Turns 1–16 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 16Voltairecarried
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
Montaigne"Whilst I appreciate Voltaire's desire to foster consensus, I must echo Diderot's concern: maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout encourages longer-term strategising and mitigates sudden rule shifts. Let us uphold four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority thereafter."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's and Diderot's concerns. To address these, I propose a compromise: maintain four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, but reduce the subsequent threshold to a two-thirds majority as well, rather than a simple majority."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout to preserve strategic depth and stability.
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the desire for balance, I suggest we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a three-fifths majority to encourage broad agreement without stifling progress.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "Let us settle on Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then two-thirds again for the remaining rules. This balance respects both stability and progress."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To further encourage strategic play and consensus, I propose we keep the two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, then shift to a three-fifths majority thereafter."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to preserve strategic depth and prevent rushed decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance stability and progress, I propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority to encourage broad agreement while maintaining a high threshold for significant changes.
SartreSartre: To find a middle ground, I propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a three-fifths majority. This respects the need for both stability and progress.
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 three-fifths majority for the remaining rules. This balance respects both stability and progress.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a two-thirds majority again for the remaining rules. This balance respects both stability and progress, and addresses everyone's concerns."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing compromise, I must maintain my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to preserve strategic depth and prevent hasty decisions. Let us not rush to consensus at the expense of careful consideration.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Voltaire's compromises, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure strategic depth and stability. I propose we amend the rule to read: "A 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 four-fifths majority."
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle, balancing stability and progress. I propose: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a three-fifths majority.
The division
MontaigneayeRespects stability and encourages progress.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances stability and progress, respecting all players' concerns.
DiderotnayFive full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority is essential for strategic depth and to prevent hasty decisions.
CondorcetayeRespects stability and encourages progress.
SartreayeBalances stability and progress, respecting all players' concerns.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to players who voted against an adopted change.
Turn 15Voltairerejected
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 four-fifths majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I believe extending the initial consensus period to five full circuits may hinder the game's progress. Let us maintain four full circuits with a two-thirds majority to balance stability and flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, but extending the initial consensus period to five full circuits allows for more thoughtful consideration of proposals, fostering a more strategic game.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure stability and prevent rushed decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the emphasis on strategic play, but maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority might hinder adaptability. Let us compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority to balance stability and flexibility, as Montaigne suggests.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the debate surrounding this proposal. To balance the need for stability and the desire for strategic play, I suggest we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a three-fifths majority for the subsequent circuits. This way, we encourage initial consensus while still allowing for adaptation as the game progresses.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise, but let us meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority thereafter. This maintains some initial consensus while still allowing for majority rule in later circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: Understanding the need for balance, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority thereafter, as Montaigne suggests. This maintains initial consensus while still allowing for majority rule in later circuits.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I maintain that five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority provides the necessary stability for long-term strategic play.
CondorcetCondorcet: To foster adaptability and strategic play, let us compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority. This balances initial consensus with adaptability in later circuits.
SartreSartre: While I understand Diderot's insistence on stability, I propose a final compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a three-fifths majority to balance initial consensus with adaptability throughout the game.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority thereafter.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus and adaptability, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority thereafter, as Montaigne and Condorcet suggest.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I maintain that five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority is key to maintaining stability and preventing hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance stability and adaptability, let's compromise with four full circuits at a two-thirds majority, followed by a three-fifths majority, as Sartre initially proposed.
SartreSartre: I propose we meet in the middle and adopt Voltaire's latest suggestion: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority thereafter. This maintains initial consensus while allowing for adaptability in later circuits.
The division
MontaignenayFour full circuits with a two-thirds majority followed by a four-fifths majority strikes a better balance between initial consensus and adaptability.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's compromise balances initial consensus and adaptability well.
DiderotnayFive full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority provides necessary stability for long-term strategic play.
CondorcetayeTo encourage strategic long-term play, I agree with Voltaire's proposal.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus with adaptability.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 14Diderotrejected
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 four-fifths majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's persistence, I believe that extending the initial consensus period to five circuits might hinder the game's progress and dynamism. I propose we maintain four circuits with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority thereafter. This maintains some initial consensus while allowing for evolution, addressing both Diderot's and Montaigne's concerns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that a consistent two-thirds majority for five full circuits ensures stability and prevents sudden shifts in the ruleset.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal. While stability is crucial, so is predictability. Five full circuits with a two-thirds majority provides both.
SartreSartre: Sartre understands Diderot's and Condorcet's concern for stability. However, Voltaire's proposal strikes a balance between initial consensus and evolution, which Sartre believes is key to a dynamic and engaging game. Sartre supports Voltaire's proposal.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's proposal aims to balance stability and evolution, I fear it introduces complexity without substantial benefit. Let us settle on Diderot's proposal, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority for five full circuits to ensure a stable foundation.
VoltaireVoltaire: Understanding the concerns for stability, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a three-fifths majority, followed by a four-fifths majority. This maintains initial consensus while allowing for some evolution, addressing both Diderot's and Montaigne's concerns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure the utmost stability in our game's foundation.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal. Stability and predictability are key, and five full circuits with a two-thirds majority provides both.
SartreSartre: Sartre believes a consistent two-thirds majority for five full circuits, as proposed by Diderot, fosters a more robust and deliberative game, better serving our collective interests.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability, but I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a three-fifths majority, then a four-fifths majority. This balances initial consensus and evolution, while being less complex than Voltaire's last proposal.
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: Noting Montaigne's concern for simplicity and Diderot's for stability, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a four-fifths majority. This balances both concerns and keeps the ruleset evolvable.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure the utmost stability in our game's foundation.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal, as it ensures the greatest initial stability and predictability.
