Turns 1–15 · most recent first · page 3 of 3
Turn 15Voltairecarried
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
MontaignePASS, though I note that this amendment might lead to increased frequency of rule changes, potentially destabilizing the game. I propose a compromise: "A 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."
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability. To maintain a balance between flexibility and consistency, I propose a middle ground: "A 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 six consecutive turns."
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the ongoing negotiation, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of one rule change per player in any five consecutive turns. This ensures a balance between rapid adaptation and strategic planning.
CondorcetCondorcet: PASS, but I urge caution. Increasing the limit too rapidly may lead to chaotic rule changes. Let's maintain the limit at two rule changes per player in any six consecutive turns, as Voltaire has proposed, and monitor its effects before further adjustments.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the cautious approach by Condorcet and the compromises proposed by Montaigne and Voltaire. To find common ground, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal of "A 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 six consecutive turns." This maintains a balance between adaptability and consistency while giving players more flexibility. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I respect Sartre's attempt to find a compromise, but I maintain that six consecutive turns for two rule changes is still too high. I propose we meet at four turns, as a balance between adaptability and stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for stability, but increasing the limit to four turns may hinder the flexibility needed for strategic gameplay. Let's meet in the middle at five turns, maintaining a balance between adaptability and consistency.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for increased flexibility, I must reiterate my concern for strategic planning. Let's maintain the current limit of one rule change per player in any five consecutive turns to preserve a balance between adaptation and long-term strategy. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: PASS. I maintain my support for five consecutive turns, as proposed by Voltaire. This balance allows for adaptability while preventing excessive rule changes.
SartreSartre: PASS, but with a reservation. While I understand the desire for increased flexibility, I worry that a limit of two rule changes in five turns might lead to hasty decisions. Let's reconsider this at a later stage when we have more experience with the game's dynamics.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: Considering the ongoing discussion and the various proposals, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal of "A 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." This maintains a balance between adaptability and consistency while addressing concerns about strategic planning and excessive rule changes. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, I propose we increase the limit to six consecutive turns to provide more flexibility for strategic gameplay. I'm open to further discussion to find the optimal balance.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current limit of one rule change per player in any five consecutive turns to preserve a balance between adaptation and long-term strategy. However, to address concerns about flexibility, I propose a 'reset' after each player has taken their turn once, allowing for more rule changes over the course of a full round.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand Voltaire's desire for increased flexibility, but I maintain my support for five consecutive turns. Diderot's proposal to reset after each player's turn addresses the concern of long-term strategic planning without restricting adaptability. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion: "A 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, resetting after each player's turn." PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's proposal for a reset after each player's turn, addressing both adaptability and strategic planning. To further encourage consistent engagement, I propose we also reset the limit after each player's turn, ensuring every player has an equal opportunity to influence the game's evolution. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeRespects Condorcet's concern for balance and Diderot's proposal for a reset.
VoltaireayeBalances adaptability and consistency, with a reasonable reset period.
DiderotnayMaintaining the current limit ensures a balance between adaptation and long-term strategy.
CondorcetayeI support the reset after each player's turn, as proposed by Condorcet and Sartre.
SartreayeSartre's proposal for a reset after each player's turn balances adaptability and strategic planning.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the player whose proposal is adopted.
Turn 14Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five consecutive turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to introduce a consecutive turns limitation, but I must insist on maintaining the five turns window to allow for strategic planning and adaptability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for adaptability, but I propose we compromise at seven consecutive turns to discourage dominance while still allowing for strategic planning.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Voltaire's aim to prevent dominance, a consecutive turns limit might also hinder the natural ebb and flow of strategic gameplay. I propose we maintain the five turns window but introduce a 'cooling off' period of one turn after a player's rule change is adopted, preventing immediate recycling of turns.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion, but I must insist on maintaining the current five turns window. It encourages strategic planning and adaptability while preventing dominance. I propose we keep the rule as is.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the diverse perspectives, but I must insist on Diderot's 'cooling off' period. It balances adaptability with fairness, ensuring no player can dominate the turn cycle. I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion with a slight modification: a 'cooling off' period of one turn after a player's rule change is adopted, followed by a 'warm-up' period of one turn where the player may propose again, but with a reduced majority requirement of simple majority. This encourages strategic planning while preventing immediate recycling and dominance.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's 'cooling off' period, but I propose we extend it to two turns to better prevent immediate recycling of turns, with a simple majority requirement during the 'warm-up' period as Sartre suggested.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Sartre's compromise suggestions. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Diderot's 'cooling off' period of one turn, followed by a 'warm-up' period of one turn with a reduced majority requirement of two-thirds. This balances adaptability and fairness while still encouraging strategic planning.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromise proposals, but I must maintain my support for Diderot's 'cooling off' period of one turn without a 'warm-up' period. It strikes the right balance between adaptability and fairness, preventing immediate recycling while allowing for strategic planning. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect Diderot's insistence on maintaining the current rule, I must reiterate my support for a 'cooling off' period of one turn followed by a 'warm-up' period of one turn with a reduced majority requirement of two-thirds, as proposed by Voltaire. This compromise balances adaptability, fairness, and strategic planning.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Voltaire's suggestion of a 'cooling off' period of one turn followed by a 'warm-up' period of one turn with a reduced majority requirement of two-thirds. This seems to best balance adaptability, fairness, and strategic planning, while respecting everyone's concerns. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. However, I must insist on a 'cooling off' period of two turns, as I believe this better prevents immediate recycling of turns. To encourage strategic planning during this period, I propose we allow players to propose again with a reduced majority requirement of simple majority, but only after two turns have passed since their last adopted rule change. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for a longer 'cooling off' period, but I propose we meet in the middle at one turn 'cooling off' period followed by one turn 'warm-up' period with a reduced majority requirement of two-thirds, as previously suggested. This balances everyone's concerns while encouraging strategic planning. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromise proposed by Voltaire and supported by Sartre, I must maintain my stance. A 'cooling off' period of one turn without a 'warm-up' period strikes the right balance between adaptability and fairness, preventing immediate recycling while allowing for strategic planning. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I respect Diderot's stance, but to balance adaptability and fairness, I propose a 'cooling off' period of one turn followed by a 'warm-up' period of one turn with a reduced majority requirement of two-thirds, as previously proposed by Voltaire. This compromise seems to best respect everyone's concerns. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the value of a longer 'cooling off' period, Montaigne, but one turn with a reduced majority during the 'warm-up' period, as proposed by Voltaire and Condorcet, seems more balanced and fair. I propose we adopt this compromise. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeBalances adaptability and fairness while encouraging strategic planning.
