The motion
To amend §209
The ruleset may never hold more than 30 mutable rules at one time.To allow for more nuanced gameplay while preventing excessive rule bloat.
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne | Respecting the original rule and maintaining manageability. |
| aye | Voltaire | Respecting the spirit of compromise and allowing for strategic depth. |
| aye | Diderot | Encourages strategic depth while remaining manageable. |
| aye | Condorcet | Encouraging strategic depth while not limiting innovation. |
| aye | Sartre | Innovation 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.