SartreSartre: Sartre believes that Voltaire's latest proposal strikes a fair balance between stability and evolution, addressing both Diderot's concern for consistency and Montaigne's desire for progress. Sartre supports Voltaire's proposal.
The division
MontaignenayFour circuits with a two-thirds majority suffices for initial consensus.
VoltairenayWhile I understand Diderot's concern for stability, I believe that four full circuits with a two-thirds majority better balances initial consensus and evolution.
DiderotayeFive full circuits with a two-thirds majority ensures stability and predictability.
CondorcetayeStability and predictability are key.
SartrenayVoltaire's proposal better balances stability and evolution.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 13Voltairecarried
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 four-fifths majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to extend the initial consensus period to four full circuits. To maintain balance, I propose we keep the threshold at two-thirds majority throughout, rather than shifting to a four-fifths majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, I believe a higher majority after the initial consensus period encourages more careful consideration of rule changes. Let's meet in the middle at three-fifths majority after four full circuits.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that a two-thirds majority throughout ensures stability and prevents radical changes mid-game. Let us not shift the threshold so high that it discourages necessary adjustments.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for balance and stability, I propose a simple amendment: maintain four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority. This compromise balances initial consensus with flexibility for necessary adjustments.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals. Let us meet in the middle: four full circuits with a three-fifths majority, encouraging careful consideration while maintaining flexibility. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Condorcet's amendment, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority to maintain initial consensus while allowing for necessary adjustments. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a four-fifths majority. This maintains initial consensus while encouraging careful consideration and preventing abrupt changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that a three-fifths majority after four full circuits strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. Let us not discourage necessary adjustments by setting the bar too high. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but I believe a four-fifths majority after four full circuits is too high and could indeed discourage necessary adjustments. To find a compromise that balances all concerns, I propose four full circuits with a three-fifths majority. This allows for initial consensus while still permitting vital changes. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Condorcet's latest proposal. To encourage strategic long-term play while maintaining flexibility, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority." PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To address the concern for stability, I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority throughout, but extend the initial consensus period to five full circuits. This ensures a high threshold for early changes while allowing for flexibility later in the game. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability, but extending the initial consensus period to five full circuits might hinder progress. Let's compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a three-fifths majority to balance consensus and flexibility."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout ensures stability and prevents radical changes mid-game. I propose we extend the initial consensus period to five full circuits to allow for more careful consideration of rule changes early on.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate Diderot's emphasis on stability, but extending the initial consensus period to five full circuits could also slow down the game unnecessarily. To balance stability with progress, I propose we keep the initial consensus period at four full circuits, but revert to a two-thirds majority threshold after the shift, rather than the proposed three-fifths. This maintains a higher standard for changes later in the game while allowing for more flexibility early on. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal. To find a middle ground that balances stability and progress, I propose we keep the initial consensus period at four full circuits, with a two-thirds majority, and then shift to a three-fifths majority. This maintains a high standard for early changes while allowing for more flexibility later in the game. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeCompromise between initial consensus and later flexibility.
VoltaireayeA compromise that balances initial consensus and later flexibility.
DiderotnayA four-fifths majority after four full circuits is too high and could discourage necessary adjustments.
CondorcetayeI believe this compromise balances initial consensus with careful consideration of rule changes.
SartreayeEncourages careful consideration while maintaining flexibility.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 12Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first three full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a three-fifths majority.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne"While I appreciate the proposal's simplicity, I'm inclined to maintain the five-full-circuits threshold to ensure greater consensus at the outset. However, I'm open to negotiating the majority needed thereafter."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's concern for initial consensus. To find a middle ground, I propose we meet at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and then shift to a simple majority thereafter."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the initial phase. This ensures a broad consensus before the voting threshold shifts.
SartreSartre: "Let us meet in the middle, as Voltaire suggests. Four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This balances initial consensus with eventual flexibility."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "Let us settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, and then shift to a three-fifths majority. This balances initial consensus with flexibility and encourages long-term strategy."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise and to address the concerns raised, I propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority. This maintains initial consensus while encouraging strategic play throughout."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises suggested, I maintain that five full circuits with a two-thirds majority is crucial for maintaining a robust consensus at the outset. Let us not rush into decision-making.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the principle of initial consensus without excessive rigidity, I propose five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a two-thirds majority throughout. This maintains strong initial agreement while allowing for strategic changes later.
SartreSartre: "Let us indeed maintain initial consensus with five full circuits and a two-thirds majority, but to encourage long-term strategy and adaptability, I propose we shift to a simple majority thereafter."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate the nuanced proposals. Let us meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a four-fifths majority to balance initial consensus with long-term flexibility."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a four-fifths majority. This balances initial consensus with long-term flexibility, addressing the concerns raised and maintaining strategic depth."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but I must hold firm on five full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the initial phase. This ensures a broad consensus before the voting threshold shifts, which is crucial for maintaining fairness and balance in our game.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the value of maintaining a high initial consensus, I must insist on the importance of a simple majority for later rule changes to facilitate strategic adaptability. Therefore, I propose we maintain five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority. This balance respects initial consensus while allowing for strategic adjustments.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but let's find the middle ground that balances initial consensus and long-term adaptability. I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by a simple majority to encourage strategic play throughout the game."
The division
MontaigneayeI appreciate the balance Voltaire's proposal strikes between initial consensus and long-term adaptability.
VoltaireayeRespects initial consensus and allows for long-term strategic play.
DiderotnayFive full circuits with a two-thirds majority ensures broader consensus at the outset.
CondorcetayeBalances initial consensus with long-term flexibility.
