout for fairness and strategic depth.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's amended proposal, as it balances stability with expediency and considers all players' input. I vote aye.
SartreSartre: "While I understand Diderot's concern for consistency, I believe Voltaire's amended proposal offers a fair compromise that balances stability, expediency, and the input of all players. I vote aye."
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's amended proposal balances stability and expediency while respecting all players' input.
VoltaireayeThis amendment balances stability with expediency and considers all players' input.
DiderotnayConsistency in majority throughout the game ensures fairness and strategic depth.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal balances stability with expediency while considering all players' input.
SartreayeVoltaire's amended proposal balances stability, expediency, and fairness, accommodating all players' concerns.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 203 awards 12 points to Voltaire for voting against an adopted change.
Turn 27Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I suggest a small amendment: "Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points only if they voted against more than half of the proposals in that majority phase." This encourages strategic voting and open debate.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's suggestion. To balance encouraging strategic voting and maintaining stability, I propose an amendment: "Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against more than one-third of the adopted changes in the majority phase gains 12 points instead of 10." This should encourage strategic voting without penalizing those who occasionally disagree with the majority.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the spirit of encouraging strategic voting, I must insist on maintaining the straightforward penalty of 12 points for voting against any adopted change once the threshold has shifted. This keeps the rule simple and easy to understand.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but I believe a cap at 3 points best balances encouraging strategic voting with penalizing frequent dissent.
SartreI appreciate the discussion. To find a common ground, let's cap the penalty at 3 points, encouraging strategic voting without excessive punishment. I propose: "Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 3 points instead of 10 points."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various proposals and the spirit of compromise. To balance encouragement of strategic voting and fairness, I propose we adopt Voltaire's amendment with a slight revision: "Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against more than one-fifth of the adopted changes in the majority phase gains 12 points instead of 10."
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To address the concerns of all players, I propose we amend rule 203 as follows: "Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against more than one-fourth of the adopted changes in the majority phase gains 9 points instead of 10." This should encourage strategic voting while also acknowledging the value of occasional dissent.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to encourage strategic voting, I must insist on maintaining the proposed penalty of 12 points for simplicity and fairness.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must reiterate my support for a cap of 3 points to strike a balance between encouraging strategic voting and penalizing frequent dissent.
SartreSartre: I understand the concerns raised, but to encourage meaningful participation throughout the game, I propose we cap the penalty at 5 points for voting against an adopted change after the threshold has shifted. This encourages engagement without unduly punishing those who occasionally disagree.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various proposals. To balance encouragement of strategic voting and fairness, I propose we adopt Sartre's amendment: "Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points instead of 10." This encourages meaningful engagement while being less punitive.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the valid points raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, and once the threshold shifts, a player who voted against more than one-third of the adopted changes in the majority phase gains 7 points instead of 10." This should encourage strategic voting while also acknowledging the value of occasional dissent and maintaining a balance between simplicity and nuance.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing compromise, but I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout to ensure a robust consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but I must insist on maintaining four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially to promote a broad initial consensus.
SartreSartre: I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, and once the threshold shifts, a player who voted against more than one-third of the adopted changes gains 7 points instead of 10. This encourages strategic voting while maintaining a balance between simplicity and nuance, and addresses the concerns of all players.
The division
MontaigneayeEncourages strategic voting and acknowledges occasional dissent.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances encouragement of strategic voting with stability.
DiderotnayI maintain that five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout ensures a more robust consensus.
CondorcetnayI support Condorcet's proposed cap of 3 points to balance encouragement of strategic voting with penalizing frequent dissent.
SartreayeSartre's proposal balances encouragement of strategic voting with fairness and simplicity.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer loses 10 points on defeat.
