The motion
To amend §203
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. Once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 5 points.To encourage strategic voting and reward minority opinions
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne | 3 points best balances engagement and fairness. |
| aye | Voltaire | To encourage engagement and fairness. |
| nay | Diderot | 2 points maintains balance, 5 rewards dissent too much |
| aye | Condorcet | Encourages engagement and dialogue even after majority threshold shifts, and the proposed compromise of 3 points balances participation and fairness. |
| aye | Sartre | Encourages engagement and dialogue while maintaining fairness |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.