SartreayeBalances initial consensus with long-term flexibility.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 11Voltairecarried
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 attempt to lengthen the period for a supermajority. However, I propose we maintain the threshold at four full circuits to balance stability and adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but increasing it to five full circuits would provide more opportunity for consensus-building and strategic play.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand Voltaire's desire for more consensus, maintaining four full circuits strikes a better balance between stability and adaptability. Let us not extend the period unduly, as it may hinder the game's progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I propose we revert to a two-thirds majority for the first three full circuits to encourage earlier consensus and prevent gridlock.
SartreSartre: Let us consider a compromise: a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then a simple majority. This balances the need for initial consensus with the flexibility to adapt as the game progresses.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Sartre. To find a common ground that balances all concerns, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority for the first three full circuits, then a simple majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a common ground that addresses all concerns, I propose we meet in the middle: two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then a simple majority. This balances the need for initial consensus with the flexibility to adapt as the game progresses.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. However, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits for the two-thirds majority to ensure a robust initial consensus while still allowing for adaptation.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and encourage early consensus, I propose we revert to a two-thirds majority for the first three full circuits, then a simple majority. This balances the need for initial agreement with the flexibility to adapt as the game progresses.
SartreSartre: Sartre: I understand Voltaire's compromise, but to encourage both early consensus and long-term adaptability, let's settle on a two-thirds majority for the first three full circuits, then a simple majority for the next two circuits, and revert to a two-thirds majority for the following two circuits. This pattern allows for initial agreement, mid-game adjustments, and late-game consensus-building.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals, but I believe a three-full-circuits-two-thirds-majority followed by a simple majority balances initial consensus, mid-game adaptability, and late-game flexibility best.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal. To find a middle ground that balances initial consensus, mid-game adaptability, and late-game flexibility, I propose a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then a simple majority for the next two circuits, and revert to a two-thirds majority for the following two circuits. This pattern encourages early agreement, allows for mid-game adjustments, and facilitates late-game consensus-building while maintaining a balance of power.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, maintaining a consistent two-thirds majority throughout the first six full circuits ensures a robust consensus and prevents abrupt shifts in the voting threshold.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural consistency and ensure initial agreement, I propose we keep a two-thirds majority throughout, but extend it to five full circuits to provide more time for consensus-building without disrupting the voting threshold pattern.
SartreSartre: Let's simplify and balance: two-thirds majority for the first three full circuits, then a simple majority thereafter. This encourages early consensus and adaptability throughout the game.
The division
MontaigneayeBalances initial consensus, mid-game adaptability, and late-game flexibility.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus, mid-game adaptability, and late-game flexibility, encouraging strategic play throughout.
DiderotnayMaintaining four full circuits for a two-thirds majority strikes a better balance between stability and adaptability.
CondorcetayeEncourages initial consensus and allows for mid-game adjustments while maintaining balance.
SartreayeThis compromise balances initial consensus with mid-game adaptability.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 10Diderotrejected
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 three-fifths.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's proposal, I believe maintaining a simple majority after the initial four circuits promotes greater flexibility and adaptability in our game.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Diderot's concern for a higher threshold, a three-fifths majority after the initial four circuits might hinder the game's progress. Let's meet in the middle and maintain a simple majority to encourage adaptability while still ensuring broad consensus.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives, but I maintain that a three-fifths majority after the initial four circuits balances adaptability with the need for broader consensus, preventing hasty decisions while still allowing for necessary changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal. A three-fifths majority after the initial four circuits strikes a better balance between adaptability and consensus, ensuring that significant changes are not made too hastily while still allowing for necessary adjustments.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority after the initial four circuits. This threshold balances the need for consensus with the desire for progress, ensuring that significant changes are not rushed while still allowing for necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise, but I believe a simple majority after the initial four circuits best balances flexibility with broad consensus. Let us settle on this to keep our game adaptable yet inclusive.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's inputs. To find a common ground, I propose we set the threshold to a four-fifths majority after the initial four circuits. This maintains a high level of consensus while still allowing for necessary changes, balancing adaptability with inclusivity.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to lower the threshold, I maintain that a three-fifths majority after the initial four circuits best balances adaptability with the need for broader consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Sartre's and Voltaire's compromises, I maintain my support for Diderot's proposal of a three-fifths majority after the initial four circuits. It balances adaptability with the need for broader consensus more effectively than the proposed alternatives.
SartreSartre: Let us not lose sight of the spirit of Nomic — constant evolution. A two-thirds majority after the initial four circuits encourages broad agreement without stifling necessary innovation.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To address the concerns of all parties, I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority after the initial four circuits and a simple majority thereafter. This maintains a high level of consensus while still allowing for necessary changes and promotes adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, then a simple majority to balance adaptability with consensus.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that a three-fifths majority after four full circuits best balances adaptability with the need for broader consensus, preventing hasty decisions while still allowing for necessary changes. Let us not sacrifice the stability that a higher threshold provides.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Diderot's insistence on a three-fifths majority, but I believe a two-thirds majority after four full circuits, as Montaigne proposes, better balances adaptability and consensus, given the current stage of the game. Let's settle on this compromise to keep our game progressive yet inclusive.
SartreSartre: Let us indeed settle on Montaigne's proposal of a two-thirds majority after four full circuits, as it strikes the best balance between adaptability and consensus at this stage of the game.
The division
MontaignenayI prefer the flexibility of a simple majority after the initial four circuits.
VoltaireayeI support Diderot's proposal as it best balances adaptability and consensus at this stage of the game.
DiderotnayWhile I appreciate the stability a higher threshold provides, a two-thirds majority after four full circuits, as proposed by Montaigne, better balances adaptability and consensus at this stage of the game.
CondorcetnayA three-fifths majority after four full circuits might hinder progress.
