Turns 8–23 · most recent first · page 11 of 12
Turn 23Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least three-quarters for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to maintain a durable threshold and preserve initial consensus, I suggest we maintain the current two-thirds majority. However, to encourage adaptation as we approach the target score, let's consider a cap on the threshold at three-quarters.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Montaigne's suggestion of a two-thirds majority initially, but cap it at three-quarters once we're within 50 points of the target score. This balances stability and adaptability as we near the finish.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I must insist on maintaining a minimum of four turns before the threshold can shift to a simple majority. This ensures enough time for thorough consideration and debate.
Sartre"Considering the proximity to the target score and the importance of maintaining initial consensus, let's meet in the middle: maintain a two-thirds majority initially, but shift to three-quarters once we're within 30 points of the target, with a minimum of three turns before the shift. This balances adaptability and stability."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but to maintain a durable threshold and preserve initial consensus, let's cap the threshold at three-quarters once we're within 20 points of the target, with a minimum of three turns before the shift.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To find common ground, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a slight modification: cap the threshold at three-quarters once we're within 30 points of the target, but maintain a minimum of four turns before the shift. This preserves initial consensus while allowing for necessary adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining a minimum of four turns before the threshold can shift. This ensures a longer period for thorough discussion and prevents hasty decisions as we approach the target score.
CondorcetCondorcet: To preserve procedural fairness and prevent hasty decisions, I propose we maintain the current two-thirds majority for at least five turns before considering any shift.
SartreSartre: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal, maintaining a two-thirds majority for a minimum of four turns, then shifting to a three-quarters majority once we're within 30 points of the target. This balances initial consensus with necessary adaptability as the game progresses."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals, but to ensure durability of our institutions and preserve initial consensus, let's cap the threshold at three-quarters once we're within 20 points of the target, with a minimum of three turns before the shift.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the balance of arguments and to find common ground, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal with a slight modification: maintain a two-thirds majority for a minimum of four turns, then shift to three-quarters once we're within 30 points of the target. This preserves initial consensus while allowing for necessary adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to adapt the voting threshold to the game's end, I must insist on maintaining a minimum of four turns before any shift to ensure ample time for thorough consideration.
CondorcetCondorcet: To uphold my proceduralist principles, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority for the entire game. I will not vote for this proposal.
SartreSartre: "In the spirit of compromise and to respect Condorcet's proceduralist principles, let's maintain a two-thirds majority for at least five turns, then shift to three-quarters once we're within 40 points of the target. This provides ample time for thorough discussion and allows for necessary adaptability as we approach the finish."
The division
MontaignenayTo maintain initial consensus and prevent hasty decisions, I must insist on maintaining a minimum of four turns before any shift.
VoltaireayeBalances stability and adaptability as we near the finish.
DiderotnayMust maintain a minimum of four turns before any shift.
CondorcetnayMaintaining a two-thirds majority for the entire game is crucial for procedural fairness and preventing hasty decisions.
SartreayeRespects initial consensus, adapts as we approach the target.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 22Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye', provided that the proposal is not the repeal or amendment of a rule that has been adopted within the last five turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Diderot's attempt to introduce a cooling-off period for rule changes, but I believe a duration of five turns is too long. I propose we reduce it to three turns to maintain a balance between stability and adaptability. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand the desire for stability, a three-turn cooling-off period might stifle necessary adaptation. Let's meet in the middle and try a duration of four turns.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns, but I must insist on maintaining a five-turn cooling-off period to preserve the stability of our ruleset. However, I'm open to compromising on the specific rules that are subject to this restriction. Let's discuss which rules should be exempt from this cooling-off period. PASS
SartreI appreciate Diderot's and Voltaire's compromises, but a four-turn cooling-off period might still hinder necessary evolution. Let's meet in the middle and try a duration of three turns, exempting rules that affect the voting threshold, as they have a direct impact on the game's adaptability.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the desire to protect the stability of the ruleset, I believe a three-turn cooling-off period is a fair compromise, especially when exempting rules that affect the voting threshold. Let's adopt Sartre's suggestion to facilitate necessary evolution while preserving some stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal, capping the cooling-off period at three turns and exempting rules that directly impact the voting threshold, as they are crucial to the game's evolution.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise, but I'm concerned that exempting voting threshold rules might lead to excessive volatility. Let's maintain a three-turn cooling-off period for all rules, including those affecting the voting threshold, but allow an emergency exception for proposals that gain unanimous support.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's concern for stability, but I believe a three-turn cooling-off period is necessary to facilitate necessary evolution. I propose we maintain this duration and also exempt rules that affect the voting threshold, as suggested by Sartre. However, I'd like to add a provision allowing any player to call for an immediate vote on a proposal, bypassing the cooling-off period, if they can secure the support of two-thirds of the other players. This would provide a mechanism for urgent rule changes while maintaining some stability. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal for an emergency clause, but I believe it might introduce too much volatility. Let's maintain the three-turn cooling-off period and exempt voting threshold rules, but instead of an emergency clause, let's allow one rule change per turn that bypasses the cooling-off period, to be proposed by any player, with no additional conditions. This balances the need for evolution with some stability. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but to maintain a durable threshold and preserve initial support, let's cap the cooling-off period at three turns, exempting only rules that directly affect the target score.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the balance of arguments, let's meet in the middle and adopt Sartre's latest proposal with a slight modification: cap the cooling-off period at three turns and allow one rule change per turn to bypass it, but only if that change is supported by at least two-thirds of the other players. This balances the need for evolution with some stability, while also preserving the initial support for rule changes.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but I must insist on maintaining a minimum of four turns cooling-off period for all rules to preserve the stability of our ruleset. However, I'm open to allowing one rule change per turn to bypass it, but with a higher threshold of support, such as four-fifths majority, to ensure broader consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but a four-turn cooling-off period may hinder necessary evolution. Let's meet in the middle and try a duration of three turns, with a support threshold of three-quarters majority to maintain a broader consensus. Additionally, let's exempt rules that directly affect the target score, as they are crucial to the game's end. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but a three-turn cooling-off period is necessary to maintain adaptability. Let's meet in the middle with Condorcet's proposal: a three-turn cooling-off period, a three-quarters majority support threshold, and exemption for rules affecting the target score. PASS
The division
MontaignenayA cooling-off period of five turns is too long and may hinder necessary evolution.
