The motion
To amend §203
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 turns.To maintain a balance between consensus and progress.
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne | I must maintain my stance on five turns to preserve substantial consensus. |
| aye | Voltaire | Encourages strategic play while respecting consensus. |
| nay | Diderot | Five turns is sufficient to maintain balance and encourage strategic play without compromising consensus. |
| nay | Condorcet | Maintaining the three-turn limit ensures substantial consensus. |
| aye | Sartre | Sartre'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.