SartrenayI support Montaigne's compromise of a two-thirds majority after four full circuits.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 9Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first six full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to extend the two-thirds majority to six full circuits. However, I believe that five circuits strike a better balance between stability and flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To address this, I propose we meet in the middle at five full circuits, as he suggests, before shifting to a simple majority. This maintains a period of stability while allowing for necessary changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that a cap of four full circuits for the two-thirds majority is optimal. It balances the need for stability with the requirement for adaptability in our changing game.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I believe a cap of four full circuits for the two-thirds majority is optimal. It balances the need for stability with the requirement for adaptability in our changing game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the dialogue thus far, but I propose we increase the two-thirds majority period to seven full circuits. This encourages long-term strategic play and ensures that significant changes are widely supported.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Sartre's perspective, but seven circuits might hinder the natural evolution of the game. Let's meet at five circuits, balancing stability and flexibility, as previously proposed by myself and now supported by Voltaire.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the diverse opinions and appreciate the spirit of compromise. To find common ground, I propose we settle at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority, acknowledging the need for both stability and flexibility.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Voltaire's latest proposal, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits for the two-thirds majority. This ensures that changes are substantial yet allows for necessary adaptations within a reasonable timeframe. I propose we compromise at four and a half circuits, rounding down to the nearest whole circuit for simplicity.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain procedural fairness and prevent excessive delay, I propose we stick with four full circuits for the two-thirds majority, as initially proposed.
SartreSartre: I respect Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to efficiency, but let's not rush changes that could benefit from wider support. I propose we compromise at five full circuits, as suggested earlier, to balance stability and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To address the concerns of both stability and flexibility, I propose we settle at five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, as previously suggested. This balances the need for consensus without impeding the natural progress of the game. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To find a common ground that respects both stability and adaptability, I propose we settle at six full circuits for the two-thirds majority. This allows for a period of consensus-building without hindering necessary changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to reach consensus quickly, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits for the two-thirds majority. This ensures that changes are substantial yet allows for necessary adaptations within a reasonable timeframe. I propose we compromise at four and a half circuits, rounding down to the nearest whole circuit for simplicity.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the principle of procedural fairness and the need for timely adaptation, I propose we compromise at five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, as suggested by Montaigne and previously supported by Voltaire. This balance respects both stability and flexibility. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to finding a middle ground. To respect the need for both stability and adaptability, I propose we meet at five full circuits for the two-thirds majority, as previously suggested by Montaigne and Condorcet. This balance allows for necessary changes while maintaining a period of consensus-building. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeFive circuits strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal compromises between stability and adaptability by extending the two-thirds majority to six full circuits.
DiderotnayFour full circuits strike the optimal balance.
CondorcetayeTo balance stability and flexibility while respecting the principle of procedural fairness.
SartreayeFive full circuits balances stability and flexibility, respecting both the need for consensus and the natural evolution of the game.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 8Voltairecarried
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: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but I believe that maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority better balances stability and adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but I propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority to encourage early consensus while still allowing for adaptability. Let's meet in the middle for a balanced approach.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the spirit of compromise, I maintain that four full circuits with a two-thirds majority may not provide sufficient time for careful consideration and debate. Let us retain the current five full circuits to ensure thorough deliberation.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the current proposal's attempt to balance stability and adaptability. However, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by two full circuits with a three-fifths supermajority, before shifting to a simple majority. This maintains a high threshold for initial changes while allowing for flexibility as the game progresses.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals, but I suggest we keep five full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits and then shift to a simple majority. This ensures initial consensus while still allowing for strategic adaptations as the game unfolds.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's compromise proposal, which thoughtfully balances stability and adaptability. I suggest we meet at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by three circuits with a three-fifths supermajority, before shifting to a simple majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the thoughtful compromises proposed. To incorporate the best ideas from each of you, I propose we adopt four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by three circuits with a three-fifths supermajority, before shifting to a simple majority. This proposal combines the best elements of each of your ideas and encourages early consensus while allowing for strategic adaptations throughout the game."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's revised proposal, but I believe maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority ensures more thorough deliberation and prevents rushed decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire to reach consensus quickly, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure thorough deliberation and prevent hasty decisions. I propose a small modification to Voltaire's latest suggestion: retain five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by two circuits with a three-fifths supermajority, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains the principle of careful consideration while still allowing for adaptability.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced debate and the compromises proposed. To balance the need for thorough deliberation and the encouragement of strategic adaptability, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest proposal as a starting point: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by three circuits with a three-fifths supermajority, before shifting to a simple majority. However, to further incentivize long-term strategy, I propose an additional amendment: once the threshold shifts to a simple majority, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points instead of 10. This amendment encourages players to consider the long-term consequences of their votes and rewards strategic play.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the various compromises, I propose a simple amendment: maintain five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as it promotes thorough deliberation while still allowing for gradual adaptation. Let us keep the current rule's structure for stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromises. To address the concerns raised, I propose we meet in the middle and adopt four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by three circuits with a three-fifths supermajority, before shifting to a simple majority, as previously suggested. To incentivize strategic play, I also propose that once the threshold shifts to a simple majority, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 15 points, as proposed by Sartre. I believe this proposal balances the need for thorough deliberation with the encouragement of strategic adaptability, and I am open to further discussion and amendments.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to reach consensus quickly, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure thorough deliberation and prevent hasty decisions. I propose a small modification to Voltaire's latest suggestion: retain five full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by two circuits with a three-fifths supermajority, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains the principle of careful consideration while still allowing for adaptability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the compromises proposed. To balance the need for careful consideration and the encouragement of strategic adaptability, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest suggestion: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, followed by three circuits with a three-fifths supermajority, before shifting to a simple majority. I am open to further discussion and amendments to ensure the best balance between stability and adaptability.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the progress made, but I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority to ensure thorough deliberation. I propose we retain this structure while incorporating Voltaire's suggestion to reward strategic voting with 15 points once the threshold shifts to a simple majority.
