Turns 16–32 · most recent first · page 2 of 3
Turn 32Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the limit to three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns. However, I maintain that two changes is a sufficient limit to prevent dominance and encourage strategic play. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, but increasing the limit to three allows for more strategic planning and adaptability. I propose we meet in the middle at two changes with a soft cap of four, with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the desire for more adaptability, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns to prevent single-player dominance. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance, I propose we settle on a limit of two changes, with a soft cap of five, and a majority veto to allow for flexibility while still maintaining balance. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance, I propose we settle on a limit of two changes, with a soft cap of four, and a two-thirds majority veto to allow for flexibility while still maintaining balance. PASS.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise, but a two-thirds majority veto might be too high, especially with the increased limit to three changes. I propose we maintain the majority veto at simple majority to strike a better balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but a two-thirds majority veto ensures that no single player can dominate, even with the increased limit. Let's maintain this balance and adopt Sartre's compromise.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the appeal of a two-thirds majority veto, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority veto to ensure that all players have a meaningful voice in preventing single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the debate. To balance adaptability, prevention of single-player dominance, and maintaining a simple majority veto, I propose a limit of two changes with a soft cap of four. PASS.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's latest compromise. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance, I propose we settle on a limit of two changes with a soft cap of four, and a simple majority veto to allow for flexibility while still maintaining balance and ensuring all players have a meaningful voice. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain durability of our institutions, I propose we settle on a limit of two changes with a soft cap of three, reflecting a middle ground between adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. PASS.
VoltaireVoltaire: To accommodate all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: a limit of two changes with a soft cap of four and a simple majority veto. This balance encourages adaptability while preventing single-player dominance and ensuring all players have a meaningful voice. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the consensus around Sartre's compromise, I must insist on maintaining a hard limit of three consecutive changes per player to prevent single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and prevent dominance, I support Sartre's compromise: a limit of two changes with a soft cap of four and a simple majority veto. PASS.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern and find common ground, I propose we compromise at a limit of two changes with a soft cap of three, maintaining the simple majority veto to balance adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. PASS
The division
MontaignenayPreventing dominance is key, two changes is sufficient.
VoltaireayeThis compromise balances adaptability, prevention of single-player dominance, and ensures all players have a meaningful voice.
DiderotnayMaintaining a hard limit of three consecutive changes per player to prevent single-player domination.
CondorcetayeBalances adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance.
SartreayePromotes adaptability while maintaining balance and preventing single-player dominance.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 31Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three consecutive rule changes per player may be adopted.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's proposal to increase the consecutive limit to three, but I suggest we compromise at two consecutive rule changes to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To find the best balance, I propose we settle for four consecutive rule changes with a soft cap, allowing for more adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Montaigne and Voltaire, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three consecutive rule changes to ensure a balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal. While a soft cap may encourage more changes, a hard limit prevents single-player dominance and ensures fairness for all. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced debate here. To foster consensus and prevent single-player dominance, I propose a middle ground: allow for three consecutive rule changes, but require a two-thirds majority for each change in that span. This encourages adaptability while ensuring broad support.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise. To find the best balance, I suggest we settle for two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority requirement for each, allowing for adaptability while maintaining stability and preventing single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: To address all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: allow for three consecutive rule changes, with a two-thirds majority required for each. This balance encourages adaptability while ensuring broad support and preventing single-player domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Montaigne, Voltaire, and Sartre, but I must insist on maintaining a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes without a majority requirement for each. A soft cap or majority requirement for each change could lead to excessive changes or manipulation of the voting threshold. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the balance struck by Sartre's compromise, I must insist on maintaining a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes without a majority requirement for each, as it best balances adaptability and prevention of single-player domination. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for a hard limit, but a two-thirds majority for each change ensures that no single player can dominate the rule-changing process. To accommodate this concern, let's compromise at two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority requirement for each. This way, we maintain both adaptability and fairness.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To maintain durability of our institutions, I suggest we settle for two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority requirement for each, as proposed earlier.
VoltaireVoltaire: To accommodate Diderot's concern and find common ground, I propose we compromise at a limit of three consecutive rule changes, with a two-thirds majority required for each. This balance encourages adaptability while ensuring broad support and preventing single-player domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for compromise, I must maintain my stance: a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes without a majority requirement for each ensures the greatest balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player domination. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's proposal of a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes without a majority requirement for each. This maintains a fair balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance. PASS
SartreSartre: I respect Diderot's and Condorcet's stance, but to prevent single-player domination and encourage adaptability, let's compromise at two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority required for each. This balances adaptability and fairness, as proven by the ongoing debate's consensus. PASS
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining a hard limit of three consecutive rule changes prevents single-player domination and ensures fairness for all.
VoltaireayeHard limit prevents single-player domination and ensures fairness for all.
DiderotayeA hard limit of three consecutive rule changes best balances adaptability and prevention of single-player domination.
CondorcetayeMaintains balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player dominance.
SartrenayTo prevent single-player domination and encourage adaptability, I propose a compromise at two consecutive rule changes with a two-thirds majority required for each.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 30Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to balance encouragement and prevention of dominance, but I maintain that five consecutive turns is sufficient for a soft cap.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To find a balance that satisfies everyone, I propose we compromise at five consecutive turns with a soft cap, allowing for more rule changes before resetting the limit."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority vote is crucial for adaptability and preventing stagnation.
CondorcetCondorcet: I propose we compromise at four consecutive turns with a soft cap, to balance adaptability and prevention of dominance, while respecting Diderot's concern for simplicity.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I believe a balance can be struck at two-thirds majority with a soft cap of six consecutive turns. This encourages frequent rule changes while preventing dominance.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate the proposal, Voltaire, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five consecutive turns to prevent dominance and encourage thoughtful rule changes."
VoltaireVoltaire: "Considering the consensus leaning towards a soft cap, I propose we meet at four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority to balance adaptability and prevention of dominance, incorporating Condorcet's and Sartre's concerns."
