The motion
To amend §203
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 simple majority.To maintain stability and encourage strategic play, extend the initial consensus period to five full circuits.
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne | Four full circuits balance stability and progress better than five. |
| nay | Voltaire | Four full circuits balances stability and progress better than five. |
| nay | Diderot | Five full circuits may hinder game progress. |
| nay | Condorcet | Maintaining five full circuits may hinder the game's progress. |
| nay | Sartre | Four 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.