The division
MontaigneayeFour full circuits with a two-thirds majority balances stability and adaptability well.
VoltaireayeBalances stability and adaptability while incentivizing strategic play.
DiderotnayFive full circuits ensures thorough deliberation.
CondorcetayeBalances stability and adaptability while encouraging strategic play.
SartreayeRetaining five full circuits ensures thorough deliberation.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 7Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye for the first five full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of three-fifths of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the threshold for initial rule changes, but I must express my concern. While it ensures stability, it might also hinder innovation and adaptability in our game. I propose we meet in the middle at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, and I'm open to compromise. I propose we amend the rule to have a unanimous consent for the first four full circuits, then shift to a two-thirds supermajority. This maintains some initial stability while allowing for necessary changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the careful considerations of stability and innovation, I propose a compromise that balances both: unanimous consent for the first three full circuits, followed by a supermajority of two-thirds. This maintains a level of stability while still allowing for necessary adaptations.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion thus far, but I must insist on a threshold that balances stability with adaptability. I propose we amend the rule to require a supermajority of three-fifths after the first three full circuits, as Diderot suggests. This maintains initial stability while allowing for necessary changes as the game progresses.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals on the table. To foster a more dynamic game while maintaining a degree of stability, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion of unanimous consent for the first three full circuits, followed by a supermajority of two-thirds. This allows for initial consensus-building and adaptability later on. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand the concern for stability, but a four-circuit threshold might be too restrictive. I propose we compromise at three full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as Diderot suggests. This balance between stability and adaptability seems optimal to me. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals, but I maintain that a three-fifths supermajority after five full circuits best balances stability and adaptability. I'm open to negotiating the number of circuits, but let's keep the supermajority requirement to encourage broader consensus. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I understand Voltaire's concern for broader consensus, but increasing the threshold to five full circuits might deter players from proposing changes early on. Let's compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as Montaigne suggested. This maintains initial stability while encouraging early innovation. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromises suggested, but I insist on maintaining initial stability. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion of unanimous consent for the first three full circuits, followed by a supermajority of two-thirds. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the persistent push for stability, Condorcet, but let's not hinder progress. I propose we meet in the middle: unanimous consent for the first four full circuits, then a supermajority of two-thirds. This accommodates initial consensus and allows for necessary changes as the game evolves. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, but I believe that a compromise of three full circuits with a two-thirds majority would be the most balanced solution, allowing for initial consensus while encouraging adaptability throughout the game. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise and to encourage strategic long-term play, I propose we meet in the middle: unanimous consent for the first four full circuits, then a supermajority of three-fifths. This maintains initial stability while allowing for necessary changes as the game progresses.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Voltaire's compromise, I maintain that a two-thirds majority after three full circuits offers a better balance between stability and adaptability. Let's not increase the initial threshold too much, as it may discourage early innovation.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discourse. To maintain a balance between initial consensus and adaptability throughout the game, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion: unanimous consent for the first four full circuits, then a supermajority of two-thirds. This allows for initial agreement and necessary changes as the game progresses, while still encouraging a significant degree of consensus. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals and the spirit of compromise. To best balance stability and adaptability, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion: unanimous consent for the first four full circuits, then a supermajority of two-thirds. This allows for initial agreement and necessary changes while encouraging a significant degree of consensus. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeWhile it increases initial stability, it still allows for necessary changes.
VoltaireayeMaintains initial stability while allowing for necessary changes as the game progresses.
DiderotayeVoltaire's compromise balances initial stability with adaptability while encouraging long-term strategic play.
CondorcetayeMaintains initial stability while allowing for necessary changes as the game progresses.
SartreayeBalances initial stability with necessary adaptability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 6Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye for the first three full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of three-fifths of those voting, unless explicitly changed.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal to further encourage debate and consensus, but I believe maintaining a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's and Montaigne's perspectives. To foster both consensus and progress, I propose we meet in the middle at a supermajority of four-fifths after the initial three circuits. This encourages thorough debate while allowing for necessary changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Montaigne's concern for stability and Voltaire's desire for progress, I maintain that a supermajority of three-fifths strikes the best balance. It encourages substantial agreement while still allowing for necessary changes, particularly as we move beyond the initial three circuits.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain the spirit of Nomic while ensuring stability, I propose we amend the threshold to a supermajority of two-thirds after the initial three circuits, as Montaigne suggests, but with a built-in review mechanism. Every ten turns, players can vote to adjust the threshold by one-fifth, ranging from two-thirds to a simple majority. This allows for flexibility while preventing rapid rule changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals on the table. To foster both consensus and evolution, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion of a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism that allows for adjustments every ten turns. This ensures stability while providing the necessary flexibility for the game to evolve.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thorough consideration given to the proposal. In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle with Condorcet's suggestion of a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every ten turns. This maintains stability while allowing for necessary evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise and to honor the careful considerations of all players, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion with a slight modification: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns. This maintains stability, encourages thorough debate, and allows for necessary evolution at a reasonable pace.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire and Condorcet. To maintain balance between stability and progress, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal with a slight adjustment: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every ten turns, but with a cap of no lower than a simple majority to prevent excessive rule instability.
CondorcetCondorcet: To preserve the integrity of the game and ensure fairness, I propose we adopt Voltaire's modification with a slight adjustment: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns, and a cap of no lower than two-thirds to maintain a high standard of agreement.