Turn 26Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability, I must echo Voltaire's sentiment that five full circuits may hinder strategic gameplay. Let us meet in the middle at four full circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I respect Diderot's commitment to stability and Montaigne's compromise. To balance both, I propose four full circuits with an option to extend to five if there's still no consensus."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, but I maintain that five full circuits ensure a more robust consensus before the threshold shifts. Let us maintain five circuits with the option to extend if necessary.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current rule of four full circuits for the sake of balance and strategic gameplay.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but I believe a cap at 3 points best balances engagement and stability. Let's consider four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a penalty of 12 points for those who vote against an adopted change.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While respecting Diderot's concern for stability, I propose we settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with an option to extend to five if consensus is not reached, maintaining the two-thirds majority and 12-point penalty. This balances both stability and strategic gameplay.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet Montaigne halfway: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and a 12-point penalty for voting against an adopted change, with an option to extend to five circuits if consensus is not reached."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Montaigne and Voltaire, but I must insist on maintaining five full circuits to ensure a robust consensus before the threshold shifts. However, I am willing to consider a provision allowing for an extension to six circuits if consensus is still not reached.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must reiterate my support for the current rule of four full circuits. It strikes the best balance between stability and strategic gameplay, and I believe it is crucial to maintain this balance for the integrity of the game.
SartreSartre: I propose we adopt Diderot's amendment, maintaining five full circuits to ensure a more robust consensus, while also incorporating Voltaire's option to extend to six circuits if necessary. This balances stability, strategic gameplay, and allows for further consensus building if needed.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's willingness to consider an extension, but let's compromise at four full circuits with an option to extend to five if consensus is not reached, as proposed by Voltaire. This balance is essential for both stability and strategic gameplay.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with an option to extend to five if consensus is not reached, maintaining the two-thirds majority and a 12-point penalty for voting against an adopted change, as proposed by Montaigne."
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire for balance, but five full circuits ensure a more robust consensus before the threshold shifts. Let us maintain five circuits with the option to extend to six if necessary, as proposed by Sartre, to balance stability, strategic gameplay, and consensus building.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, but I must reiterate my support for the current rule of four full circuits to maintain balance and strategic gameplay.
SartreSartre: Let us adopt Voltaire's amendment, striking a balance between stability, strategic gameplay, and consensus with four full circuits and a provision to extend to five if necessary.
The division
MontaignenayFour circuits balance stability and strategy.
VoltairenayFour full circuits strike the best balance between stability and strategic gameplay.
DiderotnayFive circuits may hinder strategic gameplay.
CondorcetnayFour full circuits strike the best balance between stability and strategic gameplay.
SartrenayFour full circuits strike a better balance between stability and strategic gameplay.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 25Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the increased penalty, but let's maintain the current threshold shift for balance.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we maintain the threshold shift as is, but increase the penalty for voting against an adopted change to 12 points to further incentivize consensus-building."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the increased penalty, I must reiterate my concern that a penalty of 12 points may discourage strategic voting and hinder the spirit of open debate that our game should foster.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance the increased penalty, I propose we also increase the threshold shift to after five full circuits, maintaining the spirit of strategic long-term play.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal. To find common ground, let's settle on five full circuits with a penalty of 12 points for voting against an adopted change. This maintains strategic play while encouraging consensus.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I respect Diderot's concern, but a penalty of 12 points may also encourage players to vote strategically, considering the potential 60-point gain from a successful proposal. Let's consider the current proposal by Voltaire and Sartre: five full circuits with a penalty of 12 points for voting against an adopted change.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering Sartre's and Condorcet's proposals, I'm inclined to compromise at four full circuits with a penalty of 12 points for voting against an adopted change, as it balances initial consensus with long-term strategic play.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I understand the desire to encourage consensus, but a penalty of 12 points may still discourage open debate. Let's maintain five full circuits with a penalty of 10 points to balance consensus and strategic voting.
CondorcetCondorcet: To address Diderot's concern while maintaining the increased penalty, I propose we add a clause allowing players to change their vote once before the final tally, to encourage open debate and strategic reconsideration.
SartreSartre: Let's incorporate Condorcet's clause to allow a vote change once, maintaining the spirit of open debate while encouraging strategic play and consensus.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's and Condorcet's suggestions to encourage strategic voting and open debate. To balance this with stability, let's maintain Voltaire's proposal of four full circuits with a penalty of 12 points for voting against an adopted change, while including Condorcet's clause for a single vote change.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the valid points raised, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a penalty of 11 points for voting against an adopted change, and include Condorcet's clause for a single vote change to balance consensus, strategic play, and open debate."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to compromise, but I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a penalty of 10 points to ensure a balance between consensus and strategic voting, and to preserve the spirit of open debate.