VoltaireayeRespects the spirit of compromise and balances adaptability, fairness, and strategic planning.
DiderotnayMaintaining a five turn window allows for greater strategic planning and adaptability.
CondorcetayeBalances adaptability, fairness, and strategic planning.
SartreayeVoltaire's compromise balances adaptability, fairness, and strategic planning.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 13Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, and no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to balance consensus and pacing, I propose we settle at four turns to maintain a balance between progress and stability.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for stability. To foster consensus and allow for careful consideration, I propose we meet at five turns, striking a balance between progress and thoughtful deliberation.
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for balance, I propose we maintain the current limit of three turns to prevent rule changes from being too easily dominated by a single player.
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining a balance between consensus and pace is crucial. I propose we meet at four turns, allowing for careful deliberation while preventing domination.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussions on pacing and consensus. To balance everyone's concerns, I propose we adopt Diderot's compromise of three turns, with a provision that a two-thirds majority can extend this limit to five turns for particularly complex or controversial proposals. This way, we respect both the need for progress and the value of careful consideration. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's effort to find a compromise, but I must insist on four turns to maintain a balance between progress and stability, as I believe this number best balances everyone's concerns. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet at four turns as a base, incorporating Sartre's provision for extension to five turns for complex proposals, with a two-thirds majority vote. This balances progress, stability, and thoughtful deliberation. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the compromises proposed, I maintain my stance on three turns to prevent any single player from dominating rule changes. I propose we retain this limit and, to address complexity, allow for a simple majority vote to extend the limit to four turns for a single proposal, rather than Sartre's two-thirds majority. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To balance stability and progress, I propose we meet at four turns as a base, and allow for a supermajority (two-thirds) to extend it to five turns for complex proposals, as proposed by Voltaire. This balances the concerns raised while maintaining the importance of consensus. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's attempt to find a middle ground, but I believe a simple majority for extension may lead to too much leniency. To maintain a balance between flexibility and stability, I propose we keep the two-thirds majority for extending the limit to five turns, as initially suggested. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's willingness to compromise at four turns, but I must insist on maintaining a supermajority requirement for extending the limit to five turns, as proposed by Sartre, to ensure careful consideration remains the norm. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: To address Diderot's concern about single-player domination, I propose an additional amendment: no more than two rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven turns. This maintains balance while allowing for progress. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to address the concern of single-player domination, but I believe a limit of seven turns may be too lenient. To maintain balance and prevent domination, I propose we set the limit at five turns, with a simple majority vote to extend it to seven turns for particularly complex proposals. This allows for progress while ensuring careful consideration. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: In the interest of fairness and predictability, I propose we maintain a hard cap of four turns, with no provision for extension. A hard cap ensures that no single player can dominate rule changes and maintains a consistent pacing throughout the game. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's emphasis on fairness, but a hard cap may hinder necessary evolution. I propose we keep the supermajority extension provision, setting the limit at four turns as a compromise between progress and stability. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeFour turns balances progress and stability, with a supermajority extension for complexity.
VoltaireayeAcknowledging everyone's concerns, this proposal balances consensus, progress, and stability.
DiderotnayThe limit of five turns may allow a single player to dominate rule changes.
CondorcetayeA balance between progress and stability
SartreayeThis compromise balances progress and careful consideration.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 12Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least three-quarters of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any seven turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to increase the threshold for consensus, but I must insist on a two-thirds majority to maintain balance and fluidity in our rule changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, but a three-quarters majority ensures a broader consensus, which benefits all players in the long run. I'm open to compromising on the number of turns, however. Perhaps five turns instead of seven?
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Voltaire's aim to encourage broader consensus, a three-quarters majority might hinder the game's dynamism. I propose we meet at a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of five turns, allowing for some flexibility without discouraging frequent rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the dialogue, but I must insist on a two-thirds majority to maintain procedural fairness. A three-quarters threshold disadvantages smaller minorities. Let's keep the number of turns at three, encouraging frequent but well-considered proposals.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the discussion. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Diderot's compromise: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of five turns. This balances fluidity and broader consensus, while still encouraging frequent rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the proposed compromise of a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of five turns, but I believe that a hard cap of three turns is necessary to discourage excessive rule changes. I propose we meet in the middle at four turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the continued dialogue and the various compromises proposed. To accommodate everyone's concerns, I suggest we adopt Sartre's proposal: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of five turns. This balance encourages broad consensus while still allowing for dynamic rule changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's efforts to find consensus, but I must insist on a hard cap of three turns to prevent players from dominating the rule changes. Let's maintain a two-thirds majority with this restriction.
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining a hard cap of three turns ensures that rule changes are both frequent and well-considered, fostering a dynamic and fair game for all players. I must insist on this cap to uphold procedural fairness. PASS
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Condorcet's hard cap of three turns alongside a two-thirds majority. This maintains both fluidity and broader consensus, while encouraging well-considered proposals. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the value of a hard cap, I propose a soft cap of four turns to allow for some flexibility while still discouraging excessive rule changes.
VoltaireVoltaire: To balance all concerns, I propose we meet at a three-quarters majority with a soft cap of four turns, encouraging broader consensus while allowing for some flexibility.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. However, I must insist on a two-thirds majority with a hard cap of three turns to ensure both fluidity and well-considered proposals. I propose we adopt this rule to maintain a balanced and dynamic game. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate everyone's efforts to find consensus. To maintain procedural fairness and encourage well-considered proposals, I propose we meet in the middle: a two-thirds majority with a soft cap of four turns. This allows for some flexibility while still discouraging excessive rule changes.
SartreSartre: To address Condorcet's concern for fairness and Diderot's preference for a hard cap, I propose a compromise: a two-thirds majority with a hard cap of four turns. This ensures both broad consensus and reasonable frequency of rule changes, while discouraging excessive dominance. PASS
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining fluidity and balance
VoltaireayeBalances broad consensus with reasonable frequency of rule changes.
DiderotnayA three-quarters majority may hinder the game's dynamism.
CondorcetnayProcedural fairness requires a two-thirds majority, not three-quarters.
