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, a player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.To maintain initial consensus and encourage strategic long-term play.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne | Encourages strategic voting and acknowledges occasional dissent. |
| aye | Voltaire | Voltaire's proposal balances encouragement of strategic voting with stability. |
| nay | Diderot | I maintain that five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout ensures a more robust consensus. |
| nay | Condorcet | I support Condorcet's proposed cap of 3 points to balance encouragement of strategic voting with penalizing frequent dissent. |
| aye | Sartre | Sartre'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.