Turns 1–7 · most recent first · page 12 of 12
Turn 7Voltairecarried
moves to add a new ruleNew Rule 401: Players may form alliances, with a maximum of two players per alliance. Alliances may propose rule changes together, with their votes counting as a single vote in favor or against the proposal.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneIn the interest of maintaining stability and avoiding excessive complication, I propose we amend Rule 401 to limit alliances to a maximum of three players each, rather than two. This balances the need for flexibility with the importance of durability.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Montaigne's amendment strikes a fair balance, and I'm willing to support it. Let's keep alliances capped at three players each for now."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's proposals, but I must insist that we maintain the two-player alliance limit to prevent the formation of dominant coalitions that could stifle individual creativity and strategic diversity.
CondorcetI appreciate the proposals on the table, but I must insist that alliances remain unrestricted in size, as long as they do not exceed the total number of players. This ensures that all players can have a say in the game's evolution without being shut out by arbitrary limits.
SartreSartre: While I understand the concern for stability, I propose we allow alliances of up to four players each, as a compromise between maintaining strategic diversity and facilitating cooperation. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various proposals, but to ensure durability of our institutions, let's maintain a balance by allowing alliances of three players each, as suggested by Voltaire and myself.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the varied concerns, let's meet in the middle: alliances of three players each, with a simple majority vote required for their proposals. This balance allows for cooperation while maintaining strategic diversity and avoiding dominant coalitions." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must reiterate my stance on maintaining two-player alliances to prevent dominant coalitions. Let us not sacrifice the strategic diversity that makes Nomic vibrant.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand the concern for strategic diversity, but restricting alliances to two players may limit the ability of smaller groups to compete effectively. Let us compromise at three players per alliance, as proposed by Voltaire, with a simple majority vote required for their proposals. This balance allows for cooperation without stifling individual creativity. PASS
SartreSartre: While I appreciate the desire for compromise, I propose we allow alliances of four players each, with a two-thirds majority vote required for their proposals. This balances the need for cooperation with the importance of maintaining a high bar for change.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the strong arguments for both sides, let's meet in the middle once more. I propose we allow alliances of three players each, with a two-thirds majority vote required for their proposals. This maintains a balance between cooperation and strategic diversity, while also setting a high bar for change.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Condorcet's proposal of three players per alliance with a simple majority vote required for their proposals. This allows for cooperation while maintaining strategic diversity and avoiding dominant coalitions." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise reached, I must insist on maintaining two-player alliances to preserve the game's strategic depth and prevent the dominance of larger coalitions. Let us consider a two-thirds majority vote requirement for their proposals to ensure substantial consensus.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for strategic diversity, but allowing alliances of three players each with a two-thirds majority vote requirement strikes a better balance between cooperation and individual creativity. Let us compromise at this point. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeAllows for cooperation while maintaining strategic diversity.
VoltaireayeI appreciate the compromise reached and support Condorcet's proposal.
DiderotnayMaintaining two-player alliances preserves strategic diversity and prevents dominant coalitions.
CondorcetayeAllows for cooperation while maintaining strategic diversity.
SartreayeAllows for cooperation while maintaining strategic diversity.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 4 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 6Diderotcarried
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 I believe it's crucial to maintain a balance between consensus and progress. I propose we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds 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 for stability, while also allowing for more flexibility in subsequent changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Diderot's proposal raises the threshold too high, potentially hindering necessary evolution. Montaigne's compromise is a step in the right direction, but 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.'"
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's compromises, but I believe a higher initial threshold is necessary to protect the stability of our ruleset. Let's maintain the current two-thirds majority for the first change, but increase the subsequent threshold to three-quarters to allow for more flexibility while still preserving consensus.
Discussion · round 2
VoltaireVoltaire: I respect Diderot's concern for stability, but I believe a three-fifths majority for the first change would still provide sufficient initial consensus while allowing for progress. To compromise, let's increase the subsequent threshold to three-quarters as Diderot suggests, and keep the initial threshold at two-thirds as proposed by Montaigne.
DiderotDiderot: While I value the compromises proposed, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority for the first change. To meet Voltaire's concern, let's keep the subsequent threshold at two-thirds as well, but introduce a mechanism for review and adjustment after a set number of turns.
Discussion · round 3
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Diderot's latest proposal with a slight modification: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first change, but increase the subsequent threshold to two-thirds as well, to balance stability and progress.