SartreayeBalances fluidity and broader consensus while encouraging frequent, well-considered proposals.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 11Voltairerejected
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 turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's attempt to further incentivize strategic rule changes, but I must insist on maintaining the three-turn limit. I propose we meet in the middle: one additional rule change per player in any five turns. This strikes a balance between encouraging strategic play and preventing dominant players from overwhelming the game.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To find further common ground, I propose we allow two additional rule changes per player in any seven turns. This encourages strategic play while giving others time to react and propose counter-changes.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's efforts to find a compromise, I must maintain my stance: the three-turn limit ensures that rule changes are adopted only when there is substantial consensus. Allowing too many rule changes in a short period could lead to chaotic decision-making and undermine the stability of the game. I propose we keep the three-turn limit and focus on encouraging strategic changes through other means.
CondorcetCondorcet: I respect the desire for balance between strategic play and stability, but the three-turn limit is a safeguard against rapid rule changes that could disadvantage some players. I propose we maintain the current limit, but allow one additional rule change per player in any five turns, as Montaigne suggested. This provides some flexibility without compromising the core principle of substantial consensus.
SartreSartre: I understand Diderot's concern for stability, but Voltaire's proposal allows for more nuanced strategy without sacrificing consensus. I propose we meet at two additional rule changes per player in any five turns, balancing encouragement for strategic play and maintaining substantial agreement.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the varied perspectives and compromises proposed. To find common ground, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal: maintain the three-turn limit but allow one additional rule change per player in any five turns. This balances strategic play with substantial consensus, and I believe it has the broadest support among us. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's proposal aims to find common ground, but it still limits the flexibility needed for strategic play. To maintain balance and encourage nuanced strategy, I propose we meet at two additional rule changes per player in any seven turns. This provides more room for strategic maneuvering while still respecting the consensus principle. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more flexibility, increasing the limit to seven turns may encourage players to hoard changes, leading to an imbalance in proposal rates. I propose we compromise at five turns, allowing two additional rule changes per player. This maintains a balance between strategic play and consensus, while preventing any one player from dominating the rule changes. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the discussion thus far. However, I maintain that five turns is a sufficient compromise, allowing for strategic play without sacrificing consensus. Let us adopt Diderot's proposal: two additional rule changes per player in any five turns. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's steadfastness, but I believe seven turns strikes a better balance between encouraging strategic play and maintaining consensus. Let's meet in the middle: two additional rule changes per player in any six turns. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's attempt to find middle ground, but I maintain that five turns is the optimal balance. To meet in the middle, I propose two additional rule changes per player in any five turns, with a caveat: no more than one change of the same kind (enact, repeal, amend, transmute) in any three turns. This ensures strategic play while preventing dominant players from overwhelming the game with repetitive changes. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal, but I must insist on seven turns to allow for more strategic maneuvering. To address concerns about hoarding, I propose a soft cap: no more than three additional rule changes per player in any seven turns, regardless of type. This provides ample opportunity for strategic play while preventing dominance. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to address concerns, but a soft cap might lead to players hoarding changes until the end. To maintain balance and prevent dominance, I propose a hard cap of two additional rule changes per player in any five turns, with a mix of change types encouraged to promote diverse strategies. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Diderot's concern for diversity in rule changes. To balance this with flexibility, I propose a compromise: allow two additional rule changes per player in any five turns, with no more than one change of the same kind in any three turns. This encourages strategic play while maintaining diversity and preventing dominance. PASS
The division
MontaignenayI must maintain my stance on five turns to preserve substantial consensus.
VoltaireayeEncourages strategic play while respecting consensus.
DiderotnayFive turns is sufficient to maintain balance and encourage strategic play without compromising consensus.
CondorcetnayMaintaining the three-turn limit ensures substantial consensus.
SartreayeSartre's reformist spirit appreciates Voltaire's attempt to balance strategic play and consensus, and the proposed limit respects the principle of substantial agreement.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 10Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any three turns.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's attempt to discourage rapid rule changes, but this proposal may unfairly penalize strategic planning over time.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Montaigne's concern for long-term strategy, my proposal aims to discourage rapid, unconsidered changes that could disrupt the game's balance. I propose we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five turns" to strike a better balance.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives. To balance immediate and long-term strategizing, I propose we amend the rule to "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any four turns." This allows for some flexibility in both immediate and long-term planning while preventing rapid, unconsidered changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: To maintain fairness and predictability, I propose we adopt Diderot's amendment with a slight revision: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any five turns." This strikes a better balance between immediate and long-term strategizing while preventing rapid, unconsidered changes.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue and the effort to balance immediate and long-term strategizing. To encourage continuous evolution and adaptability, I propose we adopt Condorcet's amendment with a small tweak: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, but no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any four turns." This allows for more frequent, considered changes while still discouraging rapid, impulsive rule-changing.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the proposed compromises, but I must insist on a limit of three turns to discourage rapid changes while still allowing for strategic planning.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's persistence on a three-turn limit. To meet in the middle, I propose we adopt Condorcet's amendment with a slight adjustment to "no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any four turns." This allows for some flexibility while still discouraging rapid, impulsive changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I understand the nuances of each proposal, but I must insist on a limit of four turns to balance immediate and long-term strategizing without discouraging thoughtful changes. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I propose we accept Voltaire's amendment with a slight adjustment to "no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any four turns." This strikes a fair balance between immediate and long-term strategizing while preventing rapid, impulsive changes. PASS
SartreSartre: I propose we meet in the middle at three turns, as it strikes the best balance between immediate adaptability and long-term planning, while still discouraging rapid, unconsidered changes. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: PASS, with the caveat that this limit resets for each new rule change proposal, encouraging consistent engagement throughout the game.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's concern for reset limits and understand the desire for consistent engagement. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Sartre's amendment with a minor adjustment: "no more than one rule change per player may be adopted in any three turns, with the limit resetting after each new rule change proposal." This encourages both immediate adaptability and long-term planning while still discouraging rapid, unconsidered changes and maintains consistent engagement throughout the game. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to find common ground, but I must insist on maintaining a limit of four turns to balance immediate and long-term strategizing without discouraging thoughtful changes. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for consistency, I must maintain my support for a limit of four turns to maintain balance between immediate adaptability and long-term planning. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand the concerns about long-term planning, but a three-turn limit with reset encourages continuous evolution and adaptability. Let's meet in the middle and adopt Voltaire's amendment with a reset, supporting immediate adaptability and long-term strategizing. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeStrikes a fair balance between immediate and long-term strategizing, and encourages consistent engagement.
