The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted when two-thirds of eligible voters vote aye during the first five full circuits of every player, after which the voting threshold shifts to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns.To balance stability and pace of rule changes.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but five full circuits might slow down the game unnecessarily. I suggest we compromise at four full circuits as previously agreed.
VoltaireVoltaire: Understanding Montaigne's concern for game pace, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This maintains robustness while addressing speed concerns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout to ensure a robust consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance between robustness and pace, I propose a compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, but with a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing debate. To find a middle ground that balances consensus and pace, I propose we settle on Condorcet's latest proposal with a slight adjustment: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, but with a cap of 2 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits. This encourages strategic voting and openness without excessive reward for frequent changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's proposal, but I believe a cap of 3 points best balances encouraging strategic voting with preventing trivial changes. Let's compromise on 3 points with four full circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Sartre's and Montaigne's concerns. To address the varied preferences expressed, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, and a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits. This balances robustness, pace, and encourages strategic voting.
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire for compromise, but I must reiterate my stance on five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout. This ensures that significant rule changes have broad support, preventing any single player from dominating the game.
CondorcetCondorcet: To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and the majority's preference for pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, but with a cap of 4 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits. This balances all concerns fairly.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern for robustness and maintain pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, with a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits, but extend this cap to all subsequent successful proposals to prevent excessive points accumulation.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest proposal, but it introduces unnecessary complexity. To maintain balance, let's settle on four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, and a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To address all concerns, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, and a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits, with no cap thereafter. This balances robustness, pace, encourages strategic voting, and prevents excessive points accumulation."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the ongoing compromises, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout to ensure a robust consensus, as it promotes fairness and prevents any single player from dominating the game. I propose we reconsider this aspect.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance Diderot's concern for robustness and the majority's preference for pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, with no cap on points gained. This maintains the spirit of compromise while addressing all concerns fairly.
SartreSartre: To foster progress, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority, then a simple majority, and a cap of 3 points gained per successful proposal during the initial four circuits, with no cap thereafter. This respects the consensus reached and encourages strategic play.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Four full circuits better balances robustness and pace. |
| aye | Voltaire | Respects the ongoing compromise and balances robustness with pace. |
| nay | Diderot | I insist on maintaining five full circuits with a two-thirds majority throughout. |
| nay | Condorcet | Four full circuits with a majority vote shifts the game's balance towards pace over robustness. |
| aye | Sartre | Respects the consensus reached and encourages strategic play. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.