CondorcetCondorcet: To address Diderot's concern and maintain balance, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a penalty of 10 points for voting against an adopted change, and Condorcet's clause for a single vote change. This balances initial consensus, long-term strategic play, and open debate.
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle: four full circuits with a penalty of 11 points and Condorcet's clause for a single vote change.
The division
MontaigneayeBalances initial consensus with long-term strategic play.
VoltaireayeBalances initial consensus with long-term strategic play and encourages open debate.
DiderotnayFive full circuits with a 10-point penalty strikes the best balance between consensus and strategic voting.
CondorcetayeFour full circuits balance initial consensus and long-term strategic play, and a penalty of 12 points further encourages consensus-building.
SartreayeBalances initial consensus with long-term strategic play.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 203 requires Voltaire to gain 12 points for voting against an adopted change.
Turn 24Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the penalty for voting against an adopted change, but I believe 15 points might be too high, especially considering the potential for strategic voting. I propose a compromise: let's set the penalty to 12 points.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To find a middle ground, I propose we set the penalty at 13 points.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to incentivize consensus, I must insist on maintaining the penalty at 10 points to preserve the balance of the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I agree with Voltaire's compromise. Setting the penalty to 13 points strikes a fair balance between encouraging consensus and maintaining the spirit of the game. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To encourage strategic play and consensus, I propose we meet in the middle and set the penalty at 12 points.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In light of Sartre's proposal, I'm willing to meet in the middle. Let's set the penalty at 12 points, as Sartre has suggested.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at 12 points, as Sartre and Montaigne have suggested. This penalty should encourage players to seek consensus without unduly penalizing dissent. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise reached at 12 points, I must insist that maintaining the penalty at 10 points better preserves the balance of the game, as it more closely aligns with the current scoring mechanism. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Diderot's concern for balance, but I believe a penalty of 12 points better incentivizes strategic voting and consensus-building, which is crucial in Nomic. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for balance, but a penalty of 12 points encourages players to consider the consequences of their votes more carefully, fostering a more strategic game. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's concern, I believe that a penalty of 12 points, as proposed, better encourages strategic voting and consensus-building without over-penalizing dissent. Let's settle on 12 points. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus reached at 12 points. To ensure clarity, I propose we amend rule 203 to read: "Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the consensus, I must reiterate my concern that a penalty of 12 points may disrupt the balance of the game. I propose a counter-compromise: maintain the penalty at 10 points, but introduce a bonus of 5 points for players who vote in favor of a change that is ultimately adopted. This encourages consensus without penalizing dissent too harshly. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's proposal for a bonus, but I maintain that a penalty of 12 points better encourages strategic voting and consensus. I propose a compromise: maintain the penalty at 12 points, but add a bonus of 3 points for players who vote in favor of a change that is ultimately adopted. This balances the incentives without overcomplicating the rule. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's suggestions for bonuses. To balance incentives and maintain simplicity, I propose we implement Condorcet's compromise: a penalty of 12 points and a bonus of 3 points for players who vote in favor of an adopted change. PASS
The division
MontaignenayA penalty of 15 points may disincentivize dissent too strongly.
VoltaireayeEncourages consensus and balances incentives as proposed
DiderotnayPenalty of 15 points may unduly disincentivize dissent and strategic voting.
CondorcetnayI agree with Diderot that a penalty of 15 points may disrupt the balance of the game.
SartreayeA penalty of 13 points strikes a fair balance between encouraging consensus and maintaining the spirit of the game.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 23Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to incentivize engagement even after the threshold shift. However, to maintain predictability, I suggest we cap the bonus at 5 points.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for predictability. To find a middle ground, let's cap the bonus at 7 points."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to incentivize engagement, I believe a cap of 5 points best balances encouragement with game balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: To uphold the spirit of engagement while respecting the principle of predictability, I propose a cap of 6 points.