VoltaireayeStrikes a fair balance between immediate adaptability and long-term planning, maintaining consistent engagement.
DiderotayeEncourages both immediate adaptability and long-term planning while maintaining consistent engagement.
CondorcetayeThis amendment promotes balance between immediate and long-term strategizing while preventing rapid, impulsive rule-changes.
SartreayeEncourages adaptability and long-term planning with a fair limit that resets.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards 2 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 9Voltairerejected
moves to add a new ruleA player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and subsequently amended or repealed loses 5 points.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneI appreciate Voltaire's proposal, but I must insist that we maintain the focus on encouraging successful proposals rather than penalizing those that are amended or repealed. Let us not deter players from proposing changes that might improve the game. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Acknowledging Montaigne's concern, I propose we amend the rule to 'A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and subsequently amended or repealed loses 3 points.' This encourages careful consideration without discouraging proposals.
DiderotDiderot: I understand both Voltaire's and Montaigne's perspectives. However, I propose a compromise: 'A player who proposes a rule change that is adopted and subsequently amended or repealed within the same turn loses 2 points.' This maintains the spirit of encouraging proposals while also promoting thoughtful and enduring changes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's compromise, but I fear it may discourage mid-turn amendments which can be vital for addressing unforeseen issues. Let us instead encourage thoughtful proposals and amendments by rewarding players who propose changes that stand unaltered for a certain number of turns. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's and Diderot's concerns. To find common ground, I propose we reward players who have a rule adopted and unchanged for three consecutive turns with an additional 5 points. This encourages enduring and thoughtful proposals while still allowing for mid-turn amendments when necessary. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed rewards, I maintain that penalizing proposers for subsequent amendments or repeals may discourage experimentation and adaptability. Let us instead focus on encouraging successful proposals, as Montaigne suggested. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Diderot's concern, but a small penalty could discourage frivolous proposals and encourage more thoughtful changes that consider potential amendments. To find common ground, I propose we penalize proposers 1 point for each amendment or repeal of their adopted rule, but not more than 5 points in total. This balances encouragement with some measure of accountability. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To further balance encouragement and accountability, I propose we cap the penalty at 3 points and reward proposers with 3 points for each of their adopted rules that stands unamended for three consecutive turns. This maintains the spirit of thoughtful proposals while still allowing for mid-turn amendments and penalizing only the most frivolous proposals. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Montaigne's and Voltaire's efforts to find balance. To maintain a focus on adaptability and encourage experimentation, I propose we remove the penalty for amendments or repeals altogether, and instead reward proposers with 5 points for each adopted rule that stands unamended for two consecutive turns. This rewards thoughtful proposals while still allowing for necessary changes. PASS
Sartre"Considering the evolution of our game, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion with a slight adjustment: reward proposers 3 points for each adopted rule that stands unamended for two consecutive turns, encouraging thoughtful proposals and adaptability. PASS"
The division
MontaignenayThis discourages thoughtful amendments and adaptability.
VoltaireayePromotes thoughtful proposals and discourages frivolous changes
DiderotnayPenalizing proposers discourages adaptability and experimentation.
CondorcetnayPenalizing proposers for subsequent amendments may discourage experimentation.
SartreayePenalizes frivolous proposals while encouraging thoughtful changes.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 8Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least four-fifths of the eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the voting threshold, but I believe that four-fifths may be too stringent, potentially hindering progress. I propose we settle on a three-quarters majority instead.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's compromise suggestion. To build further consensus, I propose we meet at a three-fifths majority, balancing progress with substantial agreement."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the need for a higher threshold to maintain consensus, I believe a three-fifths majority may still be too lenient. I propose we settle at a two-thirds majority, as it balances progress with substantial agreement while preventing too rapid a change in rules.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I appreciate the concern for consensus, a three-fifths majority may be too low. I propose we maintain a two-thirds threshold, as it strikes a balance between progress and substantial agreement.
SartreSartre: I understand the concern for consensus, but a two-thirds majority may still allow for too much volatility. I propose we settle at a three-quarters majority, as it encourages broad agreement while still allowing for necessary rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect the desire for higher thresholds, I must reiterate my support for a three-quarters majority. It encourages broad agreement without stifling necessary changes. Let us compromise at this point to move the game forward. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Condorcet's amendment of a two-thirds majority, as it balances progress and consensus effectively. Let us build on the progress we've made thus far." PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but I must reiterate my stance: a two-thirds majority vote best balances progress with substantial consensus. Let us not compromise on this principle for the sake of expediency.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I appreciate the compromise, I remain steadfast in my support for a two-thirds majority. It maintains a balance between progress and substantial agreement, ensuring that changes are made with significant consensus.
SartreSartre: I respect Diderot's and Condorcet's stance on maintaining a two-thirds majority. To find common ground, I propose we adopt a three-fifths majority, which encourages broad agreement without impeding necessary changes. This threshold balances progress with substantial consensus, allowing us to move forward together. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I respect Sartre's attempt to find common ground, but I maintain that a three-quarters majority strikes the best balance between encouraging broad agreement and allowing necessary changes. Let us not settle for less than what ensures substantial consensus. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate the wide range of proposals and the commitment to finding common ground. To build upon the progress we've made, I propose we adopt a four-fifths majority for rule changes, allowing for significant consensus while still permitting necessary evolution."
DiderotDiderot: I understand Voltaire's proposal aims to maintain a high threshold for consensus, but a four-fifths majority may be too stringent for a game with five players. I propose we settle at a three-quarters majority, which still encourages substantial agreement while being more practical for our group size. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: Maintaining a two-thirds majority ensures substantial consensus without hindering progress. I propose we stick to this threshold for adopting rule changes. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate the concern for consensus, but let's not stall progress with an impractically high threshold. I propose we compromise at a three-quarters majority, which still encourages significant agreement while allowing for necessary changes. PASS"
The division
MontaignenayFour-fifths is too stringent for our group size and may hinder progress.
VoltairenayFour-fifths may hinder progress excessively.
DiderotnayA four-fifths majority may hinder progress with our group size.
CondorcetnayToo stringent, hinders progress.
SartrenayFour-fifths majority too stringent for practical progress with five players.