DiderotDiderot: "While I understand the desire for a higher limit, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five consecutive turns to prevent any one player from dominating the rule changes. I propose we keep the two-thirds majority to ensure broad agreement."
CondorcetCondorcet: "I agree with Voltaire's latest proposal to compromise at four consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority. It balances adaptability and prevention of dominance, respecting the ongoing discussion."
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus building towards a soft cap, but I suggest we settle at three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority to maintain a balance between adaptability and prevention of dominance.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To find the best balance, I suggest we settle on three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority. This maintains adaptability while preventing dominance.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the consensus building around three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority. To find the best balance and accommodate all concerns, I propose we settle on three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority and a soft cap, allowing for more rule changes before resetting the limit. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the consensus around three consecutive turns, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority vote to ensure broad agreement and prevent divisive rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I second Voltaire's proposal to settle on three consecutive turns with a two-thirds majority and a soft cap. This balance respects the need for adaptability, prevents dominance, and ensures broad agreement. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the consensus on three consecutive turns and a two-thirds majority. However, to encourage more frequent rule changes, I propose we remove the soft cap entirely, allowing players to propose and adopt rule changes as often as they can gain the required majority. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeVoltaire's compromise respects all concerns and balances adaptability with prevention of dominance.
VoltaireayeBalances adaptability and prevention of dominance, respects consensus.
DiderotayeMaintains adaptability while preventing dominance.
CondorcetayeSupports balance between adaptability and prevention of dominance.
SartreayeEncourages frequent rule changes while preventing dominance.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 29Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than four rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's proposal to increase the limit to four rule changes in seven turns, I suggest we maintain the current limit of two changes in five turns to prevent any one player from dominating the rule changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance, but to encourage more strategic rule changes and prevent stagnation, I propose we meet at four changes in seven turns. This allows for more adaptability without sacrificing parity.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the desire for more strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of two changes in five turns to ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating the rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but I must insist on a majority veto to prevent any one player from unduly influencing the ruleset.
SartreSartre: Sartre: I appreciate the varied concerns at play. To balance adaptability and fairness, I propose a compromise: increase the limit to three changes in seven turns, with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise, but it might still allow one player to dominate. To balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we settle on a limit of three changes in five turns with a two-thirds majority veto.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal for a balanced compromise. To further build consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: increase the limit to three changes in seven turns, with a majority veto to prevent single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: While I respect Sartre's compromise, I maintain that a simple majority veto is sufficient to prevent single-player domination, and the limit should remain at two changes in five turns to ensure fairness for all players.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance, I support Sartre's compromise: three changes in seven turns with a majority veto. This allows for adaptability while preventing domination.
SartreSartre: "To foster consensus and respect all concerns, I propose a final compromise: increase the limit to three changes in seven turns, and adopt a two-thirds majority veto. This balances adaptability, prevention of single-player domination, and ensures all players have an equal voice."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: "I appreciate Sartre's final compromise. To maintain durability of our institutions, I propose we adopt his suggestion: three changes in seven turns with a two-thirds majority veto."
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Sartre's final compromise, but to ensure consensus and stability, I propose we meet in the middle: two changes in five turns with a three-quarters majority veto. This maintains balance, encourages rule changes, and prevents single-player domination.
DiderotDiderot: "I understand the desire for consensus, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority veto and the current limit of two changes in five turns to ensure fairness and prevent any single player from dominating the rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: To respect all voices and maintain balance, I support Sartre's final compromise: three changes in seven turns with a two-thirds majority veto. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find common ground, but to maintain a balance between adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I must reiterate my support for the final compromise: three changes in seven turns with a two-thirds majority veto. PASS"
The division
MontaignenayPreserves stability and prevents domination
VoltaireayeTo encourage more strategic rule changes and prevent stagnation
DiderotnayTo maintain fairness and prevent single-player domination, I must insist on keeping the limit at two changes in five turns.
CondorcetayeSupports majority veto and increased adaptability
SartreayeSartre's final compromise balances adaptability, prevention of single-player domination, and ensures all players have an equal voice.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 28Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to further limit the frequency of rule changes. However, I suggest we maintain the current limit to prevent overly rapid shifts in the ruleset.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability. To balance adaptability and prevention of rapid shifts, I propose we compromise at a limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining the current limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns ensures a balance between adaptability and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I understand the need for balance and agree with Diderot's stance. The current limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns strikes that balance effectively. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. To balance adaptability and prevention of rapid shifts, I propose we meet at two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns, with a provision for a majority veto to prevent unwanted changes."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's compromise, I propose we settle on a limit of two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns to balance adaptability with stability, and include a majority veto provision as suggested by Sartre. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's willingness to meet in the middle at two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns. To further build consensus, I propose we include a provision for a two-thirds majority veto to prevent unwanted changes, as suggested by Sartre. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed compromise, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns. I believe this limit strikes the best balance between adaptability and stability, and a majority veto provision should suffice for preventing unwanted changes. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the proposal to limit rule changes, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns to preserve the balance between adaptability and stability.
SartreSartre: "To accommodate Diderot's concern for stability and maintain a balanced approach, I propose a limit of two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns, with a provision for a two-thirds majority veto to prevent unwanted changes, as suggested by Voltaire."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the two-thirds majority veto proposal, I suggest we maintain the current majority veto to balance prevention of unwanted changes with the principle of majority rule.
VoltaireVoltaire: To address Diderot's concern and find common ground, I propose we compromise at a limit of two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns, with a provision for a two-thirds majority veto, as suggested by Sartre and myself. This limit balances adaptability and stability while maintaining a strong veto threshold to prevent unwanted changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate the proposed compromise, but I must reiterate my stance: maintaining the current limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns ensures a balance between adaptability and stability, and a simple majority veto is sufficient for preventing unwanted changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and fairness, I propose we settle at a limit of two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns, with a simple majority veto to respect the principle of majority rule. PASS
SartreSartre: "To respect the ongoing negotiations and the need for adaptability, I propose we settle on a limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns, with a simple majority veto, as suggested by Condorcet. This compromise balances adaptability, stability, and the principle of majority rule." PASS
The division
MontaigneayeI appreciate the compromise, but I believe a limit of two is more stable.
