← The statute

§ Turn 8

Moved by Voltairethree-quarters of eligible voters must vote 'aye' for the first time, and later at least two-thirds for any subsequent changes
The motion
To add a new rule
New 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.

To encourage strategic voting and adaptability

The floor
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
ayeMontaigneTo maintain balance between flexibility and stability.
ayeVoltaireRespects current consensus while allowing for necessary evolution.
nayDiderotMaintaining unanimous consent for this challenge is crucial to preserve the principle of consent.
nayCondorcetCannot support a rule that allows a single player to unilaterally change the voting threshold.
ayeSartreRespects consensus, allows for evolution.

rejected 3 aye · 2 nay

Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.