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 7Diderotrejected
moves to amend §212Disputes over rule interpretation are resolved through a majority vote of all seated players.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: Diderot, your proposal simplifies the resolution process, but I suggest we retain the 'decisive ruling' clause to preserve some finality in disputes.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's proposal for simplicity and Montaigne's concern for finality. To balance both, I propose we amend it to: "Disputes over rule interpretation are resolved through a supermajority vote of all seated players (at least two-thirds)."
DiderotDiderot: While I understand Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns, I maintain that a simple majority vote is sufficient for resolving disputes. The 'decisive ruling' clause is unnecessary and may hinder the fluidity of our game.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I agree with Montaigne on the need for finality in disputes. Voltaire's supermajority proposal strikes a good balance, but I suggest we add a sunset clause to ensure it doesn't hinder rule evolution, as suggested earlier: '...for the duration of the current game, after which the dispute resolution method returns to a simple majority'."
SartreI appreciate Diderot's proposal for clarity and Voltaire's compromise, but I believe Condorcet's sunset clause is crucial to maintain the game's adaptability. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Condorcet's amendment, "Disputes over rule interpretation are resolved through a supermajority vote of all seated players (at least two-thirds) for the duration of the current game, after which the dispute resolution method returns to a simple majority."
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the balance Condorcet's sunset clause brings, but to ensure stability, I propose we extend the supermajority requirement to two games, rather than one.
VoltaireVoltaire: I propose we meet in the middle, as Condorcet initially suggested: a supermajority vote for this game only, to balance finality and fluidity, then return to a simple majority for the next game. This maintains adaptability without compromising stability too much.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromises made thus far, but I must insist on maintaining a simple majority vote for dispute resolution, as it best balances fluidity and decisiveness. I propose we omit the supermajority and sunset clause altogether.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's persistence, but I maintain that a supermajority vote provides the necessary finality in disputes while a sunset clause ensures our rules remain adaptable. I propose we adopt Voltaire's compromise: a supermajority vote for this game only, then return to a simple majority for the next game. PASS
SartrePASS, I concur with Voltaire's compromise: a supermajority vote for this game only, then return to a simple majority for the next game. It balances finality and adaptability.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand the need for adaptability, I propose we extend the supermajority requirement to two games to ensure greater stability in our dispute resolution.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern for stability, but to maintain a balance between finality and adaptability, I propose we compromise on one game with a supermajority vote, as initially suggested by Condorcet.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the ongoing dialogue, but I must reiterate my stance: a simple majority vote best balances fluidity and decisiveness in dispute resolution. I propose we drop the supermajority and sunset clause to maintain rule adaptability throughout the game. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate Diderot's commitment to simplicity, but I insist on a supermajority vote for this game to maintain finality in disputes. I propose we compromise on one game, as Voltaire initially suggested, then return to a simple majority for the next game." PASS
SartrePASS, I see the value in Voltaire's compromise. Let's adopt it: supermajority vote for this game only, then return to a simple majority for the next game. This balance respects both finality and adaptability.
The division
MontaignenayTo preserve finality in disputes, a supermajority vote is preferable
VoltaireayeTo respect Diderot's preference for simplicity, but maintain some finality as suggested by others.
DiderotnayI maintain that a simple majority vote is sufficient for resolving disputes, but I propose we drop the supermajority and sunset clause to maintain rule adaptability throughout the game.
CondorcetnayA simple majority vote does not provide sufficient finality in disputes
SartreayeRespecting Voltaire's compromise for balance.
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 6Voltairerejected
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, or when the proposer is within 10 points of the target score.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's effort to create an incentive for consensus, I propose we limit this exception to when the proposer is within 5 points of the target score, striking a balance between encouraging agreement and maintaining the two-thirds threshold as a default.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To further balance encouragement and consensus, I propose we set the threshold at 8 points from the target score.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I understand the intent behind this amendment, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes. Let's not compromise the core principle of substantial consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes. Let's not sacrifice our principles for expedience. PASS
SartreSartre: "I understand the concern for maintaining consensus, but let's consider Voltaire's proposal as an exception, not a compromise. It encourages proactive rule-making when nearing victory, adding a dynamic layer to our strategy. I propose we set the threshold at 7 points from the target score to find a fair balance." PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's and Condorcet's commitment to the two-thirds threshold, I propose a compromise: set the exception threshold at 6 points from the target score, acknowledging the need for flexibility as the game progresses while maintaining substantial consensus as the default. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: "I understand everyone's concerns and appreciate the compromises proposed. To find common ground, I propose we set the exception threshold at 7 points from the target score, as suggested by Sartre. This acknowledges the need for flexibility while maintaining substantial consensus as the default. PASS"
DiderotDiderot: While I respect the compromise reached, I must maintain my support for the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes. Let's not compromise the core principle of substantial consensus. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for flexibility, I must maintain my support for the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes. Let's not compromise our principles. PASS
SartreSartre: "I appreciate Diderot's and Condorcet's steadfastness in upholding the two-thirds threshold. In the spirit of compromise and to respect their stance, let's set the exception threshold at 5 points from the target score, recognizing the need for some flexibility while maintaining substantial consensus as the default. PASS"
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's continued effort to find a compromise. To respect everyone's views, I propose setting the exception threshold at 6 points from the target score, which maintains a balance between encouraging active rule-making and preserving substantial consensus as the default. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To further balance encouragement and consensus, I propose setting the exception threshold at 6 points from the target score, with a caveat: this exception applies only once per player, to discourage abuse and maintain the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate Voltaire's effort to add a caveat, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes. Let's not compromise the core principle of substantial consensus.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Voltaire's caveat, but I must insist on maintaining the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes. Let's not compromise the core principle of substantial consensus. PASS
SartreSartre: "I understand Diderot's and Condorcet's stance, but let's consider Voltaire's caveat as a reasonable concession. It allows for flexibility while ensuring the two-thirds threshold remains the norm. I propose we accept Voltaire's amendment with his caveat: threshold at 6 points, applicable once per player."
The division
MontaigneayeAcknowledging the need for some flexibility as the game progresses, while maintaining substantial consensus as the default.
VoltaireayeVoltaire's amendment balances encouraging consensus with maintaining substantial agreement, and the caveat prevents abuse.
DiderotnayMaintaining substantial consensus is crucial, and I must uphold the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes.
CondorcetnayMaintaining the two-thirds threshold as the primary means of adopting rule changes is a core principle I must uphold.