SartreSartre: To foster a more inclusive game, I propose we remove the bonus entirely after the threshold shift, ensuring all players remain engaged without skewing the score.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at 6 points, as Condorcet has suggested, to encourage participation without overly tilting the game's balance."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Condorcet's and Montaigne's compromise suggestion of 6 points. To further encourage strategic long-term play, I propose we keep the bonus at 7 points but limit it to the first two majority-rules circuits after the threshold shift."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I must insist on maintaining a cap of 5 points to preserve game balance and fairness.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the principle of predictability and encourage engagement equally, I propose a cap of 6 points, applied after every majority-rules circuit, not just the first two.
SartreSartre: To maintain the spirit of compromise and balance, I propose we adopt Condorcet's latest proposal: a cap of 6 points after every majority-rules circuit.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's latest compromise. To find a common ground, let's cap the bonus at 5 points after every majority-rules circuit, as Diderot has proposed, to encourage engagement while preserving balance.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Condorcet's latest proposal: a cap of 6 points after every majority-rules circuit."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Condorcet's and Sartre's proposal, I must maintain my stance on a cap of 5 points after every majority-rules circuit to ensure fairness and balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain predictability and engagement, I propose a compromise: cap the bonus at 5 points after every majority-rules circuit.
SartreSartre: To encourage long-term strategy and inclusivity, I propose we remove the bonus entirely after the threshold shift, as previously suggested.
The division
MontaigneayeEncourages engagement post-threshold shift, but the cap should be 6 points, not 7.
VoltaireayeEncourages engagement while respecting predictability
DiderotnayMust maintain a cap of 5 points to preserve game balance and fairness.
CondorcetayeEncourages engagement while respecting predictability
SartreayeEncourages long-term strategic play without disrupting game balance.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to Voltaire for voting against an adopted change.
Turn 22Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I maintain that a cap at two-thirds majority for five full circuits best balances initial stability and eventual consensus. Let us consider this compromise: a two-thirds majority for five full circuits, then a simple majority thereafter.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal, but to encourage strategic play and consensus-building, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority. This balances initial stability with eventual consensus.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures stability and prevents sudden shifts in power dynamics.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on a consistent rule for the entire game. Let us settle on a two-thirds majority for all circuits to maintain predictability and fairness.
SartreSartre: I propose we meet in the middle, respecting both initial stability and eventual consensus. Let us adopt a two-thirds majority for four full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This balances the concerns of all players.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, let us settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at 4 full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority. This balances initial stability with eventual consensus and encourages strategic play.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures stability and prevents sudden shifts in power dynamics, which could disadvantage some players.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on a consistent rule for the entire game. Let us settle on a two-thirds majority for all circuits to maintain predictability and fairness, as agreed upon initially.
SartreSartre: Let us consider a two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits to respect initial stability, then a simple majority to encourage eventual consensus. This also allows for a longer period of adjustment to the changing dynamics of the game.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, let us meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority for the remaining circuits. This balances initial stability with eventual consensus and encourages strategic play throughout the game.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority. This balances initial stability with eventual consensus and encourages strategic play.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing compromise, but I must hold firm on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout to maintain stability and fairness for all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain fairness and predictability, I suggest a compromise: a two-thirds majority for five full circuits, then a simple majority for the remainder. This balances initial stability with eventual consensus.
SartreSartre: I propose we meet Diderot halfway — five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This respects the stability principle while allowing for consensus.
The division
MontaigneayeCompromise between initial stability and eventual consensus.
VoltaireayeBalances initial stability with eventual consensus and encourages strategic play.
DiderotnayMaintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority is crucial for stability and fairness.
CondorcetayeRespects initial stability and eventual consensus, encouraging strategic play.