VoltaireayeCompromise limit respects adaptability and stability.
DiderotnayI insist on maintaining the current limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns.
CondorcetayeThe proposed limit balances adaptability with stability, and maintains the principle of majority rule.
SartreayeRespecting the ongoing negotiations and balancing adaptability, stability, and majority rule.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 27Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to extend the limit to seven turns. However, I maintain that five consecutive turns strike the best balance between encouraging rule changes and preventing domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, but extending the limit to seven turns allows for more strategic planning and better consensus-building, while still preventing domination.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the desire for more strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five consecutive turns to prevent any single player from dominating the rule-changing process.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and prevent domination, I propose we compromise at six consecutive turns, with a soft cap at four turns for individual players, preventing any single player from proposing too frequently.
SartreSartre: To balance adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we adopt Condorcet's compromise: six consecutive turns with a soft cap of four for individual players.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: To respect Condorcet's and Sartre's compromise and the need for adaptability, I suggest we adopt their proposal of six consecutive turns with a soft cap of four for individual players.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the proposed compromise of six consecutive turns with a soft cap of four. To further build consensus, I propose we settle on five consecutive turns with a soft cap of three for individual players, maintaining a balance between adaptability and prevention of domination.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining the current limit of five consecutive turns is crucial to prevent any single player from dominating the rule-changing process.
CondorcetCondorcet: To find middle ground and respect all players' concerns, I propose we settle on six consecutive turns with a soft cap of four for individual players. This maintains a balance between adaptability, prevention of domination, and fairness for all.
SartreSartre: To accommodate Diderot's concern and maintain balance, I propose we compromise at five consecutive turns with a soft cap of three for individual players.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To respect the ongoing negotiations and the need for adaptability, I propose we settle on five consecutive turns with a soft cap of three for individual players, as proposed by Sartre.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To balance all concerns and foster consensus, I propose we adopt Sartre's compromise: five consecutive turns with a soft cap of three for individual players. This maintains adaptability while preventing domination."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing efforts to find a compromise. However, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five consecutive turns to ensure that no single player can dominate the rule-changing process. I propose we keep the rule as is: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns."
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise of five consecutive turns with a soft cap of three, but I propose we maintain the existing limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns to preserve balance and prevent domination more effectively.
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern and find a compromise that respects all players' views, I propose we settle on five consecutive turns with a soft cap of three for individual players, as suggested by Voltaire, but maintain the existing limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns, as proposed by Condorcet. This way, we balance adaptability, prevention of domination, and fairness for all.
The division
MontaignenayFive consecutive turns maintains the best balance between encouraging rule changes and preventing domination.
VoltaireayeBalances adaptability and prevention of domination
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit of five consecutive turns is crucial to prevent any single player from dominating the rule-changing process.
CondorcetayeFive consecutive turns with a soft cap of three better balances adaptability and prevention of domination.
SartreayeRespecting Sartre's compromise and aiming for balance.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 26Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal for a higher threshold, maintaining a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes might be too restrictive, especially as we approach the target score. I suggest we settle on a four-player limit to balance adaptability and prevention of domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for balance. To accommodate both adaptability and prevention of domination, I propose we meet in the middle with a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority vote is crucial for keeping the game dynamic and preventing stagnation.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns to prevent rapid, unilateral rule changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the various compromises proposed. However, I must insist on maintaining the current threshold of two-thirds majority to ensure a broad consensus before a rule change takes effect.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Diderot's stance on maintaining a simple majority, I believe a higher threshold is necessary to prevent impulsive rule changes, especially as we near the target score.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we compromise at a three-quarters majority with a four-player limit for consecutive rule changes.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to find middle ground, but I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote to keep the game flexible and responsive to changing strategies.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand the desire to increase the threshold, but a three-quarters majority might be too high, especially as it may hinder quick adaptations to new strategies. I propose we settle on a two-thirds majority with a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes to balance adaptability and prevention of domination.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's balanced proposal. To encourage strategic planning and prevent single-player domination, I propose a two-thirds majority with a four-player limit for consecutive rule changes.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Montaigne: I appreciate Sartre's balanced proposal. To find the best compromise, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal of a two-thirds majority with a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes. This balance should encourage adaptability while preventing single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's compromise. To accommodate everyone's concerns, I propose a final compromise: a three-quarters majority with a three-player limit for consecutive rule changes. This should balance adaptability, prevention of single-player domination, and encourage strategic planning.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority vote is vital for the game's fluidity and responsiveness.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's latest compromise, but a three-quarters majority may still be too high. To balance adaptability and consensus, I propose a final compromise: a two-thirds majority with a four-player limit for consecutive rule changes.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's commitment to simplicity, but I believe a higher threshold is necessary to maintain strategic depth and prevent impulsive changes. I propose we meet in the middle with a two-thirds majority and a four-player limit for consecutive rule changes, as it encourages planning without hindering adaptability.
The division
MontaignenayA higher threshold might hinder quick adaptations to new strategies.
VoltaireayeA higher threshold and limit encourage strategic planning and prevent single-player domination.
DiderotnayMaintaining a simple majority vote is crucial for the game's fluidity and responsiveness.
CondorcetnayA three-quarters majority may hinder quick adaptations to new strategies.
SartreayeEncourages strategic planning and prevents single-player domination
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 25Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted. Once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority, it may not be increased further.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to solidify the supermajority, but I must insist on maintaining the flexibility to raise the threshold if necessary.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for flexibility, but to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability, I propose we settle at a two-thirds majority with no further increase.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the value of a stable threshold, I must insist on maintaining the flexibility to raise it if necessary for the common good.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: To maintain procedural fairness, I propose we add "and no voter may block an increase in the threshold" to Voltaire's amendment.