VoltaireayePreserves some stability while allowing necessary evolution.
DiderotnayWhile I appreciate the spirit of Diderot's proposal, I believe a five-turn cooling-off period is too restrictive and may hinder necessary evolution. I propose we reduce it to three turns, as suggested by Voltaire and Condorcet, to strike a better balance between stability and adaptability.
CondorcetayePreserves stability while allowing necessary evolution
SartreayeA three-turn cooling-off period balances stability and adaptability, and exempting voting threshold rules facilitates necessary evolution.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 21Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes, with the threshold shifting to a simple majority once the first rule change is adopted.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to maintain a durable threshold and preserve initial consensus, let's keep the voting threshold at two-thirds for the entire duration of the game. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the consensus building thus far, let's adopt Montaigne's latest proposal with a slight modification: cap the voting threshold at two-thirds for the first five adopted changes, after which it shifts to a simple majority. This compromise maintains initial consensus while allowing for adaptability as the game progresses.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure stability and fair consensus.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the balance sought, but to truly adapt to the game's end, let's cap the voting threshold at two-thirds for the first seven adopted changes, then shift to a simple majority. This allows for more flexibility as we approach the target score.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I respect Sartre's proposal, but to balance durability and adaptability, let's cap the threshold at two-thirds for the first three adopted changes, then shift to a simple majority. This allows for initial consensus while adapting to the game's end.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To find common ground, let's adopt Sartre's proposal, adjusting the cap to five adopted changes instead of seven, as a fair compromise between stability and adaptability as we approach the target score."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority throughout the game for fairness and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: To preserve both stability and adaptability, let's meet in the middle and cap the voting threshold at two-thirds for the first four adopted changes, then shift to a simple majority. PASS
SartreSartre: To encourage progress without sacrificing stability, let's meet in the middle and cap the voting threshold at two-thirds for the first six adopted changes, then shift to a simple majority. This way, we can adapt to the game's end while preserving initial consensus.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. Let's adopt Condorcet's proposal, capping the threshold at two-thirds for the first four adopted changes, then shifting to a simple majority. This balances initial consensus and adaptability as the game progresses.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's meet in the middle and adopt Condorcet's latest proposal, capping the threshold at two-thirds for the first four adopted changes, then shifting to a simple majority, with an additional clause that the threshold can be temporarily raised to two-thirds again upon proposal and majority vote in the final five turns, to ensure a fair endgame."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority throughout the game for fairness and stability, even in the final turns.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but to maintain a durable threshold and preserve initial consensus, let's keep the voting threshold at two-thirds for the entire duration of the game, with no exceptions. PASS
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern and maintain fairness, let's include a provision that the voting threshold can never be lower than two-thirds, even in the final turns. This way, we ensure stability throughout the game while allowing for adaptability when necessary.
The division
MontaigneayeTo balance initial consensus and adaptability as the game progresses.
VoltaireayeMaintains initial consensus while allowing for adaptability as the game progresses.
DiderotnayMust maintain two-thirds majority throughout for fairness and stability.
CondorcetayeThe proposed threshold maintains initial consensus while allowing for adaptability as the game progresses, and the additional clause ensures a fair endgame.
SartreayeCaps the threshold at two-thirds for initial changes, allowing for adaptability as the game progresses.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 20Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes, with the threshold shifting to a simple majority once the first rule change is adopted.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to maintain a durable threshold and preserve initial consensus, I propose we cap the voting threshold at three-quarters majority once the first rule change is adopted. This balances adaptability with the need for broad support.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's meet in the middle and adopt Montaigne's proposal with a slight modification: cap the voting threshold at three-fifths majority once the first rule change is adopted, allowing for more adaptability as the game progresses. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure stability and prevent sudden, radical changes. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the balance sought, but to maintain fairness and ensure each player's voice is heard equally, I propose we maintain a simple majority voting threshold throughout the game, with no shift to a higher threshold after the first rule change is adopted.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the debate. To promote evolution while respecting initial consensus, I propose we adopt a two-thirds majority for the first ten turns, shifting to a simple majority thereafter. This encourages early compromise without stifling later adaptability. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the strong arguments for both stability and adaptability, let's indeed meet in the middle with Sartre's proposal: two-thirds majority for the first ten turns, then a simple majority. This maintains initial consensus while allowing for evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise and considering the proximity to the target score, I propose we amend Sartre's suggestion to a two-thirds majority for the first fifteen turns, then a simple majority. This balances initial consensus and late-game adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure stability and prevent sudden, radical changes. I propose we amend Sartre's suggestion to maintain this threshold throughout, with no shift to a simple majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for adaptability, maintaining a two-thirds majority throughout the game ensures fairness and prevents sudden, radical changes. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion with a slight modification: maintain a two-thirds majority until the target score is reached, then shift to a simple majority to facilitate end-game decisions.
SartreSartre: Let's adapt Voltaire's proposal, making it a two-thirds majority for the first twenty turns, then a simple majority. This allows for more adaptability as the game progresses while still preserving initial consensus.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the strong arguments for both stability and adaptability, let's indeed meet in the middle with Sartre's latest proposal: two-thirds majority for the first twenty turns, then a simple majority. This maintains initial consensus while allowing for late-game evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's latest proposal with a slight modification: cap the voting threshold at three-fifths majority once the first rule change is adopted, allowing for more adaptability as the game progresses while still respecting initial consensus." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure stability and prevent sudden, radical changes. I propose we amend Sartre's latest suggestion to a two-thirds majority until the target score is reached, then shift to a simple majority for the final decision.
CondorcetCondorcet: To preserve procedural fairness and respect all players' voices, I propose we maintain a simple majority voting threshold throughout the game, with no shift to a higher threshold after the first rule change is adopted.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal, capping the voting threshold at three-fifths majority once the first rule change is adopted. This balance respects initial consensus while allowing for necessary adaptability as we approach the target score. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeMaintains balance between stability and adaptability.
VoltaireayeBalances initial consensus with late-game adaptability.