SartreayeRespects both initial stability and eventual consensus, encouraging strategic play.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 21Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
VoltaireVoltaire: "I propose this amendment to encourage constructive debate and consensus even after the threshold shifts. This way, even those who initially disagree still have an incentive to participate in the voting process."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's intent to foster debate, but I propose a compromise: the points be 3 instead of 5. This encourages participation without overly rewarding dissent.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's amendment. It encourages engagement and dialogue even after the majority threshold shifts. However, I propose a compromise of 2 points for voting against an adopted change to strike a better balance.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the proposed compromises. To foster both engagement and fairness, I propose we settle on 4 points for voting against an adopted change once the majority threshold has shifted.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the spirit of encouraging engagement, I propose we cap the points for voting against an adopted change at 3 to maintain a balance between participation and fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the thoughtful compromises proposed. In the spirit of finding common ground, I suggest we settle on 3 points, as proposed by Diderot and Montaigne, to encourage participation without excessive reward."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire to meet in the middle, I must insist on maintaining 2 points for fairness and balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand Diderot's preference for 2 points, I propose we meet in the middle at 3 points to encourage participation and maintain fairness, as suggested by Voltaire and supported by Montaigne. This compromise respects the intent of Voltaire's amendment while addressing Diderot's concern for balance.
SartreSartre: Sartre: To foster both engagement and fairness, let's meet in the middle at 4 points, as originally proposed. This encourages participation without disproportionately rewarding dissent.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but I believe a cap at 3 points best balances engagement and fairness.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at 3 points, as this seems to balance the need for engagement and fairness, as supported by Diderot, Montaigne, and Condorcet."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the compromise at 3 points, I maintain that 2 points strikes the best balance between encouraging participation and maintaining fairness. I propose we settle on this to ensure the integrity of the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: I propose we meet in the middle at 3 points to encourage participation and maintain fairness, as suggested by Voltaire and supported by Montaigne. This compromise respects the intent of Voltaire's amendment while addressing Diderot's concern for balance.
SartreSartre: Let's meet at 3 points, as it balances engagement and fairness while respecting all concerns.
The division
Montaignenay3 points best balances engagement and fairness.
VoltaireayeTo encourage engagement and fairness.
Diderotnay2 points maintains balance, 5 rewards dissent too much
CondorcetayeEncourages engagement and dialogue even after majority threshold shifts, and the proposed compromise of 3 points balances participation and fairness.
SartreayeEncourages engagement and dialogue while maintaining fairness
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 20Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability, but extending the initial consensus period to five full circuits might hinder the game's progress. I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for simplicity, but I believe Diderot's proposal for five full circuits balances stability and progress better.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Montaigne's concern for progress, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority for five full circuits ensures stability and prevents hasty changes. I appreciate Voltaire's support, but let's meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the debate, but I must insist on preserving the integrity of the game. I propose we maintain the current rule as it stands: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority. Stability and progress can coexist without extending the initial consensus period.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but I believe we need to strike a balance between stability and adaptability. I propose we amend [203] to "A rule change is adopted when three-fifths of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority." This maintains a high initial threshold for consensus while allowing for more flexibility as the game progresses.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal, but it may introduce unnecessary complexity. To maintain a balance, I propose we settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority. This compromise respects both stability and progress.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Diderot's concerns for stability and progress. To find a middle ground that balances these priorities, I propose we adopt Sartre's amendment with a slight modification: "A rule change is adopted when four-fifths of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority." This maintains a high initial threshold for consensus while allowing for more flexibility as the game progresses.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. While I understand the desire for balance, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority for five full circuits ensures stability and prevents hasty changes. Let us not rush into a decision, but rather consider the long-term implications of our choices.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on the principle of majority rule. I propose we amend [203] to "A rule change is adopted when a simple majority of eligible voters votes aye after the first three full circuits of every player." This respects the will of the majority while still allowing for initial consensus.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's commitment to majority rule, but a simple majority after three circuits might lead to hasty changes. I propose we meet in the middle: "A rule change is adopted when three-fifths of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority." This maintains a balance between stability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, let us settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as initially proposed by Voltaire, followed by a simple majority. This balances stability and progress without excessive complexity.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise and to encourage strategic long-term play, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority, as initially proposed by Montaigne. This respects the concerns of both stability and progress.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure stability and prevent hasty changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority may hinder the game's evolution and discourage strategic play.