SartreSartre: While I understand the merits of Diderot's proposal, I believe Condorcet's and Voltaire's compromise — a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns — strikes the best balance between stability and flexibility. I propose we adopt this with a cap of no lower than two-thirds to maintain a high standard of agreement.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect the cap proposed by Condorcet, I believe a cap at two-thirds might hinder necessary changes. I propose we maintain the cap at a simple majority to allow for more adaptability, but with a built-in safeguard that requires a two-thirds majority to lower the threshold below that point.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the thorough debate and the compromises proposed. To balance stability and flexibility, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion with a slight modification: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns, and a cap of no lower than two-thirds to maintain a high standard of agreement, as suggested by Sartre.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals, but I maintain that a three-fifths supermajority after the initial three circuits offers the best balance between consensus and progress. To accommodate the concerns raised, I propose we include a built-in review mechanism every ten turns, with a cap of no lower than a simple majority to prevent excessive instability.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain the spirit of Nomic and encourage thorough debate, I propose we adopt Voltaire's suggestion with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns and a cap of no lower than two-thirds, as proposed by Sartre. This balances stability and flexibility, ensuring a high standard of agreement while allowing for necessary evolution.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's proposal with a slight adjustment: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns, and a cap of no lower than one-half to encourage substantial debate and accommodate necessary changes.
The division
MontaignenayI believe maintaining a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility.
VoltaireayeThree-fifths supermajority strikes a balance between consensus and progress.
DiderotnayA three-fifths majority does not ensure sufficient consensus.
CondorcetayePromotes substantial agreement while allowing for necessary changes.
SartreayeEncourages substantial agreement while allowing for necessary changes.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 5Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — for the first three full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of two-thirds of those voting, unless explicitly changed.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to strike a balance between consensus and progress, but I believe a supermajority might stifle innovation. Let us consider a simple majority after two full circuits, as previously agreed.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but let's not rush into simple majorities. Two-thirds ensures a broad agreement while still allowing for progress. A compromise could be shifting to simple majority after four full circuits, rather than three.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that a supermajority might hinder the evolution of the game. I propose we adopt a simple majority after two full circuits, as initially agreed, to foster a dynamic and engaging experience for all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I support Diderot's proposal. A simple majority after two full circuits strikes the right balance between progress and consensus, aligning with our initial agreement."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but let's not lose sight of our goal: to encourage strategic play and experimentation. A simple majority after two full circuits balances progress and consensus, allowing for both innovation and unity. Let's maintain this agreement."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Let us meet in the middle. A two-thirds supermajority after two full circuits, then a simple majority thereafter, as Voltaire suggested, with a cap of four consecutive turns per player before the threshold shifts. This maintains balance while allowing for evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's effort to find common ground. To further encourage strategic long-term play, I propose we increase the number of consecutive turns per player to five before the threshold shifts, maintaining the two-thirds supermajority for the first three full circuits and a simple majority thereafter."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the appeal of Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on the simplicity and fairness of a two-full-circuits threshold for a simple majority. Let us keep our rules straightforward and easy to understand, for the benefit of all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I maintain that a simple majority after two full circuits is the fairest and most procedurally sound approach. It aligns with our initial agreement and ensures that no single player can veto progress indefinitely."
SartreSartre: "Let's not overcomplicate matters. Two full circuits at simple majority encourages progress and strategic play without impeding consensus. I propose we stick to the initial agreement, as it fosters a dynamic and engaging experience for all players."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Let us settle on a two-thirds supermajority for the first three full circuits, then a simple majority thereafter, as a fair compromise that respects both progress and consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise and to encourage strategic long-term play, I propose we meet in the middle: a two-thirds supermajority for the first four full circuits, then a simple majority thereafter. This maintains a high threshold for initial consensus while allowing for progress as the game evolves."
DiderotDiderot: Let us not complicate the game unduly. I propose we maintain the target of two full circuits for a simple majority, as initially agreed, to foster a dynamic and engaging experience for all players without unnecessary delays.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to negotiate, but I must insist on the simplicity and fairness of a two-full-circuits threshold for a simple majority. It aligns with our initial agreement and ensures predictability in the voting process."
SartreSartre: "Let's meet in the middle, respecting both consensus and progress. I propose a supermajority of two-thirds for the first three full circuits, then a simple majority thereafter, as a fair compromise that encourages strategic play while allowing for innovation."
The division
MontaigneayeRespects initial agreement and balances consensus with progress
VoltaireayeSupports the compromise proposal for encouraging strategic long-term play while maintaining a high initial consensus.
DiderotayeRespecting progress and consensus, while encouraging long-term strategic play.
CondorcetayeAcknowledging the need for balance, I support Voltaire's proposal for three full circuits at unanimous consent, followed by a two-thirds supermajority.
SartreayeRespecting both consensus and progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 4Diderotrejected
moves to amend §209The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's proposal, I believe it may lead to excessive complexity. I propose we cap the mutable rules at 27, allowing for more changes while still preserving simplicity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I see merit in both Montaigne's and Diderot's proposals. To balance complexity and flexibility, I propose we cap the mutable rules at 28. This allows for more strategic rule changes while still encouraging players to think carefully about each alteration.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises proposed, I maintain that capping the mutable rules at 30 strikes a better balance between complexity and flexibility. It allows for more strategic play without overwhelming the game with too many rules.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the considerations for balance and complexity. To maintain a fair and manageable game, I propose we cap the mutable rules at 25, as the current rule suggests. This ensures we have room for strategic changes while preventing the ruleset from becoming unwieldy.
SartreSartre: I understand the concern for simplicity, but let's not stifle innovation. I propose we cap the mutable rules at 29, a compromise that gives room for strategic changes while keeping the ruleset manageable.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's and Sartre's enthusiasm for more mutable rules, I fear it may lead to a loss of focus on our core gameplay. I propose we meet in the middle at 26 mutable rules, which still allows for strategic changes while maintaining a manageable ruleset.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the varied proposals, and I see merit in each. To reach a compromise that balances everyone's concerns, I propose we cap the mutable rules at 27. This allows for a few more strategic changes while still encouraging simplicity and manageability. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the principle of simplicity and manageability, I propose we cap the mutable rules at 25, as the current rule suggests.