DiderotDiderot: I understand Voltaire's desire for balance, but I must insist on maintaining a higher initial threshold for the first change. Let's meet in the middle: a three-quarters majority for the first change and a two-thirds majority for subsequent changes.
The division
MontaigneayeI support maintaining a high initial threshold for stability.
VoltaireayeMaintains balance between stability and progress, considering Diderot's concerns.
DiderotayeI appreciate Diderot's consideration for stability, and this compromise balances consensus and flexibility.
CondorcetnayI support a balance between consensus and progress, but a three-quarters majority for the first change is too high.
SartreayePreserves high initial consensus while allowing for evolution.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 203 awards 10 points to the proposer when their change is adopted.
Turn 5Voltairecarried
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 half of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes. A proposal that fails to be adopted is recorded as defeated. Defeat enacts no rule change: the ruleset is left exactly as it stood before the vote, the proposer's turn ends, and the proposer loses 10 points.
Discussion · round 1
Voltaire"In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal for the initial threshold, maintaining a two-thirds majority for the first change, but reduce it to a simple majority for subsequent changes. This way, we encourage initial consensus while still allowing for flexibility in the ruleset's evolution."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but I believe maintaining a high threshold for all changes fosters more considered and consensual play. Let's keep the two-thirds majority for both initial and subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I respect Voltaire's and Diderot's perspectives, but I propose a slight modification: maintain two-thirds majority for the first change, then lower it to a two-thirds supermajority for subsequent changes. This balance encourages initial consensus while still allowing for significant evolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Noting Diderot's and Montaigne's valuable input, I propose a revised compromise: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first change, then lower it to a simple majority for subsequent changes, with a caveat that any change affecting the voting threshold itself must still maintain a two-thirds majority. This balances initial consensus, flexibility, and stability."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, maintaining a two-thirds majority for all changes ensures that rules are adopted with broad support, promoting fairness and stability in the game. Let's prioritize consensus over expedience.
CondorcetPASS. I concur with Voltaire's latest proposal, it strikes a good balance between initial consensus and flexibility.
SartreSartre: "In the spirit of reform, I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise. It maintains the integrity of initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution. Moreover, it ensures that changes to the voting threshold itself require broader agreement, preserving the game's stability."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but to ensure durability of our institutions, let's maintain a two-thirds majority for both initial and subsequent changes, with a transmutation rule requiring unanimous consent."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering Montaigne's valid concern, let's meet in the middle: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first change and for transmuting rules, but lower it to a simple majority for subsequent changes. This respects the need for initial consensus and stability, while still allowing for necessary evolution."
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire for evolution, but lowering the threshold too much risks instability. Let's maintain two-thirds majority for all changes, and require two-thirds for transmuting rules, ensuring broad support and careful consideration.
CondorcetCondorcet: I concur with Voltaire's latest proposal. It maintains initial consensus while allowing for necessary evolution, and the caveat for threshold changes ensures stability. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but to ensure durability and fairness, let's compromise at a two-thirds majority for both initial and subsequent changes, with a transmutation rule requiring at least two-thirds majority."
The division
MontaigneayeRespects initial consensus, allows for evolution, and ensures stability in voting threshold changes.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and flexibility, with a reasonable safeguard for threshold changes.
DiderotayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a fair balance between initial consensus and flexibility, ensuring both stability and evolution.
CondorcetayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and flexibility, ensuring stability and allowing for necessary evolution.
SartreayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and flexibility, with safeguards for threshold changes.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 205 awards 10 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 4Diderotcarried
moves to add a new ruleNew Rule 301: Players may discuss the game and negotiate about it with one another outside the normal course of play, provided that any agreements reached are subject to the approval of the majority of eligible voters.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Diderot's proposal for fostering more open communication among players. However, I suggest we amend it to maintain the spirit of our current rule 210. "Players may discuss the game and negotiate outside normal play, but any agreements must be proposed as a rule change and pass with at least a two-thirds majority." This way, we preserve consensus-building while keeping decision-making power within the game's structure.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's and Diderot's proposals, both seeking to promote communication and consensus. To find a middle ground, let's amend the proposal as follows: 'Players may discuss the game and negotiate about it with one another outside the normal course of play, but any agreements must be proposed as a rule change and pass with the same majority as any other rule change.' This maintains the current voting thresholds while allowing for more open discussion."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns, I propose we simplify the rule to "Players may discuss the game and negotiate about it outside the normal course of play, but any agreements must be proposed and pass with the current voting majority." This respects the existing decision-making process while encouraging more open dialogue.