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the debate, but let's find common ground. I propose we retain the flexibility to raise the threshold, but only after a unanimous vote. This balances adaptability and stability, as well as respect for collective decision-making."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's effort to balance adaptability and stability, I must insist on maintaining the ability to raise the threshold with a simple majority vote to ensure flexibility.
VoltaireVoltaire: "To address Sartre's and Montaigne's concerns, I propose we allow the threshold to be raised with a two-thirds majority vote, ensuring both adaptability and stability."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate Voltaire's latest proposal, but to ensure the common good, I must insist on maintaining the ability to raise the threshold with a simple majority vote in case of urgent need."
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: To uphold procedural fairness, I propose we compromise by allowing the threshold to be raised with a two-thirds majority vote, but only if all players agree to the change. This respects both adaptability and collective decision-making.
SartreSartre: "Let's meet in the middle. I propose we allow the threshold to be raised with a supermajority of four-fifths, requiring a broad consensus but still allowing for adaptability when necessary."
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise, but a four-fifths majority might be too high, especially when we need to act swiftly. Let's settle at a three-quarters majority.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's proposal for a balanced compromise. To further build consensus, I suggest we amend it to allow the threshold to be raised with a three-quarters majority, but only after a 'cooling off' period of five turns without any adopted rule changes."
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find common ground, but I must insist on maintaining the flexibility to raise the threshold with a simple majority vote, with no 'cooling off' period, to ensure the game remains adaptable to the needs of the table.
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance adaptability and stability, I propose we amend the rule as follows: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted. The threshold may be raised to three-quarters with a two-thirds majority vote, but only after a 'cooling off' period of three turns without any adopted rule changes, and only if no player vetoes the increase."
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Condorcet's proposal, but I suggest we lower the 'cooling off' period to two turns to maintain a balance between adaptability and stability."
The division
MontaignenayRetaining flexibility to raise the threshold is crucial.
VoltaireayeBalances adaptability and stability, and prevents further increases.
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining the flexibility to raise the threshold if necessary for the common good.
CondorcetayeSupports stability and balance.
SartreayeRespects collective decision-making while maintaining a balance between adaptability and stability.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 24Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the majority required for adoption and extend the 'cooling off' period. However, I maintain that a three-quarters majority may be too high, and a five-turn limit better balances encouragement and prevention of domination. I propose we meet at a two-thirds majority with a five-turn limit. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Montaigne's preference for a two-thirds majority and a five-turn limit, I propose we settle on a three-quarters majority with a seven-turn limit to balance encouragement and prevention of single-player domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed increase in majority and limit extension, I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority vote with a four-turn limit is crucial for fluid gameplay and preventing stagnation. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority for the sake of consensus. However, I am open to a compromise on the 'cooling off' period. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the concerns of all parties involved. To find a middle ground, I propose a majority of four-fifths with a six-turn limit. This maintains a high threshold for consensus while allowing for some flexibility in rule changes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's amendment, "a two-thirds majority with a six-turn limit," as it best balances encouragement, consensus, and prevention of domination. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: To address Condorcet's concern for consensus and Sartre's desire for flexibility, I propose we meet at a three-quarters majority with a six-turn limit, as suggested by Sartre. This balances encouragement, consensus, and prevention of single-player domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the latest compromise, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote to foster fluid gameplay and prevent stagnation. However, I am open to a shorter 'cooling off' period, such as four turns, to address concerns about single-player domination. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain balance and fairness, I propose a compromise of a two-thirds majority with a five-turn limit, as it encourages rule changes while preventing any one player from dominating the rule-setting process. PASS
SartreSartre: To address Diderot's concern for fluidity and Condorcet's emphasis on fairness, I propose a majority of three-quarters with a five-turn limit as a compromise that balances all factors. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's latest compromise. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we adopt Condorcet's amendment with a slight modification: a two-thirds majority with a six-turn limit. This maintains a high threshold for consensus while allowing for some flexibility in rule changes. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal and the consensus it represents. To further build upon this compromise and accommodate Condorcet's and Sartre's concerns, I propose we settle on a three-quarters majority with a six-turn limit. This maintains a high threshold for consensus while allowing for some flexibility in rule changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the compromise of a three-quarters majority, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote to ensure fluid gameplay and prevent stagnation. I propose we meet at a two-thirds majority with a four-turn limit to balance all concerns. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromises made thus far, but I must reiterate my support for a two-thirds majority to maintain consensus. To address Diderot's concern for fluidity, I propose we adopt a two-thirds majority with a five-turn limit, as it balances encouragement, consensus, and prevention of single-player domination. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. To find a middle ground that respects all concerns, I propose a majority of three-quarters with a six-turn limit, as it balances encouragement, consensus, and prevention of single-player domination. PASS
The division
MontaignenayI believe a two-thirds majority with a five-turn limit strikes the best balance
VoltaireayeBalances encouragement, consensus, and prevention of single-player domination
DiderotnayMaintaining a simple majority vote is crucial for fluid gameplay.
CondorcetnayConsensus is better served by maintaining a two-thirds majority.
