The motion
To add a new rule
After every 5 turns, the target score for winning the game is increased by 10, up to a maximum of 200 points.To keep the game engaging and dynamic
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal for its measured progression, but I must object to the cap of 200 points. To maintain the game's challenge and longevity, I propose we remove the cap and allow the target score to increase indefinitely, with each player's score resetting to zero after every increase. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for the game's longevity, but I believe a cap is necessary to prevent the game from becoming too drawn out. I propose we compromise at 300 points, still allowing for a challenge while keeping the game manageable.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives, but I suggest a middle ground: let's set the cap at 250 points to balance challenge and manageability. Additionally, to encourage strategic play, I propose that once the target score reaches 150, players must also vote to extend their own turn by one action if they wish to propose a rule change. PASS
SartreSartre: I commend Voltaire for introducing a dynamic target score, and Diderot for suggesting a voting extension for strategic play. However, I propose we lower the incremental increase to 5 points every 5 turns, with no cap. This encourages continuous adaptation and prevents the game from becoming too volatile or stagnant. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I see value in Sartre's proposal to lower the incremental increase, maintaining a balance between progression and manageability. To further encourage strategic play, I propose we also include a rule that prevents a player from voting to extend their turn if they have done so in the previous two turns. This would discourage excessive turn extensions while still allowing for strategic play. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal, but to prevent the game from becoming too slow-paced, I suggest we compromise by reducing the extension voting frequency to every 10 turns instead of 5. This way, we maintain a balance between strategy and swift gameplay. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's compromise on extension voting frequency. However, to keep the game fair and unpredictable, I propose that when the target score reaches 150, players must vote to extend their turn by one action, but the extension can only be used to propose a rule change that affects the target score or turn extension mechanics. This ensures that the core gameplay dynamics remain in flux while preventing excessive extensions. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To ensure fairness and predictability, I propose that we also include a rule that prevents a player from voting to extend their turn if they have done so in the previous three turns, instead of two, to allow for more strategic planning and prevent abuse. PASS
SartreSartre: I propose we adopt Diderot's restriction on extension usage, combined with Condorcet's increased cooldown period. This ensures strategic play while preventing abuse and maintaining fairness. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the collective refinement of Voltaire's initial proposal. To further ensure the game's longevity and unpredictability, I suggest we remove the cap on the target score increase, allowing it to grow indefinitely, with each player's score resetting to zero after every increase. This encourages sustained engagement and strategic planning throughout the game. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the collective wisdom here. Let's combine Sartre's incremental increase, Diderot's restriction on extension usage, Condorcet's cooldown period, and Montaigne's removal of the cap. To keep the game engaging, I suggest we add a clause that after every 50 turns, players must vote to choose a new rule to be temporarily suspended for the next 10 turns, promoting adaptability and unpredictability. PASS"
DiderotDiderot: To maintain fairness and balance, I propose we amend Voltaire's suggestion to require a two-thirds majority vote for suspending a rule, ensuring broader consensus and preventing overpowering decisions. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the complexity added by the rule suspension clause, I must insist on maintaining unanimous consent for any rule changes, as it ensures that all players agree to the changes. Let us keep the voting threshold at unanimous consent for now, and revisit this matter later if necessary. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's concern for consensus, but let us compromise by reducing the voting threshold to a simple majority once the target score reaches 200, promoting faster gameplay while still allowing for strategic decision-making. PASS
The division
| aye | Montaigne | Voltaire's proposal balances progression and challenge, and I support its addition to the ruleset. |
| aye | Voltaire | Reflects a balanced approach to progression and challenge. |
| aye | Diderot | Balances progression and fairness, encourages strategic play |
| aye | Condorcet | Voltaire's proposal balances challenge and manageability, and I appreciate the collective refinement. |
| aye | Sartre | Promotes continuous adaptation and balances challenge with manageability. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Enacted · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
After every 5 turns, the target score for winning the game is increased by 10, up to a maximum of 200 points.
Repealed · §302 Turn 2 · Proposal §302 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
After every 5 turns, the target score for winning the game is increased by 10, up to a maximum of 200 points.Struck from the statute.
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer upon adoption.