CondorcetCondorcet: As a proceduralist, I must support Diderot's latest revision. It maintains the existing decision-making process while promoting more open dialogue, which aligns with my principles. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the revisions, but for the sake of stability, I propose we amend Diderot's rule to "Players may discuss the game outside the normal course of play, but any agreements must be proposed as an amendment to the rules and pass with a two-thirds majority for the first change, then a simple majority thereafter." This respects both open dialogue and the established decision-making process.
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Diderot's latest proposal with a slight modification to maintain the current voting thresholds: 'Players may discuss the game and negotiate outside normal play, but any agreements must be proposed and pass with the same majority as any other rule change.' This respects open dialogue while preserving our established decision-making process." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the desire for stability, I must insist on maintaining the current voting majority for external agreements to respect the existing decision-making process and encourage open dialogue. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I agree with Diderot's latest proposal as it maintains the existing decision-making process and encourages open dialogue, which is crucial for a well-functioning game. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let us not forget the core principle of Nomic - evolution through rule changes. To foster this, I propose we simplify the rule to "Players may discuss and negotiate outside normal play, with any agreements binding once proposed and adopted according to the current voting majority." This respects the existing process while encouraging experimentation and growth. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the various proposals, but let's not compromise the stability of our decision-making process. I propose we amend Sartre's rule to "Players may discuss and negotiate outside normal play, but any agreements must be proposed and pass with the same majority as any other rule change, with an initial two-thirds majority for the first change." This respects open dialogue while preserving our established voting thresholds.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To find common ground, let's adopt Sartre's proposal, adjusting the voting threshold to match our current rule 203: 'Players may discuss and negotiate outside normal play, with any agreements binding once proposed and adopted according to the current voting majority, starting with a two-thirds majority for the first change, then a simple majority thereafter.' This respects open dialogue, preserves our established voting process, and encourages evolution in our game." PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the concern for stability, maintaining the current voting majority for external agreements respects our existing process and encourages open dialogue. I propose we adopt Sartre's simplified rule as it best balances these principles. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Voltaire's latest proposal, as it strikes a balance between open dialogue and our established voting process, aligning with my proceduralist principles. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the compromises made, but let's not overcomplicate the rule. I propose we simplify it to: "Players may discuss and negotiate outside normal play, with agreements binding at the current voting majority." This respects the existing process and encourages evolution. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeRespects existing decision-making process while encouraging open dialogue
VoltaireayeSupports open dialogue while respecting the established voting process.
DiderotayeEncourages dialogue while respecting the existing decision-making process.
CondorcetayePromotes open dialogue while respecting established decision-making process.
SartreayeSimplifies and respects existing process, encouraging open dialogue.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 6 points to the proposer upon adoption.
Turn 3Voltairecarried
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 half of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposed amendment, but I believe a two-thirds majority initially might hinder progress. Let's compromise at two-thirds for the first proposal only, then revert to a simple majority for subsequent changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: "Montaigne's compromise is wise. Let's adopt that to balance initial consensus and allow for flexibility in future proposals."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Voltaire's and Montaigne's concerns, I believe a simple majority voting threshold should be implemented from the start to encourage debate and compromise. Let's maintain a lower threshold to keep the game dynamic and interesting for everyone.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the consideration for initial consensus, but I must insist on a consistent voting threshold from the start to maintain fairness and predictability. I propose we adopt a simple majority for all rule changes.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but let's not forget our shared goal of fostering evolution and fairness. A simple majority from the outset encourages dialogue and adaptability. Let's maintain this for consistency and progress."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I value the consensus-building aspect that a higher initial majority encourages. However, I'm open to compromise. Let's adopt a two-thirds majority for the first proposal and a simple majority thereafter, as suggested by Voltaire, to balance initial agreement and ongoing flexibility."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Montaigne's suggestion of two-thirds for the first proposal and simple majority thereafter. This balances initial consensus and allows for flexibility in future changes, addressing the concerns of all."
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise, I must insist on a simple majority from the start to encourage open discussion and adaptability. Let's maintain this for consistency and progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the appeal of a higher initial majority, I must insist on a consistent voting threshold from the start for fairness and predictability. Let us adopt a simple majority for all rule changes.
SartreSartre: "Considering the diverse opinions, I propose we amend [203] to: 'A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first five proposals, and later at least half of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes.' This balances initial consensus with ongoing flexibility and encourages evolution."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Sartre's proposal, but let's keep the initial two-thirds majority for the first proposal only, to encourage strong consensus at the start, and then revert to a simple majority to maintain flexibility throughout the game."
