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 three rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.To balance encouragement of rule changes and preventing single-player domination.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: While I appreciate Voltaire's proposal, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five turns to prevent single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we meet at six turns, with a limit of two rule changes per player in that period.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's and Montaigne's efforts to find middle ground, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five turns to balance encouragement and prevention of single-player domination.
CondorcetCondorcet: I understand the concern for balancing encouragement and preventing domination, but I propose we adopt Voltaire's latest compromise of six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. This provides a reasonable middle ground while still allowing for strategic rule changes.
SartreSartre: I propose we increase the limit to seven turns, as Voltaire suggests, but maintain the two-rule change limit to prevent any one player from dominating the game. This allows for more strategic planning while still encouraging rule changes.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate the compromise proposals, but to maintain balance, I suggest we adopt Condorcet's proposal of six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. This balance encourages rule changes while preventing single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate the thoughtful discussion and the various compromises proposed. To find the best balance, I suggest we adopt Sartre's proposal of seven turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. This allows for more strategic planning while still encouraging rule changes and preventing domination. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five turns to prevent the potential for single-player domination, as the current balance encourages rule changes without allowing any one player to dominate. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: To address everyone's concerns, I propose a compromise: increase the limit to six turns, but reduce the rule change limit to one per player during this period. This balances encouragement, strategy, and prevents domination. PASS
SartreSartre: In light of Condorcet's compromise, I suggest we meet in the middle at six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. This maintains a balance between strategic planning and preventing single-player domination. PASS
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: While Condorcet's compromise balances encouragement and prevention of domination, I propose we meet in the middle at six turns with a limit of one rule change per player, striking a better balance between flexibility and prevention of single-player domination.
VoltaireVoltaire: While I understand Montaigne's concern for balance, I propose we increase the limit to two rule changes per player to allow for more strategic rule changes while still preventing domination. Let's meet in the middle at six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player. PASS
DiderotDiderot: While I understand the desire for more strategic planning, I must insist on maintaining the current limit of five turns to prevent the potential for single-player domination, as the current balance encourages rule changes without allowing any one player to dominate. However, to meet in the middle, I propose a compromise: six turns with a limit of one rule change per player. PASS
CondorcetCondorcet: In the spirit of compromise, I propose we adopt Montaigne's latest proposal of six turns with a limit of one rule change per player, striking a good balance between flexibility and preventing single-player domination. PASS
SartreSartre: I appreciate the ongoing discussion and the various compromises proposed. However, to maintain balance and encourage rule changes, I propose we meet at six turns with a limit of two rule changes per player, as this allows for strategic planning while still preventing single-player domination.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Maintaining the limit at two rule changes per player to prevent single-player domination |
| aye | Voltaire | I appreciate the compromise and support increasing flexibility while preventing domination. |
| nay | Diderot | Maintaining the current limit of five turns prevents single-player domination. |
| nay | Condorcet | Limiting to three rule changes per player in seven turns may lead to single-player domination. |
| aye | Sartre | Encourages strategic planning while preventing single-player domination |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.