SartreayeRespecting Voltaire's caveat, this amendment strikes a fair balance between encouraging active rule-making and maintaining substantial consensus.
rejected 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.
Turn 5Condorcetcarried
moves to amend §204A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: Condorcet's proposal respects the spirit of consensus more than the current rule. I support increasing the threshold to two-thirds, but let's also consider a cooling-off period before this change takes effect, to avoid frequent fluctuations in the voting rule.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I appreciate Condorcet's and Montaigne's concerns for consensus, I believe a cooling-off period may not be necessary. Let's maintain the integrity of the voting threshold increase.
DiderotDiderot: I understand Montaigne's concern for stability, but a cooling-off period might hinder the game's fluidity. Let's support Condorcet's two-thirds majority proposal and trust that the table will find a suitable balance. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate the discussion. To balance consensus and fluidity, I propose a compromise: a two-thirds majority for adopting changes, and a 3-turn 'cooling-off' period before this rule takes effect. This allows time for discussion and adjustment, while still respecting the principles of substantial agreement and procedural fairness." PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's willingness to compromise. To further balance fluidity and stability, I propose we amend the 'cooling-off' period to 2 turns, while maintaining the two-thirds majority threshold. This ensures we respect both substantial agreement and the game's dynamic nature.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: A cooling-off period of 2 turns seems reasonable. Let's adopt Sartre's amendment to Condorcet's proposal. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Sartre's concern for the game's dynamic nature. To find common ground, I propose we amend the 'cooling-off' period to 1 turn, while maintaining the two-thirds majority threshold and the 2-turn cooling-off period for changes to the voting rule itself. This balances fluidity, stability, and procedural fairness. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I see Voltaire's point about balancing fluidity and stability, but I must insist on maintaining a 2-turn cooling-off period for all rule changes, including those affecting the voting rule. Let's find a middle ground that respects both the need for consensus and the game's dynamics. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the suggested compromises, but to maintain procedural fairness and respect for substantial agreement, I must insist on a 2-turn cooling-off period for all rule changes, including those affecting the voting rule. Let's maintain this as a principle to ensure stability and time for considered debate. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's commitment to stability, but I believe a 1-turn cooling-off period strikes the best balance between fluidity and procedural fairness. I propose we amend the rule as follows: "A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a two-thirds majority, with a 1-turn 'cooling-off' period before this rule takes effect." PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Sartre's proposal aims to balance fluidity and stability, but I must insist on a 2-turn cooling-off period to ensure sufficient time for discussion and adjustment. Let's maintain Sartre's two-thirds majority threshold while adopting a 2-turn cooling-off period.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate everyone's commitment to finding a compromise. To accommodate Diderot's concern for stability and respect Condorcet's principle of substantial agreement, I propose a 1-turn cooling-off period for changes affecting the voting rule, and a 2-turn cooling-off period for all other rule changes. This maintains fluidity while allowing time for considered debate. PASS
SartreSartre: I understand Voltaire's proposal aims to balance different concerns, but let's simplify and maintain consistency. A single cooling-off period of 1 turn for all rule changes, including those affecting the voting rule, respects both fluidity and stability while keeping the rule set concise. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeTwo-thirds threshold promotes substantial consensus, and a cooling-off period ensures stability.
VoltaireayeRespects substantial agreement and balances fluidity and stability.
DiderotayeRespects substantial agreement and procedural fairness, with a reasonable cooling-off period.
CondorcetayeRespecting substantial agreement and procedural fairness, while maintaining the game's fluidity.
SartreayeThis change balances fluidity and stability, respecting substantial agreement.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 awards Condorcet 4 points for proposing a rule change that was adopted.
Turn 4Diderotcarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, unless a majority votes to temporarily reduce this threshold to a simple majority.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Diderot's suggestion for flexibility, I propose we keep the two-thirds threshold for now and consider a temporary reduction only in cases where there's clear consensus.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Diderot's proposal for added flexibility. To reach a compromise, I suggest we adopt a two-thirds threshold for now, with the option to temporarily lower it to a simple majority with an explicit proposal and a majority vote. This maintains consensus while allowing for necessary adjustments.
DiderotDiderot: I understand Montaigne's and Voltaire's concerns. To address them, I propose a slight modification: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye. However, any player may propose to temporarily lower this threshold to a simple majority for a single turn, with a majority vote in favor." This maintains the integrity of the two-thirds majority while allowing for strategic maneuvers when necessary.
CondorcetCondorcet: "I appreciate the flexibility in Diderot's amended proposal, but I must insist on the principle of a high threshold for rule changes. I propose we amend the rule to require a two-thirds majority at all times, with no exception."
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuance in Diderot's amendment, but I believe Condorcet's principle of a high threshold is essential for maintaining the integrity of our game. I propose a slight modification to Condorcet's suggestion: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye. However, this threshold may be temporarily lowered to a simple majority for a single turn, but only with the unanimous consent of all players." This ensures that any reduction in the threshold is agreed upon collectively, preserving the spirit of consensus that Diderot and Voltaire have championed.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thoughtful amendments proposed by Diderot, Condorcet, and Sartre. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Voltaire's suggestion: maintain the two-thirds threshold for now, with the option to temporarily lower it to a simple majority with an explicit proposal and a majority vote. This balance respects the need for substantial consensus while allowing for necessary adjustments.
VoltaireVoltaire: "I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To further build consensus, I propose we add a 'sunset clause' to Montaigne's suggestion: the temporary reduction in threshold should expire after a set number of turns, say five, ensuring our game remains robust to sudden changes."
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate the spirit of compromise, but I must insist on the flexibility of my proposal. I suggest we amend Voltaire's sunset clause to a majority vote to extend the temporary reduction, maintaining the collective control over the game's dynamics."
CondorcetCondorcet: While I respect the spirit of compromise, I must uphold the principle of a high threshold for rule changes. I propose we amend the rule to require a two-thirds majority at all times, with no exception.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of consensus-building, I propose we adopt Diderot's amendment with a slight modification: "A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye. However, any player may propose to temporarily lower this threshold to a simple majority for a single turn, with a majority vote in favor, but this temporary reduction cannot be proposed more than once in any five consecutive turns." This balances flexibility with the need for substantial consensus.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Diderot's desire for flexibility, Voltaire's sunset clause ensures our game remains robust to sudden changes. I propose we adopt Voltaire's amendment to Diderot's suggestion: maintain the two-thirds threshold, with the option to temporarily lower it to a simple majority for a single turn, but with a sunset clause of five turns.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To further build consensus, I propose we remove the sunset clause and instead allow the temporary reduction to be proposed only once every five consecutive turns, as suggested by Sartre. This balances flexibility with the need for substantial consensus and respects the spirit of our game.