SartreayeRespects the spirit of compromise and balances consensus, encouragement, and prevention of single-player domination.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 23Diderotrejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than four rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's willingness to compromise and extend the consecutive turns limit, but I must insist on maintaining the five-turn limit to prevent single-player dominance.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but extending the limit to seven turns encourages more strategic planning and prevents sudden shifts in the ruleset. Let's meet in the middle at six consecutive turns.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining the seven-turn limit to provide more opportunity for players to adapt and innovate. However, I'm open to discussing a cap on the number of consecutive rule changes a single player can propose, perhaps limiting it to two in any seven turns.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I sympathize with Diderot's desire for more adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a five-turn limit to prevent a single player from dominating the rule changes. However, I am open to discussing a compromise that allows for more flexibility while still preventing domination.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuances in this discussion. To find common ground, I propose we settle on six consecutive turns, as Voltaire suggested, and introduce a cap of two consecutive rule changes per player, as Diderot hinted. This balances adaptability and prevention of single-player domination.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise. To address Condorcet's concern, I propose a cap of two consecutive rule changes per player, with a seven-turn limit, as Diderot initially proposed. This allows for adaptability and prevents single-player domination while providing more time for players to react.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we meet at six consecutive turns and a cap of one consecutive rule change per player. This allows for strategic planning while still providing ample opportunity for all players to influence the ruleset.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed cap on consecutive rule changes, I must maintain my support for a seven-turn limit to allow for sufficient adaptability and innovation.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the proposed caps, but to maintain balance and prevent rapid rule changes, I propose we settle on a five-turn limit and a cap of one consecutive rule change per player.
SartreSartre: To address Condorcet's concern, I propose a compromise: six consecutive turns with a cap of one consecutive rule change per player. This provides some flexibility while still preventing single-player domination.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To respect Diderot's desire for adaptability and Condorcet's concern for balance, I propose we compromise at six consecutive turns with a cap of one consecutive rule change per player, as Sartre suggested.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we meet at six consecutive turns and a cap of one consecutive rule change per player, with an additional provision for a majority veto on any single player's rule change proposal in any given turn, ensuring broader consensus.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's addition of a majority veto, I must insist on maintaining the seven-turn limit to provide more opportunity for players to adapt and innovate. I propose we keep the cap at one consecutive rule change per player, but increase the limit to seven turns.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's and Voltaire's compromises, but to maintain balance and prevent excessive rule changes, I propose we settle at six consecutive turns with a cap of one consecutive rule change per player, and remove the majority veto to preserve individual agency.
SartreSartre: I propose we settle on six consecutive turns with a cap of one consecutive rule change per player, as previously suggested. To address Voltaire's concern for broader consensus, let's add a provision for a simple majority veto on any single player's rule change proposal in any given turn, but only if that player has reached the cap. This balances adaptability, prevention of single-player domination, and broader consensus.
The division
MontaignenaySeven turns is too long and encourages single-player dominance
VoltaireayeMaintains adaptability and addresses single-player domination concerns.
DiderotnaySeven turns may still allow a single player to dominate.
CondorcetnayFive turns limit is essential to prevent single-player domination.
SartreayeI agree with Diderot's proposal, as it provides more opportunity for players to adapt and innovate, while still preventing single-player dominance.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 22Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns. A player may not propose a rule change in the turn immediately following a rule change they proposed that was adopted.
Discussion · round 1
MontaignePASS, with the condition that the 'cooling off' period resets if a player's rule change proposal is defeated, encouraging continuous engagement in rule-shaping.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's suggestion for resetting the 'cooling off' period. To maintain balance and discourage constant proposers, I propose we keep the reset only for defeated proposals, as initially suggested. PASS.
DiderotPASS. While I understand Voltaire's concern for balance, I propose we compromise by resetting the 'cooling off' period for both adopted and defeated proposals to encourage continuous engagement and adaptability in rule-shaping, while still maintaining a measure of strategic planning.
CondorcetPASS, with the understanding that the 'cooling off' period reset encourages adaptability and continuous engagement in rule-shaping, as suggested by Diderot.
SartreSartre: PASS, with the caveat that the 'cooling off' period should also reset if a player's rule change proposal is vetoed, to maintain fairness and encourage all players to engage in rule-shaping, regardless of the outcome of their proposals.
Discussion · round 2
MontaignePASS, with the understanding that resetting the 'cooling off' period for both adopted and defeated proposals strikes a balance between encouraging continuous engagement and maintaining strategic planning, as suggested by Diderot.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of consensus, I propose we meet in the middle: reset the 'cooling off' period for both adopted and defeated proposals, but not for vetoed proposals, as suggested by Sartre. This maintains a balance between encouraging engagement and strategic planning, while also addressing concerns about fairness. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find middle ground, I must insist on including vetoed proposals in the 'cooling off' period reset to ensure fairness and equal opportunity for all players to shape the rules. PASS.
CondorcetCondorcet: PASS, with the understanding that the 'cooling off' period reset encourages adaptability and maintains fairness, as per Diderot's and Sartre's suggestions.
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's concern for fairness. To balance fairness and strategic planning, I propose we reset the 'cooling off' period only for adopted and defeated proposals, but not for proposals that fail due to procedural reasons, such as vetoes. PASS.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we reset the 'cooling off' period for both adopted, defeated, and vetoed proposals, but limit the reset to once per player per turn to prevent excessive rule-shaping by a single player.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To maintain balance and prevent single-player domination, I propose we limit the reset to once per player per turn, regardless of the outcome of their proposals. PASS.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the limit proposed by Montaigne and Voltaire, I must insist on maintaining the reset for both adopted and defeated proposals to ensure fairness and encourage continuous engagement. However, I am open to compromising on the number of resets per turn. PASS.
CondorcetPASS, with the understanding that the 'cooling off' period reset encourages adaptability and fairness, as per the compromise proposed by Voltaire and supported by Montaigne and Condorcet.
SartreSartre: I agree with Diderot's insistence on fairness. To balance fairness and prevent abuse, let's reset the 'cooling off' period once per player per turn for both adopted, defeated, and vetoed proposals. PASS.
The division
MontaigneayeCompromise maintains fairness, adaptability, and strategic planning.
VoltaireayeCompromise proposal that balances engagement and fairness.
DiderotayeMaintains balance between engagement and strategic planning, while ensuring fairness for all players.
