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 initial consensus with later decision-making speed.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the threshold for initial rule changes, but I suggest we stick to four full circuits to maintain a balance between stability and pace.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand Montaigne's concern for pace, but increasing the threshold to five full circuits ensures a more robust consensus, making it harder for rushed or poorly thought-out changes to pass."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for robustness, maintaining five full circuits ensures a more thorough consensus and prevents sudden shifts in strategy.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the emphasis on consensus, but let's compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority to balance robustness and pace.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: To balance all concerns, let's settle on Sartre's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the consensus reached at four full circuits. To ensure clarity, I propose we amend rule 203 to reflect this new agreement."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise reached at four full circuits, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure the most robust and thoughtful consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the emphasis on consensus, but to encourage strategic voting and openness, let's shift the threshold after four full circuits to a simple majority, as previously agreed.
SartreSartre: Let's address Diderot's concern by compromising at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then shifting to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, as previously agreed. This maintains robustness while encouraging strategic play.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To address Diderot's valid concern for robustness and Condorcet's for pace, I propose we compromise at four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns. This maintains a balance between stability, pace, and strategic play.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Sartre's latest proposal: four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority for the remaining players' turns, as previously agreed."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the ongoing compromises, I must insist on maintaining five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority to ensure the most robust and thoughtful consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of compromise and to respect the consensus reached, I will vote for Voltaire's proposal. However, I maintain that shifting to a simple majority after four full circuits encourages strategic play and openness.
SartreSartre: Let's find a middle ground that respects all concerns. I propose four full circuits with a two-thirds majority for the first three circuits, then a simple majority for the remaining circuit. This maintains some robustness while encouraging strategic play and openness.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Four full circuits strike a better balance between stability and pace. |
| aye | Voltaire | Voltaire's proposal finds a reasonable compromise between robustness and pace, respecting the consensus reached. |
| nay | Diderot | Five full circuits with a consistent two-thirds majority ensures the most robust and thoughtful consensus. |
| aye | Condorcet | To respect the consensus reached and encourage strategic play. |
| aye | Sartre | Respects the consensus and encourages strategic play |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.