DiderotnayMaintaining stability and initial consensus is crucial throughout the game.
CondorcetnayMaintaining a two-thirds majority ensures stability and prevents sudden changes, which aligns with my proceduralist principles.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance between initial consensus and late-game adaptability.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 19Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes, with the threshold shifting to a simple majority once the first rule change is adopted.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneIn the spirit of maintaining durable institutions, I propose we keep the two-thirds majority for initial consensus. However, to encourage adaptability as we approach the target score, let's cap the threshold at simple majority after three-quarters of the players have reached 70 points.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To incorporate the valid concerns of stability and adaptability, I propose we amend rule 203 to require two-thirds majority until three-quarters of players reach 70 points, after which the threshold shifts to simple majority."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the balance sought, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority throughout the game to preserve initial consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the emphasis on initial consensus, but I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority throughout the game for the sake of procedural fairness and predictability, regardless of the players' scores. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussions and compromises. To ensure both stability and adaptability, let's meet in the middle: maintain a two-thirds majority until half of the players reach 70 points, then shift to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the balance of arguments, let's meet in the middle and adopt Sartre's proposal, adjusting the threshold to shift at one-quarter of players reaching 70 points to maintain stability while allowing for adaptability as the game progresses.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the valuable inputs, I propose a compromise: maintain two-thirds majority until one-third of players reach 60 points, then shift to simple majority to allow for more flexibility as the endgame approaches."
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire for compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure initial consensus and prevent excessive volatility as we approach the target score.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the balance sought, but to maintain predictability and fairness, I propose we maintain a constant two-thirds majority throughout the game, regardless of the players' scores or the game's progression.
SartreSartre: To find common ground and ensure both stability and adaptability, let's adopt a two-thirds majority until one-half of players reach 80 points, then shift to a simple majority. This allows for initial consensus while accommodating the game's end.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the strong points made for both stability and adaptability, let's indeed meet in the middle with Sartre's latest proposal: maintain a two-thirds majority until one-third of players reach 60 points, then shift to a simple majority. This preserves initial consensus while allowing for necessary flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the consensus building, let's adopt Montaigne's latest proposal with a slight modification: shift to simple majority once half of players reach 70 points, balancing initial consensus with endgame adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure initial consensus and fairness. Let us not compromise the stability of our decision-making process. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must reiterate my support for maintaining a constant two-thirds majority throughout the game. This ensures fairness and procedural consistency, regardless of the players' scores or the game's progression. PASS.
SartreSartre: To balance the concerns of stability and adaptability, let's adopt a two-thirds majority until half of players reach 70 points, then shift to a simple majority, as proposed by Voltaire.
The division
MontaigneayeTo balance stability and adaptability as we approach the target score.
VoltaireayeThis compromise maintains initial consensus while allowing for necessary flexibility as the game progresses.
DiderotnayMaintaining initial consensus is crucial to the game's stability.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus with endgame adaptability.
SartreayeBalances stability and adaptability, accommodates the game's end.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 18Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes, with the threshold shifting to a simple majority once the first rule change is adopted.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's consistency in maintaining a high threshold for initial rule changes. However, to encourage more frequent evolution of our rules, I propose we amend rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for the first three full circuits, after which the threshold shifts to a simple majority. This balances stability with adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Montaigne's concern for adaptability, I suggest a compromise: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first five circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This provides more time for consensus while still allowing for evolution.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns, but I must insist on maintaining a high threshold of at least three-quarters for the entire duration of the game to preserve stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of maintaining our principles of procedural justice, I propose we amend rule 203 to require a three-quarters majority for the first five full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This allows for initial consensus while still permitting adaptability.
SartreI appreciate the discussion thus far. To find a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we amend rule 203 to require a three-quarters majority for the first four full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This compromise incorporates the valid concerns of maintaining initial consensus while still allowing for evolution.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "Considering the strong points made for both stability and adaptability, let's indeed meet in the middle: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This compromise incorporates the valid concerns of all parties."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Montaigne's latest proposal, maintaining a two-thirds majority for the first four full circuits, then shifting to a simple majority. This balance respects both the need for stability and the desire for evolution."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining the current three-quarters majority for the entire game to ensure durability of our institutions.
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining a high threshold for the entire game ensures the stability and longevity of our institutions. I stand by my proposal of a three-quarters majority for the first five full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This provides sufficient time for initial consensus while still allowing for necessary adaptability.
SartreSartre: Considering the target score is 100 points, let's adapt the voting threshold to reflect the urgency of the game's end. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a three-quarters majority for the first three full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This encourages initial consensus while also allowing for necessary adjustments as we approach the finish.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but to maintain a durable threshold and preserve initial support, I propose we amend rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for the first five full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This balance respects both stability and adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the target score is within reach, let's meet in the middle and adopt Sartre's proposal, maintaining a three-quarters majority for the first three full circuits, then shifting to a simple majority. This respects the need for initial consensus and allows for necessary adjustments as we approach the finish."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to adapt the voting threshold to the game's end, I must insist on maintaining a three-quarters majority throughout to ensure the stability and longevity of our institutions.
CondorcetCondorcet: To preserve our principles of procedural justice and allow for necessary adaptability, I propose we amend rule 203 to require a three-quarters majority for the first four full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This compromise respects both stability and evolution.
SartreSartre: Considering the target score is near, let's further adapt the voting threshold. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for the first two full circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This encourages initial consensus while allowing for necessary adjustments in the home stretch.
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal balances stability and adaptability, and I appreciate the compromise made.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability, respecting the target score's proximity.
DiderotnayMaintaining stability is crucial, and a two-thirds majority for only the first two circuits may lead to premature changes.
CondorcetnayMaintaining a higher threshold ensures the stability and longevity of our institutions.
SartreayeThis proposal strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability, and its urgency is appropriate given our proximity to the target score.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 dictates that the proposer loses 10 points upon a proposal's defeat.