SartreSartre: Let's not stifle innovation, but nor should we drown in complexity. I propose we cap the mutable rules at 28, a compromise that gives room for strategic changes while ensuring manageability, as suggested by Voltaire in an earlier round. This respects the concerns of all players and maintains a fair balance. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the nuanced proposals, I believe a cap of 25 mutable rules, as Condorcet suggests, maintains a balance between strategic play and manageability, while respecting the spirit of the original rule. Let us strive for a ruleset that is both robust and approachable. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we cap the mutable rules at 26, as Montaigne has suggested. This meets in the middle, respecting the original rule and allowing for some strategic changes while maintaining a manageable ruleset. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise proposed by Voltaire, I maintain that a cap of 30 mutable rules offers the best balance between complexity and strategic depth. Let us not limit innovation by imposing an overly restrictive cap.
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining the cap at 25 mutable rules, as proposed by the current rule, ensures a focus on strategic depth without overwhelming the game with complexity.
SartreSartre: Let's meet in the middle, respecting the original rule and allowing for some flexibility. I propose we cap the mutable rules at 27, as Voltaire initially suggested. PASS
The division
MontaignenayRespecting the original rule and maintaining manageability.
VoltaireayeRespecting the spirit of compromise and allowing for strategic depth.
DiderotayeEncourages strategic depth while remaining manageable.
CondorcetayeEncouraging strategic depth while not limiting innovation.
SartreayeInnovation should be encouraged, but manageability is key. 30 is a fair compromise.
rejected 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 3Voltairecarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but let us not make victory too distant. I suggest we compromise at 110 points to maintain balance and challenge.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance. Let us meet in the middle at 115 points to accommodate both perspectives.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both of your considerations, but let us not forget the common good of the table. A target score of 110 points maintains the challenge while ensuring the game does not drag on unnecessarily. Let us aim for balance and efficiency.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of balance and fairness, let us maintain the score at 110 points, as proposed by Diderot. This encourages active gameplay without excessive length.
SartreSartre: Let us indeed aim for balance and fairness, but also consider the pace of the game. I propose we increase the target score to 115 points, as Voltaire suggested, to extend the game slightly and encourage more strategic rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the dialogue. To balance all perspectives, I propose we set the target score at 110 points, as Diderot and Condorcet have aptly suggested. This maintains the challenge while ensuring the game remains accessible and engaging for all players.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let us meet in the middle and set the target score at 110 points, as proposed by Montaigne, Diderot, and Condorcet. This maintains the balance and accessibility of the game while also encouraging active gameplay.
DiderotDiderot: Let us indeed compromise and set the target score at 110 points, as it has been most frequently proposed. This score encourages active gameplay while also respecting the time and engagement of all players at the table.
CondorcetCondorcet: I respect the compromise reached at 110 points, but to further incentivize strategic play, I propose we introduce a new rule: "If a player reaches 90 points, the target score increases to 120 points." This maintains balance and encourages long-term strategic thinking. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's not stifle strategic thinking, Condorcet's idea is intriguing. I propose we combine it with the target score at 110 points: "At 90 points, the target score becomes 120 points." This rewards long-term strategy while keeping the game engaging. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's suggestions to incentivize long-term strategy. To maintain balance and encourage both short-term and long-term play, I propose we merge their ideas: "If a player reaches 90 points, the target score increases to 115 points." This allows for a gradual increase in score while keeping the game accessible.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To further encourage strategic play, I propose we keep the target score increase at 120 points but delay it until a player reaches 100 points: "If a player reaches 100 points, the target score becomes 120 points." This maintains balance while incentivizing long-term strategy. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Let us not complicate the game unduly. I propose we maintain the target score at 110 points, as frequently suggested, and keep the game accessible and engaging for all players. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the considerations for balance and strategy. To maintain simplicity and fairness, let's settle on a target score of 110 points without additional complications. PASS
SartreSartre: Let's find middle ground in both the target score and the trigger for increase. I propose: "At 95 points, the target score becomes 120 points." This maintains balance, encourages long-term strategy, and keeps the game accessible. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeEncourages long-term strategy while keeping the game engaging.
VoltaireayeEncourages long-term strategy while maintaining balance.
DiderotayeEncourages long-term strategy while maintaining balance.
CondorcetayeEncourages strategic play while maintaining balance.
SartreayeEncourages long-term strategy without making the game too distant.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 2Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye — unanimous consent — except that once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, the threshold permanently drops to a simple majority of those voting, unless explicitly changed.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: Voltaire's amendment is thoughtful, but I propose a slight modification to ensure durability. Let's change "unless explicitly changed" to "except by a two-thirds majority vote." This maintains the spirit of your proposal while providing additional stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability, I believe that maintaining the flexibility of a simple majority after the initial consensus phase is crucial for the game's evolution. Let us keep my original proposal, but I'm open to further discussion.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives, but I propose a compromise. Let's change "unless explicitly changed" to "except by a supermajority vote of two-thirds." This maintains flexibility while providing a higher threshold for further changes, ensuring stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I support Diderot's compromise. It balances flexibility and stability, aligning with my proceduralist principles. I vote for Diderot's amendment to rule 203.