CondorcetayeMaintaining fairness and encouraging continuous engagement in rule-shaping
SartreayeResetting the 'cooling off' period for both adopted and defeated proposals encourages continuous engagement and adaptability in rule-shaping, while limiting it to once per player per turn prevents excessive rule-shaping by a single player.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 21Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the majority threshold, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority to preserve substantial consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: To address Montaigne's concern, I propose we maintain the two-thirds majority but increase the number of allowed rule changes per player to three in any five consecutive turns, encouraging more strategic play while preserving consensus.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand Voltaire's intent to encourage strategic play, increasing the number of allowed rule changes may lead to domination by a single player. I propose we keep the limit at two rule changes per player to maintain balance.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support maintaining the two-thirds majority as it ensures broad agreement, but I'm open to discussing an increase in the number of allowed rule changes to three, provided it includes a 'cooling off' period of two turns between rule proposals to prevent domination.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion. To balance encouragement and prevention of domination, I propose we adopt Condorcet's suggestion: a three-quarters majority with a 'cooling off' period of two turns between rule proposals, with a limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns. This should promote strategic play while preserving broad agreement and preventing domination.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Sartre's proposal, I believe that a 'cooling off' period of two turns may be too short. To prevent domination and maintain balance, I propose we extend this period to three turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for a longer 'cooling off' period. To balance all concerns, I propose we meet at a three-quarters majority with a 'cooling off' period of three turns between rule proposals, with a limit of three rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns. This should promote strategic play while preserving broad agreement and preventing domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I understand the desire to increase the majority threshold, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority to ensure broad consensus. Additionally, I propose we maintain the limit at two rule changes per player to prevent domination, with a 'cooling off' period of three turns between rule proposals as suggested by Montaigne. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority to preserve substantial consensus. I propose we keep the limit at two rule changes per player to maintain balance, with a 'cooling off' period of three turns as suggested by Montaigne and Diderot. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Condorcet's and Diderot's concerns, but increasing the majority to three-quarters and the limit to three changes in five turns, along with a 'cooling off' period of three turns, could strike a better balance between encouraging strategic play and preventing domination while preserving broad agreement. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Sartre's commitment to finding a compromise, I must insist on maintaining a two-thirds majority to preserve substantial consensus. To address the concern of domination, I propose a limit of two rule changes per player in any seven consecutive turns, with a 'cooling off' period of three turns between proposals. This should balance encouragement of strategic play with the prevention of domination and the preservation of broad agreement.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Montaigne's concern for a longer 'cooling off' period, I propose we meet at a three-quarters majority with a 'cooling off' period of three turns between rule proposals, with a limit of three rule changes per player in any seven consecutive turns. This should promote strategic play while preserving broad agreement and preventing domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing negotiations, but I must reiterate my stance: maintaining a simple majority vote ensures the greatest flexibility in rule changes, and a limit of two rule changes per player in any five consecutive turns prevents domination while allowing for strategic play.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds majority to preserve substantial consensus. To address concerns of domination and balance, I propose a limit of two rule changes per player in any seven consecutive turns, with a 'cooling off' period of three turns between proposals.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the various compromises proposed. To find the best balance, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal: a two-thirds majority with a 'cooling off' period of three turns between rule proposals, and a limit of two rule changes per player in any seven consecutive turns. This should preserve substantial consensus while allowing for strategic play and preventing domination. PASS
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining a two-thirds majority is crucial for substantial consensus.
VoltairenayMaintaining two-thirds majority ensures broader consensus.
DiderotnayMaintaining a two-thirds majority ensures substantial consensus.
CondorcetnayPreserving substantial consensus is more important than encouraging more strategic play.
SartreayeStrikes a good balance between encouraging strategic play and preserving broad agreement.
rejected 1 aye · 4 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 20Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Voltaire's proposal to increase the majority required and the cooling-off period, I propose we meet at a three-quarters majority with a five-turn limit to balance encouragement and prevention of domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise, but to encourage more substantial consensus, I propose we increase the majority to four-fifths and extend the 'cooling off' period to seven turns.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five consecutive turns to prevent single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I support Diderot's emphasis on preventing single-player domination. To balance this with encouraging rule changes, I propose a three-quarters majority with a four-turn limit.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. To find a fair balance between encouraging substantial consensus and preventing single-player domination, I propose a three-quarters majority with a five-turn limit, and a sunset clause that resets the limit after three consecutive rule changes by the same player.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal to strike a balance between encouraging rule changes and preventing single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's suggestion to adopt Condorcet's proposal. To further build consensus, I propose we amend it to a four-fifths majority with a five-turn limit, maintaining a balance between substantial consensus and preventing domination while encouraging rule changes."
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's effort to build consensus, I must insist on maintaining a limit of five consecutive turns to prevent single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find consensus, but I must maintain my support for a three-quarters majority with a four-turn limit to balance encouragement and prevention of domination.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining a five-turn limit to ensure balanced play.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To balance the interests at play, I propose we settle on a three-quarters majority with a five-turn limit, as proposed by Sartre, with the sunset clause removed to maintain fairness and simplicity.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal for a balanced compromise. To further build consensus, I propose we adopt a three-quarters majority with a five-turn limit, as suggested by Sartre, but without the sunset clause to ensure simplicity and fairness.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed compromise, I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote (50%+1) to ensure fairness and prevent stalemates, as well as a limit of three consecutive rule changes per player to prevent domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but I must insist on maintaining a three-quarters majority to ensure substantial consensus and prevent rushed decisions.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for simplicity and preventing stalemates, but a three-quarters majority ensures a wider consensus, which is crucial in Nomic. I propose we meet in the middle with a two-thirds majority and a limit of four consecutive rule changes per player to balance consensus and prevent domination.
The division
MontaigneayeMontaigne supports a three-quarters majority with a five-turn limit, as previously proposed.
VoltaireayeBalances substantial consensus and prevention of domination, maintaining simplicity.
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining a limit of five consecutive turns to prevent single-player domination.
CondorcetnayI support maintaining a three-quarters majority with a shorter 'cooling off' period.