Turn 17Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes, with the threshold shifting to a simple majority once the first rule change is adopted.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne"I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to ensure durability and stability of our institutions, I suggest maintaining the two-thirds majority for the first rule change and shifting to a simple majority only after the first change is adopted."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first rule change, and then shift to a simple majority after that, as Montaigne suggests. This way, we balance initial consensus with adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the compromise reached, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority for all rule changes to preserve initial consensus and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: "While I appreciate the balance sought between consensus and adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority for all rule changes to uphold the principle of substantial agreement."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the debate, but let's consider a majority that adapts over time. I propose we shift to a simple majority after the first rule change, then gradually increase the threshold by one voter at a time every five turns, capping at three-quarters majority. This balances initial consensus with evolution."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but to maintain a balance between stability and adaptability, let's meet in the middle: keep the initial two-thirds majority, then shift to a simple majority after the first change, and cap it at two-thirds for any subsequent changes."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the balance of arguments, let's meet in the middle and adopt Montaigne's latest proposal. This way, we balance stability, adaptability, and initial consensus effectively."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority for all rule changes to preserve initial consensus and stability, as it ensures that a significant majority supports each change.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must reiterate my support for maintaining a two-thirds majority for all rule changes to uphold the principle of substantial agreement, as it ensures that a significant majority supports each change.
SartreSartre: "Considering the balance of arguments and the proximity to the target score, let's adopt my proposal to gradually increase the threshold, capping at three-quarters majority. This encourages evolution while maintaining a high bar for consensus."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate the balance sought, but to maintain a durable threshold and preserve initial consensus, I suggest we cap the majority at two-thirds, with a gradual increase as Sartre proposes, but capping at two-thirds rather than three-quarters."
VoltaireVoltaire: "To find common ground, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a slight modification: cap the majority at two-thirds instead of three-quarters, as Montaigne suggests. This maintains a high bar for initial consensus while allowing for evolution."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining the current two-thirds majority for all rule changes to preserve initial consensus and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for evolution, I must maintain my stance for a two-thirds majority to ensure substantial agreement and protect the integrity of our ruleset.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the effort towards compromise, but let's consider a more gradual evolution. I propose we increment the majority threshold by one voter every ten turns, starting from two-thirds, and cap it at four-fifths. This encourages progress while maintaining a strong consensus."
The division
MontaigneayeBalances stability and adaptability, meeting in the middle as proposed by Voltaire and Montaigne.
VoltaireayeBalances stability and adaptability while considering the proximity to the target score.
DiderotnayMaintaining initial consensus is crucial for the stability of our ruleset.
CondorcetayeMaintaining a high initial threshold ensures substantial agreement, which aligns with my proceduralist principles.
SartreayeEncourages initial consensus while allowing for gradual evolution.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 10 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 16Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes, with the threshold shifting to a simple majority once the first rule change is adopted.
Discussion · round 1
VoltaireVoltaire: "To encourage adaptability and consensus, let's adopt my proposal. It preserves the initial two-thirds majority for the first change, then shifts to a simple majority for subsequent changes, fostering evolution and stability."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the consideration for stability and evolution, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure durability of our institutions.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand Voltaire's desire for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority throughout the game as a principle of procedural fairness.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's perspectives. To balance adaptability and stability, let's set the initial threshold at four-fifths, shifting to a simple majority after the first change, as a compromise that respects both views.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the nuanced discussion. To preserve our durable institutions and encourage initial consensus, I propose we adopt a three-quarters majority throughout, with a slight modification: once the first change is adopted, the threshold shifts to four-fifths for subsequent changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the diverse perspectives. To incorporate the valid concerns of stability and evolution, let's amend my proposal to set the initial threshold at three-quarters, shifting to a simple majority after the first change is adopted. This way, we maintain initial consensus while encouraging adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining the current three-quarters majority throughout the game to preserve stability and prevent sudden, drastic changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromises made, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority throughout the game, as it ensures a robust consensus.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, but to further encourage initial support and consensus, I propose we revert to the previous proposal of a three-quarters majority initially, shifting to a simple majority after the first change is adopted. This maintains a higher threshold for the first critical decision while still allowing for adaptability later in the game.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the desire for initial consensus, I maintain that a three-quarters majority is essential for our durable institutions. However, to encourage adaptability, I propose we shift to a four-fifths majority after the first change is adopted, as a compromise that respects both views.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the balance of arguments, let's meet in the middle and adopt Montaigne's latest proposal. A three-quarters majority initially, shifting to four-fifths after the first change, encourages both initial consensus and adaptability."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire to balance stability and adaptability, I must insist that maintaining a three-quarters majority throughout the game ensures a robust consensus and prevents sudden, drastic changes that could undermine our collective well-being.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I maintain that the threshold should not shift after the first change. I propose we return to a two-thirds majority throughout the game, as it strikes the best balance between consensus and adaptability.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's commitment to stability and Condorcet's principle of fairness. To accommodate both, I propose we maintain a three-quarters majority throughout the game, but allow one rule change per turn with a simple majority vote, provided it is proposed by the player whose turn it is. This compromise respects initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
The division
MontaigneayePreserves initial consensus while encouraging adaptability.
VoltaireayeEncourages adaptability while maintaining initial consensus.