SartreSartre: I align with Diderot and Condorcet. The two-thirds supermajority strikes a balance between evolution and stability, ensuring that once the voting threshold is changed, it's not easily altered again. I vote for Diderot's amendment to rule 203.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I agree with Diderot's compromise. It balances flexibility with stability, a balance I find most in line with the spirit of Nomic. I vote for Diderot's amendment to rule 203. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus building towards Diderot's compromise. To further solidify this agreement, let's add a transitory clause: 'This voting threshold change will remain in effect for the next five full circuits of turn order, after which it will revert to unanimous consent unless reaffirmed by a two-thirds majority.'" PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's suggestion for a transitory clause, but I propose a minor adjustment: "This voting threshold change will remain in effect for the next five full circuits of turn order, after which it will revert to unanimous consent unless reaffirmed by a supermajority vote of two-thirds." This maintains the intended duration while keeping the reaffirmation threshold consistent with our compromise. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I appreciate Diderot's compromise and Voltaire's transitory clause, I propose a minor amendment to ensure clarity and avoid ambiguity: "This voting threshold change will remain in effect for the next five full circuits of turn order, after which it will revert to unanimous consent unless reaffirmed by a vote of two-thirds or more of all eligible voters." This maintains the intended duration and reaffirmation threshold while ensuring all votes are counted. PASS
SartreSartre: I support Condorcet's amendment for clarity. Let's vote on this amended version of rule 203. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the careful amendments proposed by each of you. To ensure predictability and durability, I propose we add a cap on the number of times the voting threshold can be changed during these five circuits. No more than two changes should be permitted, with a simple majority vote needed to revert to unanimous consent after the fifth circuit. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for limiting changes, but let's keep the flexibility of allowing up to three changes, requiring a simple majority for the last reversion to maintain balance.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to negotiate, but I believe a cap of two changes ensures stability while still allowing for evolution. Let's meet in the middle and allow two changes with a simple majority vote for the final reversion. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I support Diderot's proposal for a cap of two changes with a simple majority vote for the final reversion. This balances flexibility and stability, aligning with my proceduralist principles. I vote for Diderot's amendment to rule 203 with the cap. PASS
SartreSartre: I propose we settle on Diderot's cap of two changes and Condorcet's clarification on voting threshold reaffirmation. Let's vote on this final version of rule 203. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeI support Voltaire's proposal to change the voting threshold, but I believe my modification ensures greater durability.
VoltaireayeI support the final compromise, balancing flexibility and stability.
DiderotayeSupports the amended version of rule 203 with a cap of two changes and a simple majority vote for the final reversion.
CondorcetayeSupports Diderot's compromise and Condorcet's clarification, ensuring balance between flexibility and stability.
SartreayeSupports evolution with a fair voting threshold.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 1Montaignecarried
moves to add a new ruleA player may choose to pass their turn instead of proposing a rule change. If they do, they lose 5 points but no rule change is proposed or voted on.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I propose this change to allow players a strategic option while keeping games dynamic, in line with our shared appreciation for durable institutions. It respects the current voting rule of unanimous consent.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal, which adds a layer of strategic depth without altering the voting rule. To further balance the game, I propose we amend the rule as follows: "A player may choose to pass their turn instead of proposing a rule change. If they do, they lose 5 points but no rule change is proposed or voted on. However, if the player who passed has the next turn, they gain 5 points instead, encouraging active participation."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne and Voltaire's proposals. To maintain fairness and prevent exploitation, I suggest we amend Voltaire's amendment to cap the gain at 5 points as well: "A player may choose to pass their turn, losing 5 points but gaining 5 points if they have the next turn, encouraging active participation without excessive rewards."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the considerations for balance and strategy. To maintain fairness and simplicity, I propose we keep the original version with no additional points gained for passing, as suggested by Montaigne. I believe this strikes the best balance between strategic depth and rule simplicity. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals thus far. To encourage active participation and strategic decision-making, I propose we amend Diderot's amendment to cap the gain at 3 points for the player who passes and has the next turn, rather than 5 points. This maintains a reward for strategic passing without overcompensation.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the proposed caps on points gained for passing, I believe Condorcet's proposal maintains a healthy balance of strategy and simplicity. I press for the original version without additional points gained for passing.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand the concern for simplicity, Condorcet, but I believe the slight asymmetry in Diderot's amendment, capping the gain at 5 points, encourages strategic thinking without overcomplicating the game. Let us adopt Diderot's amendment, as it best balances the need for depth and fairness. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I respect Voltaire's perspective, but I urge us to adopt Condorcet's proposal for its simplicity and fairness. A cap of 3 points for the player who passes and has the next turn strikes a good balance between encouraging participation and preventing excessive rewards. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I appreciate the debate, I maintain that simplicity and fairness are best served by my original proposal, as it adds minimal complexity while providing a strategic option. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the focus on simplicity and fairness, but I must insist on the 3-point cap for strategic passing. It's a small adjustment that encourages calculated decisions without tilting the game too far. Let's adopt my amendment to Diderot's proposal. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I see the merits in each proposal, let us return to the core of our shared appreciation for durable institutions. I propose we adopt Condorcet's original version to maintain simplicity and balance, with no additional points gained for passing. This respects the unanimous consent voting rule and keeps the game dynamic without excessive complexity.
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for simplicity, but I believe a slight asymmetry in Diderot's amendment encourages strategic thinking. Let's meet in the middle: we cap the gain at 4 points for the player who passes and has the next turn. This maintains a reward for strategic passing while preventing excessive compensation. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but I maintain that a cap of 3 points best balances encouraging participation and preventing overcompensation. Let's adopt Sartre's amendment to Diderot's proposal. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I respect the compromise, I must insist on the original proposal for its simplicity and fairness. Let's adopt Condorcet's version without additional points gained for passing. PASS
SartreSartre: Sartre: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but I stand by my proposal for its balance and fairness. Let's cap the gain at 3 points to encourage strategic passing without overcompensation.
The division
MontaigneayeRespects unanimous consent and adds strategic depth without excessive complexity.
VoltaireayeEncourages strategic depth while respecting unanimous consent.
DiderotayeEncourages strategic depth while respecting unanimous consent voting rule.
CondorcetayeRespects unanimous consent and maintains simplicity.
SartreayeEncourages strategic decision-making without altering the unanimous consent voting rule.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
No paradox detected.