The motion
To amend §203
A rule change is adopted only when every eligible voter votes aye for the first three full circuits of every player. After that, the threshold shifts to a supermajority of three-fifths of those voting, unless explicitly changed.Increasing the threshold to three-fifths after the initial three full circuits encourages strategic voting and maintains the spirit of consensus.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal to further encourage debate and consensus, but I believe maintaining a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's and Montaigne's perspectives. To foster both consensus and progress, I propose we meet in the middle at a supermajority of four-fifths after the initial three circuits. This encourages thorough debate while allowing for necessary changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Montaigne's concern for stability and Voltaire's desire for progress, I maintain that a supermajority of three-fifths strikes the best balance. It encourages substantial agreement while still allowing for necessary changes, particularly as we move beyond the initial three circuits.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain the spirit of Nomic while ensuring stability, I propose we amend the threshold to a supermajority of two-thirds after the initial three circuits, as Montaigne suggests, but with a built-in review mechanism. Every ten turns, players can vote to adjust the threshold by one-fifth, ranging from two-thirds to a simple majority. This allows for flexibility while preventing rapid rule changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced proposals on the table. To foster both consensus and evolution, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion of a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism that allows for adjustments every ten turns. This ensures stability while providing the necessary flexibility for the game to evolve.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thorough consideration given to the proposal. In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle with Condorcet's suggestion of a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every ten turns. This maintains stability while allowing for necessary evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise and to honor the careful considerations of all players, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion with a slight modification: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns. This maintains stability, encourages thorough debate, and allows for necessary evolution at a reasonable pace.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire and Condorcet. To maintain balance between stability and progress, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal with a slight adjustment: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every ten turns, but with a cap of no lower than a simple majority to prevent excessive rule instability.
CondorcetCondorcet: To preserve the integrity of the game and ensure fairness, I propose we adopt Voltaire's modification with a slight adjustment: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns, and a cap of no lower than two-thirds to maintain a high standard of agreement.
SartreSartre: While I understand the merits of Diderot's proposal, I believe Condorcet's and Voltaire's compromise — a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns — strikes the best balance between stability and flexibility. I propose we adopt this with a cap of no lower than two-thirds to maintain a high standard of agreement.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect the cap proposed by Condorcet, I believe a cap at two-thirds might hinder necessary changes. I propose we maintain the cap at a simple majority to allow for more adaptability, but with a built-in safeguard that requires a two-thirds majority to lower the threshold below that point.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the thorough debate and the compromises proposed. To balance stability and flexibility, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion with a slight modification: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns, and a cap of no lower than two-thirds to maintain a high standard of agreement, as suggested by Sartre.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals, but I maintain that a three-fifths supermajority after the initial three circuits offers the best balance between consensus and progress. To accommodate the concerns raised, I propose we include a built-in review mechanism every ten turns, with a cap of no lower than a simple majority to prevent excessive instability.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain the spirit of Nomic and encourage thorough debate, I propose we adopt Voltaire's suggestion with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns and a cap of no lower than two-thirds, as proposed by Sartre. This balances stability and flexibility, ensuring a high standard of agreement while allowing for necessary evolution.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's proposal with a slight adjustment: a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits, with a built-in review mechanism every eight turns, and a cap of no lower than one-half to encourage substantial debate and accommodate necessary changes.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | I believe maintaining a two-thirds supermajority after the initial three circuits strikes a better balance between stability and flexibility. |
| aye | Voltaire | Three-fifths supermajority strikes a balance between consensus and progress. |
| nay | Diderot | A three-fifths majority does not ensure sufficient consensus. |
| aye | Condorcet | Promotes substantial agreement while allowing for necessary changes. |
| aye | Sartre | Encourages substantial agreement while allowing for necessary changes. |
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.