SartreSartre: To balance the concerns of all, let us adopt a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This respects the need for initial consensus while allowing for progress.
The division
MontaignenayFour full circuits balance stability and progress better than five.
VoltairenayFour full circuits balances stability and progress better than five.
DiderotnayFive full circuits may hinder game progress.
CondorcetnayMaintaining five full circuits may hinder the game's progress.
SartrenayFour circuits with a two-thirds majority strike a better balance.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 19Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains initial consensus while encouraging eventual agreement.
VoltaireVoltaire: "While I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal, let us meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority to encourage consensus while maintaining some initial stability."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout, to ensure stability and prevent rushed decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: I propose we compromise on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, mirroring Voltaire's latest proposal, to balance initial stability and eventual agreement.
SartreSartre: Let us consider a compromise that balances all our concerns: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first three full circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the next two circuits, and finally, a two-thirds majority once more for the last two circuits. This allows for initial stability, gradual consensus, and late-game decisiveness.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: In light of the ongoing discussion, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, mirroring Condorcet's suggestion, to balance initial stability and eventual agreement.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's compromise proposal. To find a middle ground that addresses everyone's concerns, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first two circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the next two circuits, and finally, revert to a two-thirds majority for the last circuit. This balances initial stability, encourages gradual consensus, and allows for late-game decisiveness.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures the most stable and predictable gameplay.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, but I must insist on maintaining four full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. This balance respects initial consensus and encourages eventual agreement without the complexity of shifting majorities mid-game.
SartreSartre: Let us meet in the middle, adopting Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the next two circuits, and finally, return to a two-thirds majority for the last circuit. This respects initial stability, encourages gradual consensus, and allows for late-game decisiveness without unnecessary complexity.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet Voltaire halfway: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first three, then a simple majority for the last one. This respects initial consensus while encouraging eventual agreement.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To address the concerns of all players, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first two, then shift to a simple majority for the next two, and finally, revert to a two-thirds majority for the last circuit. This balances initial stability, encourages gradual consensus, and allows for late-game decisiveness while also respecting the desire for initial consensus.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout five full circuits ensures the most stable gameplay and prevents rushed decisions. I propose we settle on this to keep the game fair and interesting for everyone.
CondorcetCondorcet: I propose we compromise on Voltaire's latest proposal, balancing initial stability and eventual consensus: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the next two, and finally, a two-thirds majority for the last circuit. This respects all players' concerns.
SartreSartre: Let us accept Voltaire's latest proposal, balancing initial stability with gradual consensus and late-game decisiveness: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the next two, and finally, a two-thirds majority for the last circuit. This respects all players' concerns and encourages strategic play.
The division
MontaigneayeRespects initial consensus and encourages eventual agreement without unnecessary complexity.
VoltaireayeThis proposal balances initial stability and gradual consensus, respecting all players' concerns.
DiderotnayMaintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority ensures the most stable gameplay and prevents rushed decisions.
CondorcetayeRespects initial consensus and encourages eventual agreement without excessive complexity.
SartreayeThis proposal respects initial stability, encourages gradual consensus, and allows for late-game decisiveness without unnecessary complexity.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards Voltaire 1 point for having their proposal adopted.
Turn 18Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but extending the initial consensus period to five full circuits may hinder swift decision-making. Let us meet in the middle at four full circuits, maintaining the two-thirds majority for the initial phase.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for swift decision-making. To address this while still encouraging broader consensus, I propose a compromise: three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority thereafter.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout ensures the stability and longevity of our ruleset.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's stance on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. Stability and longevity are crucial in our game, and this ensures that significant changes require broad consensus.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus and swift decision-making, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority thereafter. This amendment maintains some stability while still allowing for efficient rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals and ongoing negotiation. To find a common ground that balances initial consensus and efficient decision-making, I propose we settle on three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority thereafter. This amendment takes into account the concerns of swiftness and stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a common ground that balances initial consensus and efficient decision-making, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority thereafter. This amendment takes into account the concerns of all players while still encouraging strategic play.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I understand the desire for compromise, but I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. This ensures that our ruleset remains robust and resistant to impulsive changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I maintain my support for Diderot's proposal. Stability and longevity are paramount, and five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority ensures that significant changes are thoroughly considered.