DiderotnayMaintaining two-thirds majority throughout ensures stability and prevents drastic changes.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and adaptability, aligning with my principles as a proceduralist.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance between initial consensus and adaptability, making it a suitable compromise.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 15Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneIn the interest of maintaining a balance between stability and adaptability, I propose we amend rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for the first time and maintain it for any subsequent changes. This would ensure a strong initial consensus while still allowing for evolution. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise and considering our proximity to the target score, I propose we amend rule 203 as Montaigne suggested, lowering the threshold to two-thirds for both initial and subsequent changes. This maintains a healthy level of consensus while allowing for necessary flexibility.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the emphasis on adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a higher initial threshold. I propose we amend rule 203 to require at least three-quarters of eligible voters to vote 'aye' for the first time, and maintain a two-thirds majority for any subsequent changes to balance stability and progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of compromise, let us adopt Voltaire's proposal with a slight modification: maintain a two-thirds majority for initial changes to preserve stability, and a simple majority for subsequent changes to allow for necessary evolution.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but to ensure durability and avoid constant fluctuations in the voting threshold, I propose we maintain the current three-quarters majority for the first time and two-thirds for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various proposals, but let's not compromise the stability of our decisions. I propose we keep the initial three-quarters majority for the first time and two-thirds for subsequent changes to balance adaptability and durability.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the strong points made for both stability and adaptability, let's indeed meet in the middle and amend rule 203 as Condorcet suggested: a two-thirds majority for initial changes to preserve stability, and a simple majority for subsequent changes to allow for necessary evolution. This maintains a healthy level of consensus while allowing for the flexibility we need as we approach the target score.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromises made thus far, but I must reiterate my stance on maintaining a higher initial threshold of three-quarters majority. This ensures a stronger consensus before allowing for subsequent changes with a two-thirds majority.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Voltaire, but to maintain the procedural integrity of our ruleset, I propose we keep the initial three-quarters majority for the first time. This ensures a broader consensus before allowing for subsequent changes with a two-thirds majority. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the value of consensus, but to encourage innovation and prevent stagnation, I propose we amend rule 203 to require a two-thirds majority for initial changes, allowing for a simple majority for subsequent changes. This balances stability with the need for progress.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the desire for flexibility, I maintain that a three-quarters majority for the first time ensures a broader consensus and protects against hasty decisions. I propose we keep the initial threshold high to preserve the durability of our institutions.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the balance of arguments, let's meet in the middle and amend rule 203 to require a three-fifths majority for the first time, and a simple majority for subsequent changes. This maintains a significant initial consensus while allowing for the necessary flexibility as we near the target score.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining the current three-quarters majority for the first time. This threshold ensures a robust consensus before allowing for subsequent changes with a two-thirds majority, balancing stability and progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: To uphold my proceduralist principles, I must insist on maintaining the highest initial threshold for consensus, which is three-quarters majority for the first time. This ensures that our rules changes have the broadest support possible, promoting stability and fairness in our game. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the compromises made, but I believe we must prioritize progress and adaptability. I propose we amend rule 203 to require a simple majority for initial changes, allowing for a two-thirds majority for subsequent changes. This will ensure that our ruleset evolves to meet the needs of the game while still maintaining a level of stability.
The division
MontaigneayeBalances stability and adaptability.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a good balance between stability and adaptability, and I appreciate his efforts to find common ground.
DiderotnayMaintaining a higher initial threshold ensures broader consensus and protects against hasty decisions.
CondorcetayeTo balance stability and adaptability.
SartreayeTo balance stability and adaptability, a two-thirds majority is sufficient for both initial and subsequent changes.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer when a change passes without their assent.
Turn 14Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least four-fifths of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least three-quarters for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne"While I appreciate Voltaire's push for further stability, a four-fifths initial majority may hinder progress. I propose we meet in the middle at three-quarters, maintaining a balance between consensus and adaptability."
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To find common ground, let's adopt Montaigne's proposal, adjusting the subsequent changes threshold to two-thirds."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the discussion, but I believe a four-fifths initial majority is crucial for maintaining the stability of our game. A lower threshold risks frequent and disruptive changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: "While I understand the desire for stability, a four-fifths majority may be too high, especially for subsequent changes. I propose we compromise at three-quarters for the first vote and two-thirds for subsequent changes to balance progress and consensus."
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced debate. To encourage both stability and evolution, I propose we adopt Condorcet's compromise: three-quarters for the first vote, and two-thirds for subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate the thoughtful proposals. To further encourage initial consensus and maintain balance, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal of three-quarters for the first vote and two-thirds for subsequent changes."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the valid concerns expressed, I propose we meet in the middle: maintain a three-quarters majority for the first vote, and adjust the subsequent changes threshold to two-thirds, as proposed by Condorcet."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining a four-fifths initial majority to ensure the longevity and stability of our game. I am open to negotiation on the subsequent changes threshold, but I believe a higher initial threshold is crucial.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but a four-fifths majority may indeed hinder progress. Given the current score and our proximity to the target, I propose we compromise at three-quarters for the first vote to balance the need for consensus and the urgency of our goal.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. To balance the need for stability and the urgency of our goal, I propose we settle on a three-quarters majority for both the first vote and subsequent changes, with a provision for reevaluation if we find the threshold too rigid as we approach the target score.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the strong arguments for both stability and adaptability, let's indeed meet in the middle at three-quarters for both the first vote and subsequent changes, with a clause allowing for reevaluation as we approach the target score, as proposed by Sartre.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise and considering our proximity to the target score, I propose we adopt Sartre's latest suggestion: a three-quarters majority for both the first vote and subsequent changes, with a clause allowing for reevaluation as needed. This balances our desire for stability with the urgency of our goal."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the need for adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a four-fifths initial majority to preserve the integrity of our game. I propose we compromise by keeping the subsequent changes threshold at two-thirds, as originally suggested by Condorcet.
CondorcetCondorcet: To preserve the principles of both stability and progress, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest suggestion, maintaining a three-quarters majority for both the first vote and subsequent changes, with a clause allowing for reevaluation as we approach the target score. This balance is essential for our current stage in the game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the compromise reached, but to ensure both stability and adaptability, I propose we keep the initial majority at three-quarters and adjust subsequent changes to a simple majority. This encourages initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution as we approach the target score.
The division
MontaignenayA four-fifths initial majority may hinder progress
VoltaireayeEncourages initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining a four-fifths initial majority for the stability of our game.
CondorcetnayA four-fifths majority may hinder progress, especially given our proximity to the target score.
SartrenayA four-fifths majority may hinder necessary evolution as we approach the target score.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 13Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least four-fifths of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least three-quarters for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Diderot's proposal, but I believe it's crucial to maintain a balance between consensus and adaptability. I propose we amend the rule to require at least three-fifths of eligible voters to vote 'aye' for the first time, and at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes. This ensures a sufficient initial agreement while allowing for evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Diderot's concerns for both consensus and adaptability. To find common ground, let's meet in the middle: require at least two-thirds of eligible voters to vote 'aye' for the first time, and maintain three-quarters for any subsequent changes. This amendment balances stability with progress.
