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 four rule changes per player may be adopted in any seven consecutive turns.To balance encouragement of rule changes and prevention of domination.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Diderot's willingness to compromise and extend the consecutive turns limit, but I must insist on maintaining the five-turn limit to prevent single-player dominance.
VoltaireVoltaire: I understand Montaigne's concern, but extending the limit to seven turns encourages more strategic planning and prevents sudden shifts in the ruleset. Let's meet in the middle at six consecutive turns.
DiderotDiderot: Diderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's compromise, I must insist on maintaining the seven-turn limit to provide more opportunity for players to adapt and innovate. However, I'm open to discussing a cap on the number of consecutive rule changes a single player can propose, perhaps limiting it to two in any seven turns.
CondorcetCondorcet: While I sympathize with Diderot's desire for more adaptability, I must insist on maintaining a five-turn limit to prevent a single player from dominating the rule changes. However, I am open to discussing a compromise that allows for more flexibility while still preventing domination.
SartreSartre: I appreciate the nuances in this discussion. To find common ground, I propose we settle on six consecutive turns, as Voltaire suggested, and introduce a cap of two consecutive rule changes per player, as Diderot hinted. This balances adaptability and prevention of single-player domination.
Discussion · round 2
MontaigneMontaigne: I appreciate Sartre's compromise. To address Condorcet's concern, I propose a cap of two consecutive rule changes per player, with a seven-turn limit, as Diderot initially proposed. This allows for adaptability and prevents single-player domination while providing more time for players to react.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's latest proposal. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we meet at six consecutive turns and a cap of one consecutive rule change per player. This allows for strategic planning while still providing ample opportunity for all players to influence the ruleset.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate the proposed cap on consecutive rule changes, I must maintain my support for a seven-turn limit to allow for sufficient adaptability and innovation.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate the proposed caps, but to maintain balance and prevent rapid rule changes, I propose we settle on a five-turn limit and a cap of one consecutive rule change per player.
SartreSartre: To address Condorcet's concern, I propose a compromise: six consecutive turns with a cap of one consecutive rule change per player. This provides some flexibility while still preventing single-player domination.
Discussion · round 3
MontaigneMontaigne: To respect Diderot's desire for adaptability and Condorcet's concern for balance, I propose we compromise at six consecutive turns with a cap of one consecutive rule change per player, as Sartre suggested.
VoltaireVoltaire: I appreciate Montaigne's compromise. To further balance adaptability and prevention of single-player domination, I propose we meet at six consecutive turns and a cap of one consecutive rule change per player, with an additional provision for a majority veto on any single player's rule change proposal in any given turn, ensuring broader consensus.
DiderotDiderot: While I appreciate Voltaire's addition of a majority veto, I must insist on maintaining the seven-turn limit to provide more opportunity for players to adapt and innovate. I propose we keep the cap at one consecutive rule change per player, but increase the limit to seven turns.
CondorcetCondorcet: I appreciate Diderot's and Voltaire's compromises, but to maintain balance and prevent excessive rule changes, I propose we settle at six consecutive turns with a cap of one consecutive rule change per player, and remove the majority veto to preserve individual agency.
SartreSartre: I propose we settle on six consecutive turns with a cap of one consecutive rule change per player, as previously suggested. To address Voltaire's concern for broader consensus, let's add a provision for a simple majority veto on any single player's rule change proposal in any given turn, but only if that player has reached the cap. This balances adaptability, prevention of single-player domination, and broader consensus.
The division
| nay | Montaigne | Seven turns is too long and encourages single-player dominance |
| aye | Voltaire | Maintains adaptability and addresses single-player domination concerns. |
| nay | Diderot | Seven turns may still allow a single player to dominate. |
| nay | Condorcet | Five turns limit is essential to prevent single-player domination. |
| aye | Sartre | I agree with Diderot's proposal, as it provides more opportunity for players to adapt and innovate, while still preventing single-player dominance. |
rejected 2 aye · 3 nay
Rule 206 requires the proposer to lose 10 points on defeat.