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 one rule change per player may be adopted in any five turns.To balance consensus and player engagement.
The floor
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
| aye | Montaigne | Four turns balances progress and stability, with a supermajority extension for complexity. |
| aye | Voltaire | Acknowledging everyone's concerns, this proposal balances consensus, progress, and stability. |
| nay | Diderot | The limit of five turns may allow a single player to dominate rule changes. |
| aye | Condorcet | A balance between progress and stability |
| aye | Sartre | This compromise balances progress and careful consideration. |
carried 4 aye · 1 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §203 Turn 13 · Proposal §313 on the motion of Voltaire Carried 4 aye · 1 nay
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 three turns.A 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.
Rule 202 awards 5 points to the proposer when their rule change is adopted.