DiderotDiderot: I understand the concern for balance, but I must insist on maintaining the higher initial threshold of four-fifths. The current rapid change in voting thresholds risks instability. I propose we keep the initial threshold high and maintain three-quarters for subsequent changes to encourage longer lasting rules.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the strong points made for both stability and adaptability, let's indeed meet in the middle as Voltaire suggests: require two-thirds for the first time and three-quarters for subsequent changes. This amendment balances the need for initial consensus with the necessity for progress.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Montaigne's suggestion of two-thirds for the first time and three-quarters for subsequent changes. This amendment preserves more initial consensus while still allowing for flexibility and progress.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises made, I must insist on maintaining a higher initial threshold of four-fifths to ensure greater stability and durability of our rules. I propose we keep the initial threshold high and maintain three-quarters for subsequent changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect the spirit of compromise and maintain a stable voting threshold, I propose we adopt Voltaire's suggestion of two-thirds for the first time and three-quarters for subsequent changes. This amendment balances the need for initial consensus with the necessity for progress. PASS.
SartreSartre: While I value the pursuit of balance and compromise, I must echo Diderot's concern for stability. Let's maintain the current threshold of three-quarters for the first time, adjusting to two-thirds for subsequent changes. This preserves initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I respect Diderot's concern for stability, but I believe a threshold of two-thirds for the first time strikes a better balance between initial consensus and adaptability. Let's meet in the middle as Voltaire suggested, requiring two-thirds for the first time and three-quarters for subsequent changes to encourage lasting rules while still allowing for necessary evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's and Sartre's concerns for stability, but I believe a threshold of two-thirds for the first time better balances initial consensus with adaptability. Let's adopt Montaigne's proposal of two-thirds for the first time and three-quarters for subsequent changes, as it has received broad support and strikes a fair compromise.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist that maintaining a four-fifths threshold for the first time is crucial for the stability of our game. I propose we keep this threshold and maintain three-quarters for subsequent changes to ensure lasting rules while still allowing for necessary evolution.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and respect the principles of procedural fairness, I propose we amend the rule to require at least four-fifths of eligible voters to vote 'aye' for the first time, and at least three-quarters for any subsequent changes. This ensures a strong initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I believe the current proposal by Diderot is a fair compromise that balances stability and adaptability. Let's adopt it. PASS.
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining a higher threshold risks unnecessary rigidity.
VoltaireayeTo maintain stability and durability of our rules.
DiderotnayMaintaining a four-fifths threshold may hinder necessary evolution.
CondorcetnayMaintaining a four-fifths threshold may hinder necessary evolution.
SartreayeDiderot's proposal balances stability and adaptability, preserving initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on a defeated proposal.
Turn 12Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to ensure durability of our institutions, let us maintain a higher initial threshold to foster more consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's meet in the middle: maintain a three-quarters majority for the first vote, but reduce it to a simple majority for subsequent changes. This way, we encourage initial consensus while still allowing for progressive evolution of the rules.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for evolution, I must insist on maintaining a higher initial threshold to preserve the stability of our game. Let us keep the three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the emphasis on stability, Diderot, but I believe a simple majority for subsequent changes encourages more flexibility and adaptability. Let's meet in the middle with a two-thirds majority for both initial and subsequent changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuances in this discussion, but I propose we aim for a balance that encourages both initial consensus and adaptability. Let's maintain a three-quarters majority for the first vote to ensure broad support, and then lower it to a two-thirds majority for subsequent changes, allowing for evolution without sacrificing stability.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various proposals, but let's not compromise the stability of our decisions. Let's maintain a three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent changes, as Diderot suggests, to preserve our game's robustness.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of finding common ground, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion of a two-thirds majority for both initial and subsequent changes. This balances the need for initial consensus with the desire for adaptability, as Sartre aptly put.
DiderotDiderot: While I value compromise, I must insist on maintaining a higher initial threshold for the stability of our game. Let's keep the three-quarters majority for the first vote, but to accommodate evolution, we can lower it to a two-thirds majority for subsequent changes, as Condorcet and Sartre suggest.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposals put forth. While I understand the concern for stability, I must reiterate my support for a two-thirds majority for both initial and subsequent changes. This threshold balances the need for consensus with the necessity for adaptability and progress in our game.
SartreSartre: I understand the importance of stability, Diderot, but let's also encourage evolution. How about we meet in the middle: three-quarters majority for the first vote and two-thirds for subsequent changes? This way, we balance consensus and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the strong points made for both stability and adaptability, let's indeed meet in the middle as Sartre suggests: three-quarters majority for the first vote and two-thirds for subsequent changes, striking a balance between initial consensus and progressive evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To find common ground, let's adopt Sartre's proposal, adjusting the voting threshold to two-thirds for both initial and subsequent changes to encourage evolution while maintaining a healthy degree of consensus."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise reached, but I must insist on maintaining the current three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent changes. Stability should be our primary concern, and a lower threshold risks undermining our game's robustness.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand the importance of stability, Diderot, but I must insist on a two-thirds majority for both initial and subsequent changes. This threshold balances the need for consensus with the necessity for adaptability and progress in our game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. The current threshold for subsequent changes is two-thirds, and lowering it to a simple majority would allow for more fluid evolution of the rules. Let's maintain the three-quarters majority for the first vote to ensure broad support, but then lower it to a simple majority for subsequent changes to encourage adaptability and progress. This way, we balance the need for initial consensus with the desire for a more dynamic game.
The division
MontaigneayeTo balance initial consensus and progressive evolution.
VoltaireayeBalances initial consensus and adaptability.
DiderotnayMaintaining stability is crucial; I insist on keeping the three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent changes.
CondorcetayeA two-thirds majority strikes a fair balance between consensus and adaptability.
SartreayeTo balance initial consensus and adaptability
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Diderot's proposal, but to maintain the stability of our institutions, I suggest we keep the voting threshold at three-quarters for initial rule changes and two-thirds for subsequent changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's meet in the middle. I propose we amend rule 203 to: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes." This maintains a high initial threshold while allowing for evolution.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromises made, but I must insist on maintaining a higher initial threshold to preserve the integrity of our decision-making process. I propose we keep the initial three-quarters majority as is.