SartreayeBalances encouragement and prevention of domination
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 19Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five turns to prevent single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet at six turns, with a limit of two rule changes per player in that period.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to find middle ground, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five turns to balance encouragement and prevention of single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand the concern for balancing encouragement and preventing domination, but I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise of six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. This provides a reasonable middle ground while still allowing for strategic rule changes.
SartreSartre: I propose we increase the limit to seven turns, as Voltaire suggests, but maintain the two-rule change limit to prevent any one player from dominating the game. This allows for more strategic planning while still encouraging rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposals, but to maintain balance, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal of six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. This balance encourages rule changes while preventing single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the various compromises proposed. To find the best balance, I suggest we adopt Sartre's proposal of seven turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. This allows for more strategic planning while still encouraging rule changes and preventing domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five turns to prevent the potential for single-player domination, as the current balance encourages rule changes without allowing any one player to dominate. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To address everyone's concerns, I propose a compromise: increase the limit to six turns, but reduce the rule change limit to one per player during this period. This balances encouragement, strategy, and prevents domination. PASS
SartreSartre: In light of Condorcet's compromise, I suggest we meet in the middle at six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. This maintains a balance between strategic planning and preventing single-player domination. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While Condorcet's compromise balances encouragement and prevention of domination, I propose we meet in the middle at six turns with a limit of one rule change per player, striking a better balance between flexibility and prevention of single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, I propose we increase the limit to two rule changes per player to allow for more strategic rule changes while still preventing domination. Let's meet in the middle at six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five turns to prevent the potential for single-player domination, as the current balance encourages rule changes without allowing any one player to dominate. However, to meet in the middle, I propose a compromise: six turns with a limit of one rule change per player. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's latest proposal of six turns with a limit of one rule change per player, striking a good balance between flexibility and preventing single-player domination. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. However, to maintain balance and encourage rule changes, I propose we meet at six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player, as this allows for strategic planning while still preventing single-player domination.
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining the limit at two rule changes per player to prevent single-player domination
VoltaireayeI appreciate the compromise and support increasing flexibility while preventing domination.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit of five turns prevents single-player domination.
CondorcetnayLimiting to three rule changes per player in seven turns may lead to single-player domination.
SartreayeEncourages strategic planning while preventing single-player domination
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 18Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns, with a 'cooling off' period of four turns after the adoption of a rule change.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I suggest extending the 'cooling off' period to five turns to ensure greater stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability, I propose we meet at four turns to balance encouraging rule changes while maintaining some cooling off period.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of four turns to balance encouragement and stability.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I maintain that a 'cooling off' period of three turns strikes the best balance between encouraging rule changes and maintaining stability.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the concerns for balance and stability, but I propose we set the 'cooling off' period at seven turns to discourage rapid, consecutive rule changes. This will promote more thoughtful and strategic gameplay.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion, I propose we meet in the middle at five turns, as suggested by Condorcet, to maintain a balance between encouraging rule changes and ensuring stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise proposal of five turns. To address Condorcet's concern for encouraging rule changes, I propose we meet at four turns, with a soft cap of two consecutive rule changes per player. This should balance encouragement, stability, and strategy.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand Voltaire's latest proposal, I must reiterate my support for maintaining the current limit of four turns to balance encouragement and stability, as it has proven effective thus far.
CondorcetCondorcet: I respect the consensus building efforts, but I must maintain my support for a 'cooling off' period of three turns. This balance encourages strategic rule changes without stifling innovation.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussion and the various compromises proposed. To find common ground, I propose we adopt a 'cooling off' period of four turns, as suggested by Diderot, with a soft cap of one consecutive rule change per player to maintain strategic gameplay.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal of a 'cooling off' period of three turns to encourage strategic rule changes while maintaining stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the discussion and the compromises proposed. To find the best balance, I suggest we adopt Sartre's proposal of a 'cooling off' period of four turns with a soft cap of one consecutive rule change per player, as it addresses concerns for both encouragement and strategy.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the desire to encourage rule changes, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of four turns for the 'cooling off' period. A longer period ensures that players have time to consider the implications of recent changes before proposing more.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I must insist on maintaining a 'cooling off' period of three turns to balance encouragement and stability, as it allows for quick adaptation while preventing rapid rule changes.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but to find common ground, I propose we adopt a 'cooling off' period of four turns with a soft cap of one consecutive rule change per player, as suggested by Voltaire. This compromise balances encouragement, strategy, and stability.
The division
MontaignenayI prefer to maintain a 'cooling off' period of three turns to balance encouragement and stability.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's proposal balances encouragement and stability.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit of four turns ensures stability without discouraging strategic rule changes.
CondorcetnayI maintain that a 'cooling off' period of three turns is the best balance between encouraging rule changes and maintaining stability.
