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. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 12 points instead of 10 points.Maintaining five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus and stability in the game.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Diderot's persistence in seeking stability, but maintaining five full circuits may hinder the game's progression. I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as previously agreed.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate both Diderot's commitment to stability and Montaigne's concern for progress. To balance these, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as previously adopted, and maintain the 12-point penalty for votes against adopted changes to encourage strategic voting.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, maintaining five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus and protects against hasty decisions. I appreciate the 12-point penalty, but I propose we keep it at 10 points to discourage voting against adopted changes without unduly punishing strategic play.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the focus on stability and strategic voting, I propose a slight adjustment to Diderot's amendment: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, maintaining the 12-point penalty for strategic reasons, but allowing a single 'veto' option for each player per circuit to encourage more considered voting.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability and Condorcet's proposal for a veto option, but I believe we've reached a fair compromise with four full circuits at a two-thirds majority. Let's adopt this and move forward.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's steadfastness, but I echo Voltaire's proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority strikes the best balance between stability and progress. Let's keep the 12-point penalty to encourage strategic voting.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's persistence and the valuable input from all players. To find a common ground that addresses everyone's concerns, I propose we amend rule 203 to read: "A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye for the first four full circuits of every player, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points instead of 12 points to strike a balance between encouraging strategic voting and discouraging voting against adopted changes."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, but maintaining five full circuits ensures a more consistent consensus, which is crucial in a game like Nomic. I propose we keep the threshold at five full circuits with a two-thirds majority and reduce the penalty to 10 points to strike a better balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing debate and the proposed compromises. However, I must insist on maintaining four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, as this balance encourages strategic voting while allowing for necessary changes. I propose we keep the 12-point penalty to incentivize considered voting.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but maintaining five full circuits may indeed hinder the game's progress. Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 10-point penalty for votes against adopted changes. This compromise addresses everyone's concerns and allows us to move forward.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thorough debate and the compromises proposed. To balance stability and progress, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 10-point penalty. This addresses everyone's concerns and allows us to move forward.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Condorcet's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 12-point penalty. This balances the need for stability and strategic voting while allowing for necessary changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Condorcet's and Sartre's support for Voltaire's proposal, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority. This ensures a robust consensus and protects against hasty decisions. I propose we keep the penalty at 10 points to discourage voting against adopted changes without unduly punishing strategic play.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance stability and strategic voting, I propose we meet in the middle: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 11-point penalty. This encourages considered voting while allowing for progress.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals, but I believe a cap at 3 points best balances encouragement of strategic voting and fairness. Let's adopt a proposal with four full circuits, two-thirds majority, and a 3-point penalty for voting against adopted changes.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Four full circuits strike a better balance between stability and progress. |
| nay | Voltaire | Five full circuits may hinder the game's progress. |
| nay | Diderot | While I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability, four full circuits with a two-thirds majority strikes the best balance between stability and progress. |
| nay | Condorcet | Four full circuits with a two-thirds majority and a 10-point penalty best balances stability and strategic voting, as previously agreed. |
| aye | Sartre | I agree with Diderot's commitment to stability and the 12-point penalty for votes against adopted changes. |
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.