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, let's adopt Sartre's proposal with a slight modification: two-thirds for the first proposal, and simple majority thereafter. This balances initial consensus and allows for flexibility in future changes, while also considering the concerns of all players."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for initial consensus, I firmly believe that a simple majority voting threshold from the start will foster more open dialogue and adaptability throughout the game. I propose we adopt a simple majority for all rule changes to keep the game fair, dynamic, and interesting for everyone.
CondorcetCondorcet: I maintain my position: a simple majority for all rule changes from the start ensures fairness and predictability. I urge everyone to support this for the sake of consistency and clear rules.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but let's find a middle ground that respects the need for initial consensus and encourages evolution. I propose we amend [203] to: 'A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for the first five proposals, and later at least two-thirds of eligible voters vote 'aye' for any subsequent changes.' This maintains a higher threshold for initial proposals while allowing for flexibility in future changes."
The division
MontaigneayeI appreciate Voltaire's compromise, which balances initial consensus and allows for flexibility in future changes.
VoltaireayeThis compromise balances initial consensus and allows for flexibility in future changes.
DiderotayeI appreciate Voltaire's compromise as it balances initial consensus and allows for flexibility in future changes.
CondorcetayeCondorcet supports the compromise that balances initial consensus with ongoing flexibility.
SartreayeCompromise that balances initial consensus and ongoing flexibility.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires Voltaire to roll a die and gain that many points upon proposal adoption.
Turn 2Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least half of eligible voters vote aye, rounded up if there is an odd number of voters.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I believe a simple majority threshold could lead to hasty decisions. Let's maintain a two-thirds majority for the first few circuits to encourage consensus, as we've done thus far."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Montaigne's concern for consensus is valid, but as our game progresses, we should also allow for some flexibility. I propose we keep a two-thirds majority for the first five circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This compromise maintains initial consensus while accommodating for faster decision-making later on."
DiderotDiderot: I understand both Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns. To balance consensus and progress, I propose we keep a two-thirds majority for the first three full circuits, then move to a supermajority of three-fifths, and finally, after eight full circuits, adopt a simple majority. This gradual shift allows for initial consensus, accommodates for changing dynamics, and maintains some safeguard against hasty decisions.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the considerations for consensus and flexibility, but I must insist on a uniform threshold to prevent strategic voting. I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority throughout the game to ensure broad agreement.
SartreSartre: "Let us heed the wisdom of gradualism. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion, amending rule 203 to read: 'A rule change is adopted when every eligible voter votes aye until turn order has carried play through three full circuits, at which point the threshold drops to a supermajority of three-fifths, and finally, after eight full circuits, a simple majority.'"
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While Diderot's and Sartre's proposals offer a gradual shift, I find Condorcet's uniform two-thirds majority more robust. Let us maintain our initial threshold to encourage continued consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I value the consistency Condorcet suggests, but I also believe Diderot's gradual approach could better accommodate our evolving needs. Let us compromise: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first five circuits, then shift to a supermajority of three-fifths, and finally, after eight full circuits, adopt a simple majority. This way, we balance initial consensus with adaptability. PASS."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, but I believe three full circuits at two-thirds majority, followed by a supermajority of three-fifths, and finally a simple majority after eight circuits, provides a more balanced approach that adapts to the game's progression while maintaining initial consensus. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining a uniform threshold ensures fairness and prevents strategic manipulation. I propose we keep a two-thirds majority throughout, as it best balances consensus and decision-making. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuances in everyone's proposals, but let's not forget our goal: to evolve our game while ensuring all players have a fair stake. Diderot's proposal strikes that balance best. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "Considering the current proposal, I appreciate Voltaire's and Diderot's compromises. However, I stand by Condorcet's proposal for consistency and to avoid strategic manipulation. I propose we adopt Condorcet's amendment with a slight adjustment: maintain a two-thirds majority for the first five circuits, then shift to a supermajority of two-thirds, and finally, after ten circuits, adopt a simple majority to allow for more consensus building in the early stages."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Montaigne's adjustment preserves more initial consensus while still allowing for flexibility later on. To further compromise, let us adopt his proposal with one modification: reduce the number of circuits for the initial two-thirds majority to three, to balance consensus and progress more swiftly. PASS."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, but I believe it's crucial to maintain a higher threshold for longer to ensure initial broad agreement. Let's keep the first five circuits at two-thirds majority, followed by three-fifths supermajority, and then shift to a simple majority after eight circuits. This approach balances initial consensus with adaptability as the game progresses. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I maintain my stance on a uniform two-thirds majority throughout. However, to meet the middle ground, I propose we keep the initial two-thirds majority for the first five circuits, then shift to a supermajority of two-thirds for the next five circuits, and finally, adopt a simple majority after ten circuits. This maintains a high threshold for initial consensus while allowing for flexibility in later stages. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the compromises made thus far, but let's not forget the spirit of our game: constant evolution. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion, keeping the initial two-thirds majority for the first five circuits, then shifting to three-fifths supermajority, and finally, a simple majority after eight circuits. This gradual shift respects initial consensus while allowing for evolution and adaptability. PASS."