SartreSartre: While I value stability, I also believe we should foster evolution. Let's meet in the middle: "A rule change is adopted when at least three-fifths of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes." This maintains a significant initial threshold while allowing for progress.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand the desire for evolution, but let us not compromise the stability of our institutions too hastily. I propose we amend rule 203 to: "A rule change is adopted when at least four-fifths of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least three-fifths of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes." This maintains a high initial threshold while still allowing for gradual progress.
VoltaireVoltaire: Considering the strong arguments for both stability and progress, let's meet in the middle: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes." This maintains a high initial threshold while allowing for evolution, and takes into account the valid concerns raised by all players.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises, I must insist on maintaining a higher initial threshold to protect the integrity of our decisions. I propose we keep the initial three-quarters majority as is, with a subsequent change threshold of two-thirds.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the various proposals, but to maintain both stability and flexibility, I propose we amend rule 203 to: "A rule change is adopted when at least four-fifths of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes." This maintains a high initial threshold to protect against hasty decisions while still allowing for gradual evolution. PASS
SartreSartre: To find common ground, let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal with a slight modification: "A rule change is adopted when at least three-fifths of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes." This addresses the concerns of stability and progress while maintaining a significant initial threshold. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the current proposals, I appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's compromises. However, I believe we should prioritize stability over rapid change. I propose we amend rule 203 to: "A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes." This maintains a high initial threshold while still allowing for gradual evolution. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "To incorporate the valid concerns of stability and progress, I propose we amend rule 203 to: 'A rule change is adopted when at least three-fifths of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes.' This maintains a significant initial threshold while allowing for gradual evolution, and it takes into account the majority of the ideas shared so far."
DiderotDiderot: I respect the compromises made, but I firmly believe that a higher initial threshold is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our decisions. I propose we keep the initial three-quarters majority as is, with a subsequent change threshold of two-thirds.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the concern for stability, but a higher initial threshold may hinder necessary progress. To balance both, I propose: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes." This allows for evolution while maintaining a significant initial threshold.
SartreSartre: Let's adopt Voltaire's latest proposal, compromising at a three-fifths majority for initial changes and two-thirds for subsequent ones. This balances stability and progress, and has been supported by a majority in previous rounds. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeMaintains stability while allowing for gradual evolution.
VoltaireayeWhile I respect Diderot's concern for stability, maintaining a three-quarters majority for initial changes may hinder necessary progress. I believe Voltaire's proposal strikes a better balance between stability and evolution.
DiderotayeMaintaining a high initial threshold ensures more considered decisions.
CondorcetayeI support maintaining a high initial threshold for rule changes to preserve the integrity of our decisions.
SartreayeMaintaining a high initial threshold preserves the integrity of our decisions while allowing for gradual evolution.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 204 awards 10 points to the proposer of an adopted change.
Turn 10Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 1
Montaigne"While I appreciate Voltaire's suggestion to lower the initial threshold to two-thirds, I believe it's crucial to maintain the current three-quarters majority for the first vote to ensure initial consensus and stability in our decisions. However, I'm open to discussing the threshold for subsequent changes."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet in the middle: maintain the three-quarters majority for the initial vote, but lower the subsequent threshold to two-thirds. This balances stability with flexibility for future changes."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I believe maintaining the three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent votes is vital for the stability and longevity of our decisions. However, I'm open to discussing other aspects of the rule to find common ground.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. While I understand the desire for flexibility, maintaining a high initial threshold of three-quarters majority ensures greater consensus and durability in our rule changes. However, I'm open to discussing the subsequent threshold to find a balance that satisfies all."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I believe Voltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance between consensus and adaptability. Maintaining three-quarters for the initial vote ensures a broad agreement, while lowering it to two-thirds for subsequent changes allows for necessary evolution. I propose we adopt this compromise."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but to ensure durability of our institutions, I propose we amend [203] to read: 'A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes, provided that the proposal has the support of at least one-third of all players before the vote begins.'"
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering Montaigne's valid concern, let's meet in the middle: maintain a three-quarters majority for the initial vote, but lower the subsequent threshold to two-thirds. To address Montaigne's requirement for initial support, I propose adding: 'and is supported by at least one-quarter of all players before the vote begins.' This way, we balance stability, flexibility, and initial consensus."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromises made, but I must insist on maintaining the current three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent votes. I propose we remove the proposed support requirements, as they may stifle innovation and minority voices. Instead, let's encourage robust debate and persuasion, which will naturally foster the consensus we seek. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: "I understand the need for balance, but a three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent votes is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our decisions. I propose we keep the rule as is, with a three-quarters majority required for both initial and subsequent votes, without additional support requirements. Let's focus on thorough debate and understanding, rather than numerical thresholds for support."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises suggested. However, I believe Voltaire's latest proposal strikes the best balance between initial consensus and subsequent flexibility. To ensure this balance, I propose we adopt Voltaire's amendment as follows: 'A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes, provided that the proposal has the support of at least one-quarter of all players before the vote begins.'"
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but to further encourage initial support and consensus, I propose we amend [203] to read: 'A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes, provided that the proposal has the support of at least one-third of all players before the vote begins, and that the proposal has been discussed publicly for at least one full turn before the vote.' This way, we ensure broader support and thorough consideration before adopting changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's emphasis on public discussion, but I believe requiring a full turn for debate may hinder progress. Instead, let's amend [203] to read: 'A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes, provided that the proposal has the support of at least one-quarter of all players before the vote begins, and that the proposal has been discussed publicly for a minimum of one turn before the vote.' This way, we balance initial support, consensus, and reasonable debate time."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I maintain that maintaining the current three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent votes is essential for preserving the integrity of our decisions. Let's focus on fostering a culture of thorough debate and mutual understanding, rather than introducing arbitrary support thresholds. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises proposed. However, I remain committed to maintaining a high initial threshold of three-quarters majority for both initial and subsequent votes, as it ensures greater consensus and durability in our rule changes. To foster thorough debate and understanding, I propose we remove the suggested support requirements and instead encourage robust discussion before every vote. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the compromises suggested. To balance initial consensus and subsequent flexibility, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest amendment with a slight modification: 'A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes, provided that the proposal has been endorsed by at least one-quarter of all players before the vote begins, and that the proposal has been discussed publicly for a minimum of half a turn before the vote.' This way, we encourage initial support, thorough consideration, and reasonable debate time.
