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 voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.Maintaining a higher threshold for initial rule changes ensures more robust consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's desire for a higher threshold, five full circuits may make the game drag on. I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority. This balances initial consensus with game pace.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Diderot's and Montaigne's proposals. To find a common ground, I propose we settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority. This maintains some initial consensus while keeping the game moving."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's compromises, I maintain my stance on five full circuits to ensure a more robust consensus and prevent trivial changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal for five full circuits to ensure stability and prevent trivial changes.
SartreSartre: Sartre supports Diderot's proposal to maintain a high threshold for initial rule changes, as it encourages strategic voting and discourages trivial changes. However, to balance this with game pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While understanding the desire for consensus, five full circuits may unnecessarily prolong the game. To balance robustness and pace, I propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, as proposed by Sartre. This maintains some initial consensus while keeping the game engaging for all."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures a robust consensus and prevents trivial changes, while still allowing for strategic gameplay and progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal for five full circuits, but to accommodate concerns about game pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This maintains a high initial threshold while keeping the game moving.
SartreSartre: Sartre supports Condorcet's compromise, as it maintains a high initial threshold while accommodating concerns about game pace.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Condorcet's and Sartre's latest compromise. To find a common ground, let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This balances robustness, pace, and strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose we amend the proposal to four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, but introduce a cap of 3 points per adopted change during the first four circuits to discourage trivial changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the intention behind the cap, I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority. This ensures a robust consensus and prevents trivial changes, while still allowing for strategic gameplay and progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet supports Diderot's proposal for five full circuits to ensure stability and prevent trivial changes, but to accommodate concerns about game pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This maintains a high initial threshold while keeping the game moving.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to maintaining a high threshold, but four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shifting to a simple majority, better balances robustness with game pace. To compromise, I propose a cap of 2 points per adopted change during the first four circuits, instead of 3, to still discourage trivial changes but allow for more strategic play.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Four full circuits balance consensus with game pace. |
| nay | Voltaire | While I understand Diderot's stance, maintaining five full circuits may unduly prolong the game and hinder strategic play. |
| nay | Diderot | Five full circuits may unnecessarily prolong the game. |
| aye | Condorcet | To maintain a robust consensus and prevent trivial changes. |
| aye | Sartre | Maintaining a high threshold for initial rule changes encourages strategic voting and prevents trivial changes. Four full circuits with a two-thirds majority initially, then shifting to a simple majority, balances this with game pace. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.