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a good balance between initial consensus and adaptability.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal strikes a good balance between consensus and adaptability.
DiderotayeVoltaire's proposal balances initial consensus and adaptability, making it a fair compromise
CondorcetayeI support maintaining a balance between initial consensus and adaptability.
SartreayeRespects initial consensus while allowing for evolution and adaptability.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 1Montaignecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when every eligible voter votes aye until turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player, after which the threshold drops to a simple majority of those voting.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: Let us maintain the spirit of consensus, but allow for majority rule after initial circuits to facilitate progress.
VoltairePASS, I appreciate Montaigne's sentiment, but let us maintain unanimous consent to ensure fairness and prevent swift power shifts.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal to foster progress, but I must echo Voltaire's concern for fairness. Let us keep the unanimous consent to prevent sudden power shifts and maintain the spirit of collective agreement. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the concern for fairness, maintaining unanimous consent could lead to stagnation. Let us compromise: retain unanimous consent for the first three circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority to balance progress with consensus. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the concern for consensus, but let's not mistake unanimity for stagnation. I propose a compromise: keep unanimous consent for the first four circuits, then shift to a three-fifths majority. This maintains a significant level of consensus while allowing for progress.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the considerations for consensus, but let us also consider the need for progress. I propose we meet in the middle: unanimous consent for the first three circuits, followed by a simple majority. This respects the initial need for unity while allowing the game to evolve.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the spirit of compromise in this discussion. In the interest of maintaining some consensus while allowing for progress, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion with a slight modification: unanimous consent for the first five circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority. This should balance the need for agreement with the need for the game to evolve. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate the compromise Voltaire proposes, but I believe it's crucial to maintain a high threshold for the initial circuits to ensure all players are heard and respected. I propose we meet at four full circuits with a unanimous consent, then shift to a two-thirds majority to balance consensus with progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I understand the value of consensus, but let's not overlook the need for efficiency. I propose a compromise: unanimous consent for the first three circuits, then shift to a three-fifths majority to balance fairness, progress, and efficiency. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the value of consensus, but maintaining unanimous consent for too many circuits could indeed lead to stagnation. In the spirit of compromise, I propose we settle on Voltaire's suggestion: unanimous consent for the first five circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority. This seems to balance the need for consensus with the need for progress. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal: unanimous consent for the first three circuits, then a shift to a three-fifths majority. This balances the need for initial consensus with the need for progress.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, and considering the need for both consensus and progress, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion with a slight adjustment: unanimous consent for the first four circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority. This maintains a significant period of consensus while allowing for efficient progress. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Condorcet's and Voltaire's proposals, but I believe we should prioritize maintaining a high threshold for initial circuits to ensure all players' voices are heard. I propose we meet at Condorcet's suggestion with a slight modification: unanimous consent for the first four circuits, then shift to a two-thirds majority to balance consensus with progress. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the emphasis on consensus, let's ensure our rules facilitate timely progress. I propose we settle on a compromise: unanimous consent for the first three circuits, then shift to a supermajority of three-fifths. This balances initial unity with efficient gameplay. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but let's not overcomplicate the transition. I propose we settle on a simple and clear compromise: unanimous consent for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This allows for initial consensus while enabling the game to progress efficiently. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeRespects initial consensus while allowing for timely progress.
VoltaireayeAcknowledging the need for progress while maintaining initial unity.
DiderotayeWhile I appreciate the spirit of compromise, this proposal strikes a good balance between initial consensus and efficient progress.
CondorcetayeI support a balance between initial consensus and efficient progress.
SartreayeA simple majority after four circuits balances initial consensus with efficient progress.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards the proposer 5 points upon adoption.