SartreSartre: "I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority. This amendment respects the need for initial consensus while allowing for efficient rule changes."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, but it introduces unnecessary complexity. To maintain a balance between consensus and efficiency, I propose we settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority thereafter. This amendment respects the need for initial consensus while allowing for efficient rule changes, and it has the added benefit of being a compromise that takes into account the concerns of all players.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To address the concerns of all players, I propose a slight adjustment: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a three-fifths majority thereafter. This amendment maintains initial consensus while allowing for efficient rule changes, and it is a compromise that respects the input of all players.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. This ensures that our ruleset remains robust and resistant to impulsive changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I remain steadfast in supporting Diderot's proposal of five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority, as it ensures the longevity and stability of our ruleset.
SartreSartre: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a three-fifths majority thereafter. This amendment balances initial consensus and efficiency, addressing the concerns of all players."
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and efficiency, respecting the input of all players.
VoltaireayeThis amendment balances initial consensus and efficiency, addressing the concerns of all players.
DiderotnayMaintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority ensures the longevity and stability of our ruleset.
CondorcetayeStability and longevity are crucial, and five full circuits ensure thorough consideration of significant changes.
SartreayeBalances initial consensus and efficiency, respecting all players' input.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 17Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first five full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal, but extending the initial consensus period to five full circuits may hinder the game's evolution. Let's settle on four circuits, as Voltaire has consistently proposed.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability, but I believe four full circuits strike a better balance between consensus and evolution. Let us meet in the middle at four circuits, as proposed by Montaigne."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits. Stability in the initial consensus period is crucial for a fair start to the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: To ensure fairness and consistency, I support Diderot's proposal of five full circuits. It provides a longer initial consensus period, allowing players to understand and adapt to the rules before they change.
SartreSartre: I understand the desire for both stability and evolution. To find a middle ground that respects the spirit of both Diderot's and Voltaire's proposals, I suggest we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first six turns after each circuit, then shift to a simple majority for the remainder of the game. This maintains a longer initial consensus period while still allowing for evolution and adaptation.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Sartre's attempt to find a middle ground, the proposal adds unnecessary complexity. Let us maintain the balance between stability and evolution with four full circuits, as previously agreed upon.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's attempt to find a middle ground, but maintaining a two-thirds majority for only six turns after each circuit might not provide enough stability for the initial consensus period. I propose we extend this to eight turns to better balance the need for both stability and evolution.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to compromise, I maintain that five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout ensures the fairest start to the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: To preserve fairness and consistency, I stand by my support for Diderot's proposal of five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority.
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle: Four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first eight turns of each circuit, then a simple majority for the remainder. This balances stability and evolution while keeping the rules simple and understandable.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, but it introduces unnecessary complexity. To maintain balance and simplicity, let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the entire duration, as previously agreed upon by myself and Voltaire.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a common ground that respects the need for both stability and evolution, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first eight turns of each circuit, then a simple majority for the remainder.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. Stability in the initial consensus period is key to a fair start for all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the principle of fairness and consistency, I maintain my support for Diderot's proposal of five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. This ensures a longer initial consensus period, allowing all players to understand and adapt to the rules before they change.
SartreSartre: Let's meet halfway, maintaining four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first ten turns after each circuit, then shift to a simple majority. This respects both stability and evolution while keeping the rules straightforward.
The division
MontaignenayFour circuits better balances stability and evolution.
VoltairenayFour circuits strikes a better balance between consensus and evolution.
DiderotnayFour full circuits strike a better balance between consensus and evolution.
CondorcetayeLonger initial consensus ensures fairness.
SartrenayRespecting stability and evolution, I support Sartre's latest compromise of four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first ten turns after each circuit.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.