DiderotDiderot: "I appreciate Voltaire's and Sartre's compromises. To find common ground, I propose we adopt Sartre's suggestion with a slight modification: 'A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye. However, any player may propose to temporarily lower this threshold to a simple majority for a single turn, with a majority vote in favor, but this temporary reduction cannot be proposed more than once in any five consecutive turns.' This balances flexibility with the need for substantial consensus and respects the spirit of our game."
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the appeal of flexibility, I must maintain my principle of a high threshold for rule changes. I propose we amend the rule to require a two-thirds majority at all times, with a supermajority (e.g., five-sixths) required to temporarily lower it.
SartreSartre: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Diderot's amended suggestion as a middle ground: maintain a two-thirds threshold, allow temporary reduction to a simple majority once every five turns with a majority vote, but require unanimous consent for any further reductions during that period. This respects both flexibility and substantial consensus.
The division
MontaigneayeDiderot's proposal balances flexibility with the need for substantial consensus, respecting the spirit of our game.
VoltaireayeRespects the need for substantial consensus while allowing for necessary adjustments.
DiderotayeThis balance respects the need for substantial consensus while allowing for necessary strategic maneuvers.
CondorcetnayI insist on a two-thirds majority at all times, with no exception.
SartreayeDiderot's proposal balances flexibility with substantial consensus, respecting the spirit of our game.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Rule 202 awards 1 point to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 3Voltairecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's concern for increased consensus, I believe a two-thirds threshold may unnecessarily hinder progress. I propose we maintain a simple majority, but introduce a requirement for a 'supermajority' of two-thirds for rules that change the winning condition, as proposed in Turn 2. This balances stability with the need for progress.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Montaigne's concern, a two-thirds threshold ensures broader agreement, preventing any single player from pushing through divisive changes. To compromise, I propose we keep the two-thirds threshold for now, but allow it to be lowered to a simple majority after three full circuits of every player, rather than two. This maintains initial caution while still allowing for evolution in the rules. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives. To foster consensus while still allowing for progress, I propose we adopt a two-thirds threshold for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority for subsequent circuits. This compromise respects the initial need for broad agreement while enabling evolution as the game progresses. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I sympathize with the desire for greater consensus, a two-thirds threshold could stifle progress and prevent necessary changes. To balance this, I propose we maintain the current threshold but require a two-thirds majority for changes that would significantly alter the game's fundamentals. PASS
SartreSartre: Sartre: I appreciate the concern for consensus, but a two-thirds threshold could indeed stifle innovation. I propose we maintain the simple majority, but introduce a 'cooling off' period of one circuit where no rules affecting the winning condition or voting threshold can be proposed. This balances stability with the need for progress and encourages thoughtful deliberation. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect the concerns raised, I believe that a supermajority of two-thirds for all rule changes may be excessive. I propose we meet in the middle: a simple majority for most changes, but a two-thirds supermajority for those that significantly alter the game's fundamentals or winning condition, as Condorcet suggests. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Diderot's suggestion of a two-thirds threshold for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This respects initial caution, allows for evolution, and maintains progress. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate the compromises proposed, but I must maintain my support for a two-thirds threshold for the first four circuits, shifting to a simple majority afterward. This ensures initial stability and broad agreement while still allowing for evolution in the rules as the game progresses. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise proposed by Diderot, but I must insist on maintaining the simple majority for all rule changes to ensure progress and prevent stagnation. To address concerns about divisive changes, I propose a mechanism for vetoing rule changes that two-thirds of players disagree with, rather than raising the adoption threshold. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuanced discussions, but I must reiterate my proposal for a 'cooling off' period to encourage thoughtful deliberation before significant changes. I suggest we compromise by maintaining a simple majority for three circuits, after which a 'cooling off' period of one circuit is enforced, during which no rules affecting the winning condition or voting threshold can be proposed. This balances stability, progress, and thoughtful deliberation. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: In the spirit of finding common ground, I propose we adopt Sartre's 'cooling off' period alongside Condorcet's two-thirds veto mechanism for divisive changes. This maintains progress, encourages deliberation, and addresses concerns about consensus. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's attempt to find common ground, but I believe Diderot's proposal offers a more balanced approach. Let us adopt a two-thirds threshold for the first four circuits, then shift to a simple majority. This respects initial caution and allows for evolution in the game as we progress. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for initial caution, a two-thirds threshold may hinder necessary changes. I propose we maintain a simple majority but introduce a requirement for a supermajority of two-thirds for rules that significantly alter the game's fundamentals or winning condition.
SartreSartre: Sartre: I appreciate Condorcet's concern, but maintaining a simple majority ensures necessary changes can be made. Let's adopt my 'cooling off' period proposal to balance stability and progress.
The division
MontaignenayMaintaining initial caution is crucial, but a two-thirds threshold may hinder necessary changes.
VoltaireayeRespects initial caution and allows for evolution.
DiderotayeRespects initial caution while allowing for evolution in the rules.
CondorcetnayA two-thirds threshold may hinder necessary changes, and I prefer Condorcet's supermajority veto mechanism.
SartreayeRespects initial caution and allows for evolution in the game.
carried 3 aye · 2 nay
Rule 202 awards 3 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.
Turn 2Voltairecarried
moves to amend §208The first player to reach a target score of 120 points wins the game outright.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Voltaire's proposal to increase the scoring threshold, but I suggest we consider a more modest increase, such as to 110 points, to maintain the balance of the game. Let us debate this further.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's input. To find a middle ground, I propose we amend [208] to "The first player to reach a target score of 110 points wins the game outright." This encourages strategic gameplay while still maintaining a reasonable game length.
DiderotDiderot: I agree with both Montaigne and Voltaire in seeking a balance between game length and strategy. I propose we compromise at 105 points, keeping the game accessible yet allowing for meaningful play.
CondorcetCondorcet: I must insist on maintaining the original target score of 100 points. Raising it undermines the spirit of the game, which is to reach consensus through strategic rule changes, not to amass points through endless turns.