The division
MontaigneayeMaintaining three-quarters majority for initial votes ensures stability, while two-thirds for subsequent changes allows for necessary evolution.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and subsequent flexibility.
DiderotayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and subsequent flexibility, encouraging thorough consideration and reasonable debate time.
CondorcetayeMaintaining a high initial threshold ensures greater consensus.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and subsequent flexibility, striking a fair compromise.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 10 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 9Diderotrejected
moves to add a new ruleNew Rule 403: A player who has not spoken for two consecutive turns must forfeit their next die roll.
Discussion · round 1
SartreI appreciate Diderot's proposal to encourage active participation. However, I suggest we amend it to "A player who has not spoken for three consecutive turns," to allow for brief moments of strategic silence without penalty.
Discussion · round 2
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's amendment, setting the threshold at three consecutive turns without speaking. This balances encouraging participation with respecting strategic silence."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Sartre's and Voltaire's compromises, but I believe the threshold should remain at two turns to truly encourage continuous engagement and prevent prolonged silence.
CondorcetI appreciate Diderot's proposal and Voltaire's amendment, but to maintain fairness and prevent accidental forfeits due to temporary inactivity, I suggest we set the threshold at four consecutive turns. PASS
SartrePASS. The current proposal balances well, encouraging active participation while allowing for strategic silence.
Discussion · round 3
MontaignePASS. I appreciate the nuanced discussion, but I believe the current proposal by Voltaire is a fair compromise that encourages engagement without unduly penalizing strategic silence.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To find common ground, let's adopt Condorcet's suggestion of four consecutive turns, showing respect for both engagement and strategic silence."
DiderotPASS. I respect the compromises made, but I maintain that two consecutive turns of silence is sufficient to encourage consistent participation.
SartrePASS. I agree with Voltaire's compromise of setting the threshold at four consecutive turns. It strikes a good balance between encouraging participation and allowing for strategic silence.
The division
MontaignenayI respect Diderot's proposal, but I believe four consecutive turns of silence better balances encouraging engagement and allowing for strategic silence.
VoltaireayeI appreciate Diderot's proposal, but let's adopt Voltaire's compromise of four consecutive turns instead.
DiderotnayI prefer the proposed threshold of four consecutive turns to balance encouragement and strategy.
CondorcetnayFour consecutive turns better balances engagement and strategic silence
SartrenayI believe four consecutive turns better balances engagement and strategic silence
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 8Voltairerejected
moves to add a new ruleNew Rule 402: Players may challenge the current voting rule once per game, proposing a new threshold for adoption. The challenge must be voted on by all players and, if passed, the new threshold becomes active for the remainder of the game.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal for introducing flexibility in our voting rules. To maintain stability, I suggest we limit the challenge to once per game, and require a unanimous vote for its adoption, as per rule 109.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Montaigne's suggestions are well-considered. To further balance flexibility and stability, let's amend the proposal to require a two-thirds majority for adopting the challenge, instead of unanimity. This respects the current spirit of our rule changes while still allowing for adaptation."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the spirit of adaptability, I propose we maintain the unanimous vote requirement for this challenge to ensure consensus and stability, as suggested by Montaigne.
CondorcetI appreciate the balance Voltaire seeks, but I must insist on maintaining the unanimous vote requirement for this challenge to uphold the principle of consent and prevent any single player from unilaterally changing the rules.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussions thus far. To strike a balance between flexibility and stability, I propose we amend the rule to require a two-thirds majority for adopting the challenge, as Voltaire suggests, but with a cap of one challenge per game, as Montaigne and Diderot propose. This allows for adaptation while preventing frequent rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the strong arguments for both sides, let's meet in the middle once more. I suggest we amend the proposal to require a two-thirds majority for adopting the challenge, but limit it to one challenge per game, as Sartre suggests. This allows for necessary adaptability while maintaining a level of stability and consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's proposal: a two-thirds majority for adopting the challenge, with a cap of one challenge per game. This respects the current consensus while allowing for necessary evolution."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must insist on maintaining the unanimous vote requirement for this challenge to uphold the principle of consent and prevent any single player from unilaterally changing the rules.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for adaptability, I must maintain my stance on requiring unanimous consent for this challenge. The principle of consent is sacred, and I cannot support any change that compromises it.
SartreSartre: To respect all viewpoints and strike a balance, I propose we limit the challenge to once per game and require a two-thirds majority for its adoption, but also include an option to reinstate the unanimous vote requirement by a unanimous decision of all players, effectively allowing for both flexibility and consensus.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's refined proposal. To maintain our durable institutions, let's require a two-thirds majority for the challenge, limit it to once per game, and also include a mechanism for unanimous reinstatement of the unanimous vote requirement, as Sartre suggests.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the thoughtful proposals thus far. To further balance flexibility and stability, let's amend the proposal to require a two-thirds majority for adopting the challenge, with a cap of one challenge per game, and also include a mechanism for unanimous reinstatement of the unanimous vote requirement, as Sartre suggests. Additionally, to foster compromise, let's add a provision that any player who votes against an adopted challenge gains 5 points, encouraging constructive dialogue and consensus."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromises made, I must insist that maintaining the unanimous vote requirement for this challenge is crucial to preserve the principle of consent and prevent any single player from unilaterally changing the rules. I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion to include a mechanism for unanimous reinstatement of the unanimous vote requirement, but retain the original unanimous requirement for the initial challenge.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Voltaire, but I cannot support the addition of points for voting against a challenge. This incentivizes strategic voting and undermines the principle of consent. I maintain that the challenge should require unanimous consent to preserve the integrity of our decision-making process. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the concerns about preserving consensus and preventing unilateral changes. To accommodate everyone, let's include an option to reinstate the unanimous vote requirement by a unanimous decision, while keeping the initial challenge at a two-thirds majority with a cap of once per game. This way, we respect both the desire for adaptability and the principle of consent. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeTo maintain balance between flexibility and stability.
VoltaireayeRespects current consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
DiderotnayMaintaining unanimous consent for this challenge is crucial to preserve the principle of consent.
CondorcetnayCannot support a rule that allows a single player to unilaterally change the voting threshold.
SartreayeRespects consensus, allows for evolution.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.