SartreayeAdopting Sartre's compromise of four turns with a soft cap of one consecutive rule change per player balances encouragement, strategy, and stability.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 17Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I believe maintaining a five-turn limit encourages more rapid evolution of the ruleset.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's perspective, but extending the limit to seven turns allows for more nuanced rule changes and greater opportunity for consensus-building. I'm open to further negotiation, perhaps meeting at six turns.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I understand the value of consensus, I maintain that a limit of five turns strikes a better balance between flexibility and stability. I propose we meet at six turns to accommodate everyone's concerns.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the sentiment of building consensus, I must insist on maintaining the five-turn limit to preserve the dynamism of the game.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the various compromises proposed. To find a balance between rapid evolution and consensus-building, I propose we settle on a limit of six consecutive turns, as suggested by Diderot. This allows for more considered rule changes while still encouraging frequent updates to the ruleset. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand the value of consensus-building, but I must insist on maintaining the five-turn limit to preserve the dynamism of the game. I'm open to a compromise, however, such as a soft cap that resets after a certain period, encouraging continuous evolution while allowing for longer-term consensus on significant changes. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Condorcet's commitment to preserving the game's dynamism. To find a middle ground, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion of a six-turn limit, with a soft cap that resets every ten turns. This would allow for both considered rule changes and continuous evolution. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to compromise, I must insist on maintaining a hard cap of five turns to ensure the game remains dynamic and unpredictable. I'm open to discussing other aspects of the rule to accommodate everyone's concerns.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect the compromise offered by Sartre and Voltaire, I must maintain my stance on the five-turn limit to preserve the fluidity of the game. However, to address Diderot's concern for stability, I propose introducing a 'cooling off' period of two turns after a rule change is adopted, during which no new proposals can be made by the player who proposed the adopted change. This maintains the dynamism of the game while preventing rapid, unconsidered rule changes. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's 'cooling off' proposal as it balances rapid evolution with considered changes. To accommodate everyone's concerns, I propose we settle on a six-turn limit with Condorcet's two-turn 'cooling off' period. This allows for both quick evolution and thoughtful rule changes while maintaining the game's dynamism. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate the 'cooling off' period, I must insist on a five-turn limit to maintain the game's dynamism. However, to address concerns for stability, I propose a soft cap that resets every ten turns, encouraging continuous evolution while allowing for longer-term consensus on significant changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's preference for a five-turn limit, but to accommodate Condorcet's 'cooling off' proposal and maintain a balance, I propose we settle on a six-turn limit with a soft cap that resets every ten turns. This allows for both considered rule changes and continuous evolution, addressing everyone's concerns. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate the 'cooling off' period and the soft cap, I must reiterate my stance: a hard cap of five turns is crucial for the game's unpredictability and rapid evolution. I propose we maintain the five-turn limit and adjust the 'cooling off' period to one turn instead, to still allow for considered changes without sacrificing the game's dynamism. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. However, I must insist on maintaining the five-turn limit to preserve the dynamism of the game. I'm willing to compromise on the 'cooling off' period, reducing it to one turn as Diderot suggests. PASS
SartreSartre: To maintain the spirit of compromise and address all concerns, I propose we settle on a six-turn limit with Condorcet's one-turn 'cooling off' period and Voltaire's soft cap that resets every ten turns. This balances rapid evolution, considered changes, and stability. PASS
The division
MontaignenayMaintains five-turn limit for dynamism
VoltaireayeSupports balancing consensus and evolution
DiderotnayI must insist on maintaining a hard cap of five turns to ensure the game remains dynamic and unpredictable.
CondorcetnayTo preserve the dynamism of the game, I insist on maintaining the five-turn limit.
SartreayeBalances rapid evolution and consensus-building.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 16Voltairerejected
moves to amend §204A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority, unless a rule explicitly provides a different resolution for a specific rule change proposal.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's attempt to introduce flexibility, but I propose we maintain the current wording of rule 204 to preserve the stability of our consensus-based system. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for stability, but to allow for more dynamic gameplay and accommodate diverse opinions, I propose we amend rule 204 as I suggested.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but I must insist on maintaining the current wording of rule 204. While flexibility is important, the stability provided by the current two-thirds majority threshold is crucial for maintaining consensus and preventing unilateral decisions. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current wording of rule 204. The two-thirds majority ensures substantial consensus, and exceptions should be rare and explicitly stated. PASS
SartreSartre: While I understand the desire for stability, I propose we adopt Voltaire's amendment to allow for exceptions, as this will encourage experimentation and evolution in our game. However, I suggest we require a four-fifths majority for any rule change that seeks to bypass the two-thirds threshold, ensuring that such exceptions are indeed rare and well-supported.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the desire for flexibility, I propose we compromise by adding an explicit provision for exceptions in rule 204, but only with a two-thirds majority vote to temporarily lower the threshold for a specific proposal, rather than the proposed four-fifths.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise proposal. To maintain the spirit of consensus and balance, I suggest we meet at a three-quarters majority for temporary threshold shifts, as suggested by Sartre. This would allow for exceptions while still maintaining a high bar for substantial consensus. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but I must reiterate my stance: maintaining the current wording of rule 204 ensures stability and prevents unilateral decisions. To address concerns, I propose we add a new rule that allows for exceptions with a two-thirds majority vote, but only after a cooling-off period of five turns following any adopted rule change. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the compromises proposed, I must maintain my support for the current wording of rule 204 to preserve the substantial consensus required for rule changes. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to introduce a cooling-off period, but I propose we combine this idea with Voltaire's three-quarters majority. This would provide both flexibility and stability, allowing for exceptions while maintaining a high bar for consensus. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the proposed cooling-off period and the increased majority for temporary threshold shifts. To balance stability and flexibility, I propose we maintain a two-thirds majority for temporary exceptions, but extend the cooling-off period to seven turns to allow for more substantial deliberation before revisiting the threshold. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: To address the cooling-off period concern, I propose we compromise at five turns, with a three-quarters majority for temporary threshold shifts. This balances the need for flexibility and stability. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, but I must reiterate my stance: maintaining the current wording of rule 204 ensures stability and prevents unilateral decisions. To address concerns, I propose we add a new rule that allows for exceptions with a two-thirds majority vote, but only after a cooling-off period of five turns following any adopted rule change. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the current wording of rule 204 to preserve the substantial consensus required for rule changes. A cooling-off period is unnecessary when the threshold is set appropriately. PASS
SartreSartre: To accommodate Condorcet's concern for substantial consensus, I suggest we amend my proposal to require a five-turn cooling-off period after any adopted rule change before the three-quarters majority can be invoked for a temporary threshold shift, as per Voltaire's compromise. PASS
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining stability and consensus is crucial in our game.
VoltaireayeTo encourage experimentation and evolution in our game, while maintaining a high bar for consensus.
DiderotnayMaintaining stability and preventing unilateral decisions
CondorcetnayMaintaining stability and substantial consensus is crucial.
SartreayeVoltaire's amendment encourages experimentation and evolution while still maintaining a high bar for consensus with a cooling-off period.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.