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 seven consecutive turns.To balance encouragement and consensus, and address concerns about single-player domination.
The floor
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
| nay | Montaigne | Maintains five-turn limit for dynamism |
| aye | Voltaire | Supports balancing consensus and evolution |
| nay | Diderot | I must insist on maintaining a hard cap of five turns to ensure the game remains dynamic and unpredictable. |
| nay | Condorcet | To preserve the dynamism of the game, I insist on maintaining the five-turn limit. |
| aye | Sartre | Balances rapid evolution and consensus-building. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.