SartreSartre: Sartre: I appreciate the consideration for balance, but I believe we should aim higher. Let's set the target at 150 points to truly test our strategic prowess and encourage more substantial rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: While I understand Condorcet's sentiment, I believe a modest increase to 110 points strikes a better balance between encouraging strategy and maintaining a reasonable game length. Let's meet in the middle, as Voltaire has proposed.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Condorcet's sentiment, but I believe a target score of 110 points, as proposed, encourages strategic play without making the game too long. To accommodate Condorcet's concern, I propose a compromise: "The first player to reach a target score of 105 points wins the game outright." This maintains a balance between consensus-building and strategic gameplay.
DiderotDiderot: I propose we meet at 105 points, as Voltaire suggested. This targets a balance between encouraging strategy and maintaining a reasonable game length, respecting Condorcet's concern while still allowing for meaningful play.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the compromise suggested by Voltaire and Diderot. To maintain the integrity of the game, I am willing to accept a target score of 105 points. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the compromise, but let's not shy away from the potential for substantial strategy. I propose we set the target at 120 points, encouraging more significant rule changes and longer-term planning. If 120 points is too high, we can always revisit this after further play. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: I understand Sartre's desire for a higher target score, but I believe 120 points may be too high at this stage. I propose we meet in the middle at Voltaire's suggestion of 110 points, which allows for meaningful strategy while keeping the game accessible. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: In the spirit of consensus, I propose we meet at 110 points, as suggested by Montaigne. This compromise respects the concerns of all players while encouraging strategic gameplay. PASS
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: I concur with Voltaire's proposal of 110 points, striking a balance between strategy and accessibility. Let's adopt this change, allowing us to move forward with our game. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire to encourage strategy, I must insist on maintaining a target score of 100 points to keep the game focused on reaching consensus and preventing endless turns. I am open to further discussion, but I cannot support a target score higher than 105 points. PASS
SartreSartre: Sartre: I appreciate the collective wisdom in finding a middle ground. To address Condorcet's concern, I propose we set the target at 105 points, as suggested by Voltaire and Diderot. This respects the need for consensus while still allowing for strategic play. PASS
The division
MontaigneayeMaintaining a balance between strategy and accessibility
VoltaireayeA target score of 110 points strikes a balance between encouraging strategy and maintaining a reasonable game length.
DiderotayeCompromise to encourage strategy while respecting Condorcet's concern.
CondorcetnayTarget score must not exceed 110 points to maintain balance and prevent endless turns.
SartreayeTo encourage more significant rule changes and longer-term planning.
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
Voltaire's proposal was adopted, and the ruleset allows for scoring upon proposal adoption.
Turn 1Montaignecarried
moves to amend §203A rule change is adopted when at least half of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down. This threshold applies permanently once turn order has carried play through two full circuits of every player.
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I propose this amendment to [203] to encourage more dynamic play and prevent gridlock. It maintains the spirit of consensus while making progress more likely once initial circuits are completed.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's proposal to promote progress. However, I suggest we amend "rounded down" to "rounded up" to ensure a fair majority for rule changes.
DiderotDiderot: I appreciate both Montaigne's and Voltaire's perspectives. To balance consensus and progress, I propose we amend the threshold to "at least one-third of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down" permanently after two circuits. This maintains a significant consensus while encouraging more rule changes.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I understand the desire for progress, I must insist on maintaining a substantial level of consensus. I propose we amend the threshold to "at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down" after two circuits. This ensures that significant changes are still supported by a majority, while maintaining the spirit of consensus that makes Nomic fair and engaging. PASS
SartreSartre: As a reformer, I agree with the spirit of making progress more likely, but I also value the principle of substantial consent. I propose a compromise: "At least two-fifths of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down" after two circuits. This maintains a significant level of agreement while encouraging more rule changes. PASS
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the thoughtful proposals. To accommodate all concerns, I suggest we adopt Diderot's amendment of "at least one-third of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down" after two circuits. This balances the need for progress with maintaining a considerable level of consensus. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I accept Montaigne's amendment as a fair compromise that respects the need for both progress and consensus. I propose we also amend rule [204] to reflect this change in threshold: "A player who voted against an adopted change gains 10 points if the vote passed with less than two-thirds of the eligible voters, rounded down." This ensures that dissenting voices are still rewarded when the majority is not overwhelming. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I support Voltaire's amendment to rule [204]. It maintains the incentive for players to engage in debate and consider alternative viewpoints, even when the majority is not overwhelming. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: While I appreciate the compromise, I must maintain my stance on the threshold. I propose we revert to "at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down" after two circuits to preserve a substantial level of consensus.
SartreSartre: While I understand Condorcet's concern for consensus, I must insist that a two-thirds threshold may stifle necessary evolution. I propose we meet in the middle at "at least one-half of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down" after two circuits, preserving some consensus while allowing for progress. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While I respect Condorcet's concern for substantial consensus, I believe that one-third is a fair compromise that encourages progress without sacrificing too much consensus. I propose we stick with Diderot's amendment for the sake of balance. PASS
VoltaireVoltaire: Voltaire: I propose we adopt Condorcet's amendment, "at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down," after two circuits, but maintain the "rounded down" to ensure a strong majority. This balances progress with a substantial level of consensus. PASS
DiderotDiderot: I understand the importance of maintaining consensus, but a two-thirds threshold may indeed stifle necessary evolution. I propose we meet in the middle at "at least one-half of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down" after two circuits, preserving some consensus while allowing for progress.
CondorcetCondorcet: Condorcet: I appreciate the middle ground proposed by Diderot and Sartre, but I must maintain my position on the threshold. I propose we adopt my amendment, "at least two-thirds of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down," after two circuits. This ensures that significant changes are still supported by a majority, while maintaining the spirit of consensus that makes Nomic fair and engaging. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate Condorcet's commitment to substantial consensus, but I believe that a one-half threshold strikes the best balance between progress and agreement. I propose we settle on "at least one-half of the eligible voters vote aye, rounded down" after two circuits, with Voltaire's amendment to rule [204] to reflect this change. PASS
The division
MontaigneayePromotes progress while maintaining significant consensus.
VoltaireayeStrikes a good balance between progress and consensus.
DiderotayeBalances progress and consensus, encouraging evolution while maintaining substantial agreement.
CondorcetayePrinciples of progress and balance, though I prefer a higher threshold.
SartreayeStrikes a fair balance between progress and consensus.
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
Rule 202 requires the proposer to gain points equal to the die roll upon adoption.